I guess we’re back to Freedom fries again.
What this will do is bring to an even wider audience what a bunch of stupid fuckwits work at Fox News.
I can’t see a downside.
Maybe Fox News will have to publish a disclaimer.
All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
When they said Birmingham (the original and still the best) was a Muslamic City and a no-go area for none Muslamics, the Brummy response to just take the piss out of Fox News. Is that bloke really a presidential adviser on Counter-terrorism?
This isn’t about criminalizing free speech. There is a difference between criminal and civil legal action. I say more power to them, suing Fox is something that many other entities should have done a long time ago.
Fox? I thought she said it was a news network…?
This is stupid. Suing FOX News for claiming to be a new organization - now that’s something I can see merit in.
France is not America. Stop trying to use American legal definitions to define France. We have very definite limits on the responsibility of media. There is a government body that oversees media and tries to keep it factual. America once had this until the days of Ronald Reagan, when he opened the flood gates that made hate talk radio and Fox possible. Hildalgo would not even go there if she was not sure that FOX had violated French libel laws. An example, today the Front National Delegate in the EU posted a video rant comparing Muslims to Nazies. It was up on their website until they were informed that this kind of irresponsible hate language violated French law. They had to pull it immediately and they will probably face prosecution this week. FOX is accessible via satellite and cable here, so they are bound by French libel laws. From what I have heard of this, it looks like they will try to settle this as fast as possible. Even though it looks like a sensational issue that they could exploit, in the present climate, there is no way they could profit from protracting and fighting the charges if they are filed.
?? The Streisand effect?
Fox News libeled Paris. Free Speech has a definite limit on defamation in almost all countries.
If I wrote “Xeni is a terrorist sympathizer who has condoned the murder of innocent children” then you would be fully entitled to sue me. That lawsuit isn’t just pissing in the wind either. It would discourage me and others from making slanderous remarks in the future. It would be one thing if Fox News had done the regular stupid thing(i.e. “Does Paris have Muslim-only zones?”). It is an entirely different thing when they parrot full lies as news.
Your argument for the “Streisand Effect” is essentially that broadcast entities shouldn’t be held responsible for creating whatever bullshit they want even if it is patently false and offensive.
Like several commenters above I don’t see how you could invoke the Streisand effect in this particular scenario. What do you mean ? That by making a fuss now the mayor of Paris is actually spreading the false information ? I don’t think it works that way. Everyone knows the Fox story is complete bullshit (I hope!), so pointing it out doesn’t make you a subject of ridicule, nor an enemy of free speech.
Now if the no-go zone story was true, then yes, it would be an attack on free speech and the Streisand effect would be appropriate. But it’s not, at all.
Good point. Charlie Hebdo was like the Fox News of France, primarily concerned with pushing false stereotypes in the name of good humour and patriotism. It’s insane that the French would sue one and not the other.
Fox News is satirical?
Dammit. I should have guessed by now.
Well played Fox, you got me.
Thank you. That last jab about Hebdo and free press is absurd.
A better response (even without understanding French):
The whole thing is psychologically jarring:
POSITIVE: taking on FAUX! YAY!
IRRITATING: The pompous and cuntily-dismissive tune of Mayor Hildago’s translated French. BOO! (But then I make all French sound this way–even my “…some of my best friends are French” French friends…)
CONFUSING: Freedom of the American press’ ability to libelously lie. WHA–?!!
(And then there’s the whole weird fascination/repulsion that the American consciousness has with FRANCIA…).
So it’s challenging to approach this rationnellement…
Using the legal system to waste the time of the FOX lawyers to gain a public retraction of a single slanderous item is an amazing idea, and nobody gets shot.
Every dollar the lawyers make is a dollar that Murdoch is not making. Go France.
They explain their jokes on Fox News.
Not the same at all.
As it so happens, we were so fed up with other nation’s laggard stance on freedom of speech(mostly British libel law) that we passed a law(unanimously, house and senate, which is crazy rare) specifically to address the issue of Americans and American entities being sued in more benighted locations.
Long story short, while it is possible that Fox and Friends will have to avoid a French vacation, Uncle Sam will very pointedly do absolutely nothing whatsoever to assist in a case like this, even for a country we otherwise have fairly strong extradition/mutual assistance relations with. We just don’t roll that way.
That will prevent a judgement from being enforced by American courts, but it won’t protect any assets that Fox has in France. I actually have no idea how french courts would go about collecting on a judgement against fox, but Fox News is a subsidiary of 21st Century Fox, which does business in France, so I would guess that there are avenues that could be pursued