France Gets Tough on (Documenting) Violence

somehow, the IDG story has all the markings of selective editing that might make this proposed law seem worse than it really is. (not that happy slapping rules in their own right aren’t misguided).

somehow, the IDG story has all the markings of selective editing that might make this proposed law seem worse than it really is. (not that happy slapping rules in their own right aren’t misguided).

Sean is correct.

[Sigh ... This is another wolf! Wolf! WOLF! story, that the journosphere tells itself all the time, with the demagogues exploiting the paranoid in mutual self-importance.]

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070306/105141#c579

Wait a minute! by pvdg on Mar 6th, 2007 @ 4:45pm

I am a french journalist and everything I know on this topic contradict the story up there.

Here is the agenda of our Conseil constitutionnel (aka Supreme Court): http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/divers/actu.htm

I find nothing related to this topic. Looks like they didn’t examine this law yet.

To my knowledge, the law in question is an attempt to stop an ugly phenomenon: “happy slapping”:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping

Not a good idea?

But of course, they had to differenciate the filming of a violent act “for the fun” and “in order to get a proof”. Not easy…

So they included a sentence saying this law will not apply… « lorsque l’enregistrement ou la diffusion résulte de l’exercice normal’d’une profession ayant pour objet d’informer le public ou est réalisé afin de servir de preuve en justice »

that is: “when the recording or the diffusion results from the normal exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in justice”

Sounds bad? This is all I know for now.

Disclosure: I am not at all a partisan of this government.

1. The law is published by pvdg on Mar 7th, 2007 @ 4:33am

This morning, the law discussed here has been published in our “Journal officiel”:

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=INTX0600091L

In fact it’s a big package, in which you find a little thing modifying an existing law about different kinds of violence (including rape, torture…). Here it is:

« Art. 222-33-3. – Est constitutif d’un acte de complicité des atteintes volontaires à l’intégrité de la personne prévues par les articles 222-1 à 222-14-1 et 222-23 à 222-31 et est puni des peines prévues par ces articles le fait d’enregistrer sciemment, par quelque moyen que ce soit, sur tout support que ce soit, des images relatives à la commission de ces infractions.

« Le fait de diffuser l’enregistrement de telles images est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement et de 75 000 EUR d’amende.

« Le présent article n’est pas applicable lorsque l’enregistrement ou la diffusion résulte de l’exercice normal d’une profession ayant pour objet d’informer le public ou est réalisé afin de servir de preuve en justice. »

It says:

1/ that whoever knowingly records images of a violence is an accomplice and will be punished as such.

2/ that whoever broadcast this record will be punished (5 years, 75,000 ?,?)

3/ as I said earlier, this law does not apply when the recording or the diffusion results from the normal exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in justice.

So, may be this law could have been better conceived. It is evident hat the basic idea is to tell the bad guys: “if you are going to rape a poor girl in order to take picturees or a video and show them to other bad guys, the rapists and their accomplices, INCLUDING the photographer could go to jail. He will say: “I didn’t touch her” and the judge will anwer: “but you took pictures”.

Whoever, passing by, takes pictures “in order to be used as proof in justice” will be considered as a responsible citizen.

Whoever, passing by, takes pictures in “the normal exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public”, will be considered as a journalist.

Oh, and what about the netizen who takes pictures of a rape and put them on YouTube? I don’t see that there is a “right” to broadcast that kind of humiliating images of people.

Oh, and what about Rodney King? I thought, BTW, that this happened in LA. And alerting the public about violence perpetrated by cops is definitely another story. And our law says exactly that recording and publishing is OK when it is “in order to be used as proof in justice”. Which is what happened in this case. AND: how could George Holliday, who filmed the scene, be considered an “acomplice” of the perpetrators of the violence?

About the “Conseil constitutionnel”: what I understand now is that our “supreme court” in fact examined the whole package on March 3, but whas never asked to look at this particular part of it. And this juridiction is not supposed to decide by itself to examine every bit of the law.

