The French Can Now Publicly Insult Their President!

by TLTheLiberator

Posted: 11 years ago 34 replies

OFF TOPIC

Thanks to recent legislation, the French population can now publicly go hog-wild on their presidents just like us in the USA.

Let freedom ring!!

I wonder if there are any freedom of expression restrictions regarding the leader(s) in other industrialized nations?

French Can Now Insult Their President

thunderbird

11 years ago

"NPR notes that the amendment is good news for Sarkozy himself: "He apparently called his successor, President Francois Hollande, a 'ridiculous little fat man who dyes his hair,'" the network writes."

With their newfound freedom, if the French need to find ways to insult their president, they can use Insult Generator: The Insult Project

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8331147].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

I had no clue that law was in force in France but viva liberty it's over now.

What's happening in Canada?

Can you publicly talk about your PM any way you like?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8331187].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I had no clue that law was in force in France but viva liberty it's over now.

What's happening in Canada?

Can you publicly talk about your PM any way you like?

Good question. I don't really know the answer. My guess is that if someone were to constantly insult the Canadian prime minister, they'd be getting a lot more visits from Canada Revenue and suchlike, as happened to me just after attacking policies of the premier of British Columbia some years back.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8331199].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Amazing!

Over here in the 1970's president Nixon urged his people to use the IRS to go after his political enemies and it's on recently released audiotape.

In the USA, as long as you don't physically threaten the POTUS etc., you really don't have to worry about anyone from the feds bothering you in any way - no matter what you say about the POTUS.

But of course, there is the overzealous public servant who every now and then does something that is clearly unauthorized.

All The Best!!

TL

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8331348].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

We are losing our right to do so very rapidly. We now have "free speech zones" and protests have actually been illegalized on paper. We have IRS targeting which will have the same effect if not stopped - but the bill to stop it was voted down. We have an admin who feels it's their right to stop the press from reporting and to globally hunt down anyone that reveals illegal and horrifying crap our admin is doing, and very heavy surveillance and profiling being allowed. There are requests from admin to online aps like FB and Youtube to take posts and videos off just because they are damning to the leaders. We also have an NDAA that says they can pick up anyone they want, hold them indefinitely without a lawyer or any proof of wrongdoing.

It's only a matter of time before our mouths are taped shut for good.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8332273].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Over here in the 1970's president Nixon urged his people to use the IRS to go after his political enemies and it's on recently released audiotape.

Nixon was also impeached for giving permission to wiretap one hotel room.
43 years latter our president has given permission to wiretap a nation and expand surveillance on American citizens.
Yet those outraged by what he did 43 years ago support what is happening today.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8332277].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

It is baffling. Some people actually throw around the term "traitor" at anyone who publicly opposes it.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8332404].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

I have no problem with free speech zones especially that stop gov officials from walking through a very hostile and potentially dangerous crowd.

I am not in favor of gov officials walking some type of hostile gauntlet in order to conduct gov business or anything else.

Say whatever the hell you want but say it over there.

This ain't France circa 1792.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334302].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

You do realize the over whelming majority of protests are non-violent?
It's the police who use the violence against the protesters.
If you want to be a slave to the state you have that right.
But we also have just as much of a right to live as free men.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334672].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

I have no problem with free speech zones especially that stop gov officials from walking through a very hostile and potentially dangerous crowd.

You mean like known and credentialed reporters and little old ladies in political t-shirts?

Talk about "People unclear on the concept."

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334689].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

You mean like known and credentialed reporters and little old ladies in political t-shirts?

Talk about "People unclear on the concept."

On Free Speech Zones...

Credentialed reporters fine.

Old ladies in tee shirts, it depends on how many and if they've gone through security etc.

From Wikipedia...

The most prominent examples were those created by the United States Secret Service...

... for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration.

Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.

It wouldn't be hard for the media to show angry protesters etc., who have been jettisoned off to the side etc., if the media wanted to, which seems to be a major complaint about the law.

Are you in favor of high gov officials such as the POTUS actually walking through a gauntlet of angry protesters?

Thom seems to be in favor of it.

I'd love to know.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334780].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

<snip>

Are you in favor of high gov officials such as the POTUS actually walking through a gauntlet of angry protesters?<snip>

Maybe if they didn't do crap to make people so angry, there wouldn't be so many angry protesters.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334811].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Maybe if they didn't do crap to make people so angry, there wouldn't be so many angry protesters.

That's one thing but now I put the question to you also.

Are you in favor of high gov officials such as the POTUS actually walking through a gauntlet of angry protesters?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334849].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

That's one thing but now I put the question to you also.

Are you in favor of high gov officials such as the POTUS actually walking through a gauntlet of angry protesters?

