Ah, the very vague term of "hate speech"

Seems to me like they enforced their own laws. You don't have to agree with them but I don't see how they did anything outside of them.

The article is vague and contradictory about whether anyone has been arrested for anti-semitism.

In the first paragraph it says:

"France ordered prosecutors around the country Wednesday to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism, announcing that 54 people had been arrested for those offences since the Paris terror attacks."

But in a later paragraph it says:

"The Justice Ministry said 54 people - including four minors - have been detained for defending or verbally threatening terrorism"

If all 54 of the arrests were for glorifying or threatening terrorism, then it must be the case that none of the arrests were actually primarily for anti-semitism.

Exactly. The article needs to be more specific.

If people were arrested for simply being antisemitic or the dangerously vague term "hate speech" then that's a travesty.

If people were arrested for glorifying and supporting the attack that's another matter. As the saying goes in America, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. Free speech is not absolute. There's no easy answer for how a liberal society should treat illiberal elements who seek to replace the status quo with an authoritarian alternative. I have no idea where the line should be drawn, but I imagine it ought to be closer to the United States' maximalist protection set-up than Europe's minimalist one.

Again, the article's too vague to really have an opinion. But if the people arrested were the sorts who chant "Behead those who insult Islam" then, sorry, but I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. I happen to be one of these old fashioned people who think liberal values are universal and precious, and despise those who would stifle them.

"If people were arrested for glorifying and supporting the attack that's another matter. As the saying goes in America, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact."

Actually, glorifying and supporting a terrorist attack would certainly be protected speech in the US.

Rather unfair quote mining, semck83. I'll defer to you, the actual lawyer, on glorifying and supporting a terrorist attack "certainly" being protected speech. However, I think it's reasonably clear I was referring to people actually calling for more such attacks when I go on to talk about people chanting in support of beheadings. Analogous to tenured armchair Maoists these people are not.

Again, I'll just take your word that outright support for more murders is protected speech, or would be in America. But I resent that you're making my point look more simplistic than it was.

Not always, since incitement to a criminal action is sometimes prosecuted. Going after the planner or incited even if he never does an action. Like that blind sheik that incited followers to blow up buildings in New York City. He couldn't do it himself, but he convinced others to do it for him.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/

"Forty-eight hours after hosting a massive march under the banner of free expression, France opened a criminal investigation of a controversial French comedian for a Facebook post he wrote about the Charlie Hebdo attack, and then this morning, arrested him for that post on charges of “defending terrorism.” The comedian, Dieudonné (above), previously sought elective office in France on what he called an “anti-Zionist” platform, has had his show banned by numerous government officials in cities throughout France, and has been criminally prosecuted several times before for expressing ideas banned in that country.

The apparently criminal viewpoint he posted on Facebook declared: “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.” Investigators concluded that this was intended to mock the “Je Suis Charlie” slogan and express support for the perpetrator of the Paris supermarket killings (whose last name was “Coulibaly”)..."

One of you lawyers will have to explain how this constitutes a direct incitement to violence, and not simply an excuse to prosecute someone for having unpopular views, ironically just a couple days after a massive "Free Speech" rally.

France doesn't have the First Amendment. In much of Europe, and even Canada, you really *can* be prosecuted simply for holding unpopular views. If American exceptionalism exists anywhere, it's when it comes to how we protect speech.

Invictus,

Sorry if I took your quote out of context. It did seem to me to be a somewhat surprising characterization, given your broad point; but it seemed (and seems) sufficiently clear and self-contained, in itself, that it was fair to address that claim on its own. Anyway, "behead those who insult Islam" is also likely to be protected speech here, though context would of course matter. Sorry again if I mischaracterized your words.