One last word: we have a lot of political parties and organisations of all sizes. I didn’t heard a word about this law from any of them. The exception is Odebi, a small group defending “Internet et Libertés / Presse Libre d’Origine Non Kontrolée” (“Free press from uncontroled origin”), which answered a couple of US journalists. In my opinion, they fooled these journalists by not telling them about the other provision of the law about filming “in order to be used as proof in justice” and abusively using the exemple of Rodney King. To my knowledge, George Holliday was not an amateur journalist who filmes the scene to make a good post on his blog or upload it to YouTube. He was acting as a full fledged citizen who is in position to record a proof of a crime and does it. They don’t say what other idea they have to curb the “happy slapping” epidemy.

Sean is correct.

[Sigh ... This is another wolf! Wolf! WOLF! story, that the
journosphere tells itself all the time, with the demagogues exploiting
the paranoid in mutual self-importance.]

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=2007030…

Wait a minute! by pvdg on Mar 6th, 2007 @ 4:45pm

I am a french journalist and everything I know on this topic
contradict the story up there.

Here is the agenda of our Conseil constitutionnel (aka Supreme Court):
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/divers/ac…

I find nothing related to this topic. Looks like they didn’t examine
this law yet.

To my knowledge, the law in question is an attempt to stop an ugly
phenomenon: “happy slapping”:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping

Not a good idea?

But of course, they had to differenciate the filming of a violent act
“for the fun” and “in order to get a proof”. Not easy…

So they included a sentence saying this law will not apply…
« lorsque l’enregistrement ou la diffusion résulte de l’exercice
normal’d’une profession ayant pour objet d’informer le public ou est
réalisé afin de servir de preuve en justice »

that is: “when the recording or the diffusion results from the normal
exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried out
in order to be used as proof in justice”

Sounds bad? This is all I know for now.

Disclosure: I am not at all a partisan of this government.


50. The law is published by pvdg on Mar 7th, 2007 @ 4:33am

This morning, the law discussed here has been published in our
“Journal officiel”:

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJ…

In fact it’s a big package, in which you find a little thing modifying
an existing law about different kinds of violence (including rape,
torture…). Here it is:

« Art. 222-33-3. – Est constitutif d’un acte de complicité des
atteintes volontaires à l’intégrité de la personne prévues par les
articles 222-1 à 222-14-1 et 222-23 à 222-31 et est puni des peines
prévues par ces articles le fait d’enregistrer sciemment, par quelque
moyen que ce soit, sur tout support que ce soit, des images relatives
à la commission de ces infractions.

« Le fait de diffuser l’enregistrement de telles images est puni de
cinq ans d’emprisonnement et de 75 000 EUR d’amende.

« Le présent article n’est pas applicable lorsque l’enregistrement ou
la diffusion résulte de l’exercice normal d’une profession ayant pour
objet d’informer le public ou est réalisé afin de servir de preuve en
justice. »

It says:

1/ that whoever knowingly records images of a violence is an
accomplice and will be punished as such.

2/ that whoever broadcast this record will be punished (5 years,
75,000 ?,?)

3/ as I said earlier, this law does not apply when the recording or
the diffusion results from the normal exercise of a profession devoted
to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in
justice.

So, may be this law could have been better conceived. It is evident
hat the basic idea is to tell the bad guys: “if you are going to rape
a poor girl in order to take picturees or a video and show them to
other bad guys, the rapists and their accomplices, INCLUDING the
photographer could go to jail. He will say: “I didn’t touch her” and
the judge will anwer: “but you took pictures”.

Whoever, passing by, takes pictures “in order to be used as proof in
justice” will be considered as a responsible citizen.

Whoever, passing by, takes pictures in “the normal exercise of a
profession devoted to inform the public”, will be considered as a
journalist.

Oh, and what about the netizen who takes pictures of a rape and put
them on YouTube? I don’t see that there is a “right” to broadcast that
kind of humiliating images of people.