Yes. Totally. I want leaders capable of meeting with people, even angry people.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335065].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Yes. Totally. I want leaders capable of meeting with people, even angry people. Weak milquetoasts don't make good leaders.

Meeting with a bunch of angry folks is one thing but are you sure you want top elected leaders to have to be escorted through a very, very hostile crowds just to get to and fro while conducting state business?

I'm talking about hundreds of clearly very angry people way close enough to spit on etc., and possibly rush the official and overwhelm their security.

Are you in favor of that situation??

I'd love to know.

Thanks!

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335274].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I am completely sure of it. This whole phenomenon of cutting them off from contact with people makes them lose perspective. That is why they become corrupted and end up doing the opposite of what they said they would do.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335349].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

So it's completely fine with you for the elected leader of a nation to walk a tight gauntlet of angry protesters that quite possibly had been ginned up for the occasion.

Even folks close enough to spit on him/her and even enough of them to overwhelm the security.

Understood.

And since Thom ( and anyone else who does) thanked you for your replies, I guess he/they agree with your position.

Thanks!

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335437].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Like T-bird said it's the actions of those government officials that make the people angry. Maybe if they started acting like the servants of the people that they are suppose to be, the people wouldn't be so angry.
What Thom is in favor of is the constitution. When they make free speech illegal they are violating their oath of office and are no more then common criminals, which you seem to be in favor of.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335461].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Like T-bird said it's the actions of those government officials that make the people angry. Maybe if they started acting like the servants of the people that they are suppose to be, the people wouldn't be so angry.
What Thom is in favor of is the constitution.

When they make free speech illegal they are violating their oath of office and are no more then common criminals, which you seem to be in favor of.

I can only imagine what's next in your evolution.

Perhaps some activity much like what recently happened in the land of the Pharaohs?

I wouldn't be surprised if you're in the mood for that also?

Are you there yet?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335596].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I can only imagine what's next in your evolution.

Perhaps some activity much like what recently happened in the land of the Pharaohs?

I wouldn't be surprised if you're in the mood for that also?

Are you there yet?

I can only imagine what's next in your evolution.
Do you have an alter in your house where you pray to the federal govt. yet?
Why do you equate believing in the constitution with violence?
Are you really that afraid of freedom?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335670].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

Are you in favor of high gov officials such as the POTUS actually walking through a gauntlet of angry protesters?

Straw man. The Secret Service rules have prevented that from happening for a long time.

There is a large gap between "maintaining a perimeter" and imprisoning citizens, however briefly, for peaceful protests. Or just having a video camera and a press pass.

Paul

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335696].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

TL,

Who was President when they became more prevalent is getting into the zone where threads like this get deleted. That always turns partisan.

The Secret Service has rules for how these things are done, and the ones they had before "free speech zones" were established were quite effective. They din't require detaining an elderly couple at gunpoint whose only "crime" was standing still wearing t-shirts with messages on them. They didn't involve rounding up credentialed network reporters in fenced in lots with guards around them.Straw man. The Secret Service rules have prevented that from happening for a long time.

There is a large gap between "maintaining a perimeter" and imprisoning citizens, however briefly, for peaceful protests. Or just having a video camera and a press pass.

Paul

I hear you Paul.

Actually I was giving some historical context and there's no need for this to turn partisan at all.

So you are in favor of safe passage ways for high level gov officials - like a leader of a nation right?

There are folks in here namely Thom that have made it clear they don't even want a maintained safe perimeter.

BTW...

I knew that Thom is his unbridled zeal to disagree with me on anything, would commit to any totally unreasonable position - so I put one out there and bingo.

That's my point.

Hopefully this won't get me into too much trouble with you.

All The Best!!

TL

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335841].message }}

Paul Myers 11 years ago

TL,

There are folks in here namely Thom that have made it clear they don't even want a maintained safe perimeter.

That seems to me to be a gross distortion of what others have said. And the "extreme position" thing is hardly your stone to throw.

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing, TL. You get in trouble for breaking the rules. In a circumstance like this, I'd be more likely to just delete the thread if it gets into the sort of political stuff we all know isn't welcome in this section.

Too many people in it to point at just one.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335868].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I hear you Paul.

Actually I was giving some historical context and there's no need for this to turn partisan at all.

So you are in favor of safe passage ways for high level gov officials - like a leader of a nation right?

There are folks in here namely Thom that have made it clear they don't even want a maintained safe perimeter.

BTW...

I knew that Thom is his unbridled zeal to disagree with me on anything, would commit to any totally unreasonable position - so I put one out there and bingo.

That's my point.

Hopefully this won't get me into too much trouble with you.

All The Best!!

