French politicians want to add an ag-gag rule to the country's sweeping online hate speech proposal

Originally published at:


Ah, the French…

And therein highlights the issues with regulating speech. It is nice in theory, but a nightmare to put into action. Making non-regulation criminals will only lead to overzealous moderation that will capture everything that sorta looks like restricted speech in its net. And then once you have the rules in place, slipping in other restrictions becomes easier. Remember when you give them the power, some day it may be used against you.

I will concede very specific restrictions do seem to work ok, like the swastika ban in Germany. But while they restrict that specific symbol, it hasn’t actually killed that ideology.


That gives me the idea to set up a social platform that deletes everything posted to it 23 hours after it has been posted. Call it “Timedbook” or something. Except I’m not a programmer. And I’m too lazy to do it.


Decent & reasonable people don’t enjoy having to deal with the garbage neo-Nazis and their ilk put out into the world, but don’t give the state the power to ban speech like this. Unless you want Donald Trump and a GOP congress to have the power to decide what constitutes “hate speech” and ban accordingly, then you’ve gotta fight regulations like this from square one.


Mais aï bis ze first tu sais: “oh putain!”

This assumes that the overmoderation and idiotic amendments like the one Cory highlights aren’t intentional ploys to undermine the regulation of actual hate speech. Myself, I would assume the opposite.


Call me naive, but doesn’t this also look like an attempt to silence the original Yellowjacket protesters…the rural folk and farmers?


Don’t give your government up to corporations and the 1%. If the people retain control of their own government it doesn’t become a problem. (you get different problems, which are perhaps easier to solve)

1 Like

It most definitely becomes a problem. The tyranny of the majority is is exactly why unpopular & unpleasant speech must be protected. For example, if a majority of folks in, say, Alabama thought pro-choice speech and blasphemy should be criminalized, I still want that speech protected even if it’s counter to the wished of a government of the people.


re-read the part after what you quoted.

I’d ask you to do the same in both my comments.

Everyone in the comments going “oh, slipper slope, we can’t ever ban Nazis” ignores the fact that corporations are already doing de facto censorship… of leftists voices, mainly.

Witness YouTube, where neo-Nazis like Stefan Molyneux roam free while serious scholars like Three Arrows or The Serfs get handed permabans for nothing. Or Twitter, where once again neo-Nazis like Molyneux roam free but if a LGBTQ person says one fucking profanity, the LGBTQ person gets banned. (While Nazis are free to spew hate, harass, and spam profanities, natch)

In the US and UK, corporations file SLAPP suits all the time. Nazis radicalize openly on 4Chan (quadrupling the amount of hate speech on 4Chan in as many years).

You know what I say?

Fuck. That. Noise.

Lets ban the fucking Nazi dorks from being online.


Do you feel comfortable giving Donald Trump and a GOP controlled Congress the power to criminalize speech?

1 Like

You just have several examples of bad, inconsistent moderation on a private site. Do you have a road map on how to ensure government backed or enforced moderation will be good and consistent?

I’ve heard the opposite counter claims with them listing evidence as well.

No, no, just ban the Nazis.


I’m not at all convinced one could formulate a principle of law that would allow the state to “ban the Nazis” without also giving the state (i.e. Donald Trump’s regime or one like it) the power to criminalize speech.

ETA: I just realized I likely misread the intent of your response to me. Sorry about that, if so.

1 Like

way off topic and off base.

It’s functionally distinguishable from the US ag gag laws in that the French version is massively more oppressive since it doesn’t merely prohibit spying and reporting on agribusinesses, it outlaws criticizing them entirely: “stigmatizing agricultural activities, breeding or sale of products from agriculture and livestock breeding”.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.