Oh, and what about Rodney King? I thought, BTW, that this happened in LA.
And alerting the public about violence perpetrated by cops is definitely
another story. And our law says exactly that recording and publishing is
OK when it is “in order to be used as proof in justice”. Which is what
happened in this case. AND: how could George Holliday, who filmed the
scene, be considered an “acomplice” of the perpetrators of the violence?

About the “Conseil constitutionnel”: what I understand now is that our
“supreme court” in fact examined the whole package on March 3, but whas
never asked to look at this particular part of it. And this juridiction
is not supposed to decide by itself to examine every bit of the law.

One last word: we have a lot of political parties and organisations of
all sizes. I didn’t heard a word about this law from any of them. The
exception is Odebi, a small group defending “Internet et Libertés /
Presse Libre d’Origine Non Kontrolée” (“Free press from uncontroled
origin”), which answered a couple of US journalists. In my opinion,
they fooled these journalists by not telling them about the other
provision of the law about filming “in order to be used as proof in
justice” and abusively using the exemple of Rodney King. To my
knowledge, George Holliday was not an amateur journalist who filmes
the scene to make a good post on his blog or upload it to YouTube. He
was acting as a full fledged citizen who is in position to record a
proof of a crime and does it. They don’t say what other idea they have
to curb the “happy slapping” epidemy.

Dave Farber’s list shot this deal down hours ago.

Dave Farber’s list shot this deal down hours ago.

Is this really a “wolf, wolf” story? I admit that when I first read of this new law, I thought maybe this was a Onion-like hoax. But the story seems well-substantiated (and not just by bloggers, but by the “professional” media, as the French lawmakers would put it).

I appreciate Seth Finkelstein’s explanation of the law above. But, although he says that “everything [he] knows contradicts the story,” his explanation actually seems to confirm that it is true:

* He writes that the French Constitutional Court hasn’t addressed the issue yet. But he corrects himself farther down — saying a decision has in fact been reached.

* He states that lawmakers had to differentiate between recording violence “for the fun” and “in order to get proof.” Mr. Finkelstein rightly says that’s not easy. I agree — it’s never easy to differentiate between “good” speech and “bad” speech, which is one reason governments should avoid trying to do so.

* The law itself, as translated by Mr. Finkelstein, says “whoever knowingly records images of violence is an accomplice and will be punished as such.” Not much room for exaggeration here. The normal law defining who is an accomplice is thrown out. You are an “accomplice” if you record the act, regardless of whether you provided any aid to or had any contact with the actual perpetrators.

* Mr. Finkelstein argues that there is “right” to broadcast humiliating images of people (using photos of rape as an example). Perhaps — but that’s a privacy law question. The law that was passed goes well beyond that. Reporters Without Borders, for instance, has strongly objected to the law, pointing out that citizen-recorded images of government human rights abuses would be banned. They write that it would be “shocking” if “this kind of activity were to be criminalized in a democratic country.” http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=21237.

* Lastly, Mr. Finkelstein writes that “we have a lot of political parties and organisations of all sizes. I didn’t hear a word about this law from any of them,” except for one small group.

This does nothing to justify the law. The silence of France’s “political parties and organizations” is perhaps the most troubling aspect of this whole debate. Are there really so few in France willing to defend individual rights?

Mr. Finkestein calls this a “wolf, wolf” story. But there does seems to be an actual wolf about. The question is where are the watchdogs to defend against them?

Is this really a “wolf, wolf” story? I admit that when I first read of this new law, I thought maybe this was a Onion-like hoax. But the story seems well-substantiated (and not just by bloggers, but by the “professional” media, as the French lawmakers would put it).

I appreciate Seth Finkelstein’s explanation of the law above. But, although he says that “everything [he] knows contradicts the story,” his explanation actually seems to confirm that it is true:

* He writes that the French Constitutional Court hasn’t addressed the issue yet. But he corrects himself farther down — saying a decision has in fact been reached.

* He states that lawmakers had to differentiate between recording violence “for the fun” and “in order to get proof.” Mr. Finkelstein rightly says that’s not easy. I agree — it’s never easy to differentiate between “good” speech and “bad” speech, which is one reason governments should avoid trying to do so.

* The law itself, as translated by Mr. Finkelstein, says “whoever knowingly records images of violence is an accomplice and will be punished as such.” Not much room for exaggeration here. The normal law defining who is an accomplice is thrown out. You are an “accomplice” if you record the act, regardless of whether you provided any aid to or had any contact with the actual perpetrators.

* Mr. Finkelstein argues that there is “right” to broadcast humiliating images of people (using photos of rape as an example). Perhaps — but that’s a privacy law question. The law that was passed goes well beyond that. Reporters Without Borders, for instance, has strongly objected to the law, pointing out that citizen-recorded images of government human rights abuses would be banned. They write that it would be “shocking” if “this kind of activity were to be criminalized in a democratic country.” http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=21237.

* Lastly, Mr. Finkelstein writes that “we have a lot of political parties and organisations of all sizes. I didn’t hear a word about this law from any of them,” except for one small group.

This does nothing to justify the law. The silence of France’s “political parties and organizations” is perhaps the most troubling aspect of this whole debate. Are there really so few in France willing to defend individual rights?

Mr. Finkestein calls this a “wolf, wolf” story. But there does seems to be an actual wolf about. The question is where are the watchdogs to defend against them?

My only comments are in brackets above. The rest is the work of the person I’m quoting.

The point is that the law does not do what sensationalists like Declan (though it’s not all him by far) are hyping it as doing. It’s in fact almost the exact opposite on that point – it specifically seeks to exempt nonprofessionals who record acts of violence in what’s phrased in the US as the public interest. A Rodney King like recording incident would be black-letter law legal.

When this is pointed out, I’ve seen a moving of goalposts. If you want to say, it’s wrong to criminalize third-party recording of criminal violence for kicks, well, that’s another argument. But it’s NOT any sort of attempt to certify journalists or make “eyewitness” recording illegal.

Too many people regard this as story too good to check, then too good to let go.

My only comments are in brackets above. The rest is the work of the person I’m quoting.

The point is that the law does not do what sensationalists like Declan (though it’s not all him by far) are hyping it as doing. It’s in fact almost the exact opposite on that point – it specifically seeks to exempt nonprofessionals who record acts of violence in what’s phrased in the US as the public interest. A Rodney King like recording incident would be black-letter law legal.

When this is pointed out, I’ve seen a moving of goalposts. If you want to say, it’s wrong to criminalize third-party recording of criminal violence for kicks, well, that’s another argument. But it’s NOT any sort of attempt to certify journalists or make “eyewitness” recording illegal.

Too many people regard this as story too good to check, then too good to let go.

Seth Finkelstein raises an interesting point. Are there two different questions at issue here: 1) whether recording criminal violance for “kicks” should be banned, and 2) whether recording made by eyewitnesses in to expose a crime or injustice should be illegal?

It seems the authors of the law meant only to address no. 1, and not no. 2 — thus the exemptions for recordings in (as phrased above) “the normal exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in justice”.

The problem, however, is that the two cannot be so easily separated. Someone has to decide whether a recording is made in the interests of justice or not. As in the free speech context, I simply don’t trust the government to make that call. Taking Rodney King as an example, Mr. Finkelstein says that it would be “black letter legal.” In his first comment, he said that:

“George Holliday was not an amateur journalist who films the scene to make a good post on his blog or upload it to YouTube. He was acting as a full fledged citizen who is in position to record a proof of a crime and does it”.

There’s a lot of gray area there. What if the situation arose today, and he posted it to his blog? Would the state make a determination as to whether he really truly wanted to stop and injustice, or whether he was trying to maximize hits? What if Matt Drudge put it up, trying to get his own circulation up? What if the recorder put it on youtube, just because it was interesting? What if he sold it to People magazine? Or to Fox News? At what point is he not acting as a “full-fledged citizen?”

My point is that these calls are not always easiest to make. And, frankly, I don’t trust the government to make the call as to whether my motives are pure enough to allow me to document what I see.

This doesn’t leave us without an answer to violance. If someone actually is an accomplice to a violent act — either planning in advance with the perpetrator to film it, egging it on as it proceeds, or whatever, it seems the current laws regarding criminal accomplice would be sufficient. But a law specifically banning certain recordings is unnecessary and dangerous.

Seth Finkelstein raises an interesting point. Are there two different questions at issue here: 1) whether recording criminal violance for “kicks” should be banned, and 2) whether recording made by eyewitnesses in to expose a crime or injustice should be illegal?

It seems the authors of the law meant only to address no. 1, and not no. 2 — thus the exemptions for recordings in (as phrased above) “the normal exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in justice”.

The problem, however, is that the two cannot be so easily separated. Someone has to decide whether a recording is made in the interests of justice or not. As in the free speech context, I simply don’t trust the government to make that call. Taking Rodney King as an example, Mr. Finkelstein says that it would be “black letter legal.” In his first comment, he said that:

“George Holliday was not an amateur journalist who films the scene to make a good post on his blog or upload it to YouTube. He was acting as a full fledged citizen who is in position to record a proof of a crime and does it”.

There’s a lot of gray area there. What if the situation arose today, and he posted it to his blog? Would the state make a determination as to whether he really truly wanted to stop and injustice, or whether he was trying to maximize hits? What if Matt Drudge put it up, trying to get his own circulation up? What if the recorder put it on youtube, just because it was interesting? What if he sold it to People magazine? Or to Fox News? At what point is he not acting as a “full-fledged citizen?”

My point is that these calls are not always easiest to make. And, frankly, I don’t trust the government to make the call as to whether my motives are pure enough to allow me to document what I see.

This doesn’t leave us without an answer to violance. If someone actually is an accomplice to a violent act — either planning in advance with the perpetrator to film it, egging it on as it proceeds, or whatever, it seems the current laws regarding criminal accomplice would be sufficient. But a law specifically banning certain recordings is unnecessary and dangerous.

I had missed Seth’s correction above that most of his first comment was quoting others – and that only the bracketed statement up front was his. My response remains the same, but all invectives, sarcasm, et. al. should be redirected toward the people he quotes.

I had missed Seth’s correction above that most of his first comment was quoting others – and that only the bracketed statement up front was his. My response remains the same, but all invectives, sarcasm, et. al. should be redirected toward the people he quotes.

Seth Finkelstein raises an interesting point. Are there two different questions at issue here: 1) whether recording criminal violance for “kicks” should be banned, and 2) whether recording made by eyewitnesses in to expose a crime or injustice should be illegal?

It seems the authors of the law meant only to address no. 1, and not no. 2 — thus the exemptions for recordings in (as phrased above) “the normal exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in justice”.

Hmmm sounds like anti-French bigotry is playing a big role in the reporting of this, and of course, the fact that too many American journalists apparently only speak English and have not read the law in its original French.

Seems like this really is a ‘wolf wolf’ story…

Seth Finkelstein raises an interesting point. Are there two different questions at issue here: 1) whether recording criminal violance for “kicks” should be banned, and 2) whether recording made by eyewitnesses in to expose a crime or injustice should be illegal?

It seems the authors of the law meant only to address no. 1, and not no. 2 — thus the exemptions for recordings in (as phrased above) “the normal exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in justice”.

Hmmm sounds like anti-French bigotry is playing a big role in the reporting of this, and of course, the fact that too many American journalists apparently only speak English and have not read the law in its original French.

Seems like this really is a ‘wolf wolf’ story…

This has nothing to do with random violence and EVERYTHING to do with criminalizing the exposure of corrupt French news agencies like France2.

MediaRatings’ exposure of the Pallywood fraud and the subsequent lawsuit between faux journalist Charles Enderlin at France2 is what spurred this, and it will likely be an idea floated by US liberals as well.

This has nothing to do with random violence and EVERYTHING to do with criminalizing the exposure of corrupt French news agencies like France2.

MediaRatings’ exposure of the Pallywood fraud and the subsequent lawsuit between faux journalist Charles Enderlin at France2 is what spurred this, and it will likely be an idea floated by US liberals as well.