TL

That's your assumption, not what I said.
But I wouldn't expect any less from you.
No sense letting the truth get in the way of your beliefs.
I dare you to reread all my posts in this thread and point out where I said that.
In YOUR zeal to protect the feds. you always have a habit of making up things and contribute them to others (particularity me).
To clarify what I said AGAIN,
"What Thom is in favor of is the constitution. When they make free speech illegal they are violating their oath of office and are no more then common criminals, which you seem to be in favor of. "
So come on show me where I said anything at all about safe perimeters.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335878].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

That's your assumption, not what I said.
But I wouldn't expect any less from you.
No sense letting the truth get in the way of your beliefs.

I dare you to reread all my posts in this thread and point out where I said that.
In YOUR zeal to protect the feds. you always have a habit of making up things and contribute them to others (particularity me).

To clarify what I said AGAIN,

"What Thom is in favor of is the constitution. When they make free speech illegal they are violating their oath of office and are no more then common criminals, which you seem to be in favor of. "

So come on show me where I said anything at all about safe perimeters.

Well you thanked TB for this...

I said to TB... (post #20)

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Meeting with a bunch of angry folks is one thing but are you sure...

.. you want top elected leaders to have to be escorted through a very, very hostile crowds just to get to and fro while conducting state business?

I'm talking about hundreds of clearly very angry people way close enough to...

... spit on etc.,

...and possibly rush the official and overwhelm their security.

Are you in favor of that situation??

I'd love to know.

Thanks!

TL

TB replied...

"I am completely sure of it.

(and then he went on with the following)

This whole phenomenon of cutting them off from contact with people makes them lose perspective. That is why they become corrupted and end up doing the opposite of what they said they would do."

You thanked TB for those comments...

... and most people would assume that since you thanked him for his comment - you also agreed with it plain and simple.

What else could anyone assume? ( you can save the assume jokes)

TB had the courage to clearly say what he really believed in - but you had not.

You used the thank you button instead.

Now I guess you can even say you agreed with the 2nd part of his statement but not the first - if you like.

Is that the case?

Have I been putting words in your mouth and I'm totally wrong about what I think is your position?

I'd love to know.

BTW...

Stop using my stuff! (LOL!)

I used "zeal" and "your evolution" on you before you did on me, so you can't use them in this thread.

BTW... There's no need to fly off the handle with your "who in the hell do you think you are" routine about it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335975].message }}

Paul Myers

11 years ago

TL,

You're making LARGE assumptions. First, you assume that Thom's "Thank you" meant he agreed with everything he thinks TB said, which may or may not be true.

Second, you assume Thom thanked the same thing you interpreted TB as having meant, which may well be different from his intended message. As might Thom's interpretation of TB's message. Or mine.

That's pretty soft ground to be launching attacks from...

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335984].message }}

MissTerraK 11 years ago

Terra pops in and just as quickly, pops back out...after she says this, lol!

The French may now be able to publicly insult their President, but that doesn't mean that we have license to publicly insult others here. Our rules haven't changed.

Terra
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8336016].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

I'll just end my part of this with a "if you say so Paul".

All The Best!!

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8336029].message }}

Paul Myers 11 years ago

I'll just end my part of this with a "if you say so Paul".

Wow. Just... wow.

Is the notion that we might all interpret things differently so foreign that it calls for that kind of response?
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8336245].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

<snip>
The Secret Service has rules for how these things are done, and the ones they had before "free speech zones" were established were quite effective. <snip>

I have a friend who used to be in the US Secret Service. It would be interesting to get his perspective on this...but he never talks about those days, lol.

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335894].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

You do realize the over whelming majority of protests are non-violent?

It's the police who use the violence against the protesters.

If you want to be a slave to the state you have that right.

But we also have just as much of a right to live as free men.

Just because I'm not in favor of gov officials going through some type of angry gauntlet of protesters to conduct gov business etc.,

...does not make me or anyone else some type of slave to any state.

You on the other hand seem to be in favor of that IMHO barbaric, French Revolution type of crap (and I'm not surprised)...

...that may have been appropriate for that time and place but has no relevance here and now.

Once again, this ain't France circa 1792.

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334712].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

For the record and in reality, Nixon was not impeached.

Preliminary impeachment proceeding began, he was threatened with almost certain impeachment if he did not resign and he actually resigned before a congressional committee could recommend impeachment.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8333957].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

In other words he manned up to his mistake and did the right thing.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334270].message }}

Lokahi

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Even if it's legal to insult one's President, doesn't it seem disrespectful to do so? How many of those people could do half as good of a job, if put in the same position? It's easy to talk and gripe when you are not responsible for a nation. If the burden of leadership falls on your back, then maybe it will not be so easy to bear, especially with such vocal critics.

Thanks

Signature

Windows10Geek.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340150].message }}

The French Can Now Publicly Insult Their President!

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?