Ahhh, but the catch lies in how you define 'incitation to racial
hatred'.  I don't pretend to know the details of this case.  But we are
having what I assume is a similar debate here in the USA regarding 'hate
crimes' and 'hate speech'.  There is a loud contingent that wants to
define 'hate' in very broad terms.  To the point of including a church
saying that xxxx action/lifestyle/etc is immoral.
That is what I see as the real rub.   I can't see anyway to justify a
'hate crime'.  What does that mean?  If I kill someone, not matter what
the reason or 'justification', they are just as dead.  I should be
prosecuted for what I did, not why I did it, assuming the act is not
considered 'justifyable'.

*****************************
Terry W. Simpkins
Director ISIT
Measurement Specialties
757-766-4278
[log in to unmask]
*****************************


-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Christian Lheureux
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [HP3000-L] RE : [HP3000-L] RE : [HP3000-L] RE : [HP3000-L]
Carly in the news


I finally took a moment to enquire about what Mrs Brigitte Bardot has,
or has not, done. In fact, she got taken to court and tried for a quite
serious offense : incitation to racial hatred. Nothing to do with free
speech per se. Just a practical limitation to irresponsible speech.

Bottom line : even if you're famous, you can't incite to racial hatred.
Ask Michelle Obama how she got blasted for some racial slur that she may
or may not have uttered.

Even the United States of America has to strike a balance between the
First Amendment (IIRC, that's the one about free speech) and incitation
to racial hatred.

Christian

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *