Italian authorities are going to sue Charlie Hebdo magazine

Demonstrate that you can be sued for insulting someone.

 

If you believe free speech is really free.

Then turn this forum into a YouTube comment section. Have total freedom of teenagers high on drugs screaming slanderous nonsense.

 

Je sue Charlie!

 

Mocking a disaster and making a comedy out of it is really disrespectful and not dignifying.

 

The Crime of “insult” is an act punishable by prison or fine. The Court in this case looked at the constitutionality of the Criminal Act which considers an insulting an individual publicly as a criminal offense. This Court held that the Criminal Act was indeed constitution because the term “insult” within the text was not ambiguous nor void for vagueness and there was an important interest in protecting individuals from being publicly insulted.
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/punishment-of-insult-as-criminal-offense-case/

 

You would do well to more thoroughly study your own citations, and where they lead to, before you present them for consideration. The second paragraph contains the following:

You will note that among the violations of rights listed, offending someone, or making fun of their loss, is not among them.

You will also note that the very first sentence on the page you cite leads us to this article on the same site.

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/rights

A great many rights are noted by your own citation, such as the right to free speech, and to be free from arbitrary measures of government authorities. This means government cannot violate the right to free speech simply because the message presented is offensive or hurtful to some.

but nowhere, quite literally nowhere in your own citation, is it ever stated that there is a right to not be offended. It is simply not a violation of rights for someone to be offended by another, or their suffering to be made light of for the sake of amusement by others. It may be in poor taste, but it is not a crime, and it is not a violation of rights.

Once again, there is no right to not be offended.

 

From your own citation:

The insult in this case was not what many classify as being an insult, but was rather an act of defamation.

http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=458

The legal definition of defamation requires damage to the reputation or another to occur as a result of the untrue statement being made.

That is far different from being an insult, which merely involves being addressed in an unkind manner that is lacking respect. The two standards are not in any way similar to one another.

Now demonstrate that there is a legal basis for someone to be sued merely for being disrespectful.

 

"privacy",
as per your post above.

 

Of course if you insult it is an act of defamation as per the article and does not really qualify as stick and stones.

 

This is why government is evil.

Charlie Hebdo survived a half dozen men with assault rifles punching 100gr bullets through their chests, causing catastrophic internal haemorrhaging. But they will not survive the government.

 

And the deaths that occurred, which are the basis of this current legal action, were documented and made a matter of public record. Therefore there is no privacy to be had on the part of those affected, and thus no violation of a right to privacy, because the deaths of their loved ones are a matter of public record.

Even if such an argument actually had merit, your own citation talks about rights being violated by governments and their agents, rather than private individuals. Those protections only apply to actions taken by government, not the publisher of a newspaper, and most certainly not about matters that are public record.

Then you should have no trouble demonstrating how a rude or otherwise disrespectful comment is the same thing as an act of defamation, and has the potential to cause harm to the reputation of the one the comment is being made to.

 

It's apparent that the tragic event was not documented for legal actions, but for comical purposes. In addition that is a private incident of Italy which they dearly treat solemnly and was satirized by that group in France, which as I could see it intrusive and disrespectful. Innocent people did die and they should consider and respect that than making fun out of it.
Insult as per justice system is never tolerated, nothing more nothing less.

 

The deaths were documented by the country of Italy, thus making them an account of public record, and thus available to everyone. There is no privacy to be had in such cases.

Lack of respect is not a crime. That is the long and the short of the discussion. It does not matter how poor of taste the satirization of the deceased may be, it is simply not a crime to act in a rude manner as the publisher has done. You cannot cite any case law to suggest otherwise. There is no legal basis to state that the deceased must be regarded with respect. Nor is there anything codified into law stating that the survivors of a tragic event are shielded from a disrespectful manner of address.

Your own citation states that freedom of speech is a right that is subject to protection. It is very unwise to argue against your own citation simply because it no longer serves your narrative.

Then demonstrate such. Demonstrate where it has been held and fully affirmed by the courts that being rude and disrespectful to another can bring about civil and/or criminal penalties as a result.

 

My opinion regarding Charlie Hebdo is that they should not publish cartoon pics of any religions not only Muslims but any religion. Religion should be kept separate.

 

South Korea may have their own peculiar Constitution but we should be grateful it doesn't apply to other democracies with a history of free expression.

 

Then did Italy give them the rights to satirize?
Lack of respect is the most basic crime, how would you say you abide by the law if in the first place you don't respect it, and is it okay to satirized fallen soldiers in war or else our war heroes?
I already cited that insult can make someone indicted.

- - - Updated - - -

It's between Italy and France.

 

Does the publisher of a newspaper truly need certain specific rights to engage in satire? Or is satire protected by the freedom of speech, and freedom of the press?

Then demonstrate precisely how. Do not claim such, rather actually prove such.

Respect for the law is not a necessary element for abiding by the law. One does not need to respect the life of others to refrain from ending the life of others.

According to the rulings of the united states supreme court, such is indeed protected speech. Hate speech is protected speech, no matter how heinous it may be to some.

Unless you can demonstrate that satire of events that can be classified as a tragedy is an actual crime, you do not have a basis for your argument. You are merely lashing out at the fact that there are those in the world who do not have the same level of emotional sensitivity as yourself.

Incorrect. What you cited was an act of defamation, not disrespect. Defaming someone is not the same thing as exercising rudeness or a lack of respect for them. No matter how much you try and argue otherwise, the two standards are simply not one in the same. They are no more alike than apples and red clay bricks.

 

Defamation (diffamazione), defined as injuring the reputation of an absent person via communication with others. It is punishable with a fine of up to €1,032 or imprisonment for up to one year (Art. 595). If the act of insult or defamation consists in the allegation of a specific fact, the potential penalty is increased to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of €2,065. If committed by means or the press or otherwise publicly, the penalty is a fine of at least €516 or imprisonment from six months to three years. Penalties are also increased if the defamatory statement is directed at a political, administrative or judicial body or at a representative thereof or an authority constituted in college.

Finally, defamation is also considered a criminal offence under Law No. 47/1948 (Provisions on the Press, Defamation, Crimes Committed against the Profession and Criminal Proecdure, hereinafter “Press Law”). According to Art. 13 of the Press Law, defamation committed by the press is punishable by a fine of no less than ₤ (ITL) 10,000 (€5.16) or imprisonment from one to six years. In order for defamation to be liable under the Press Law, it must involve an accusation of fact (attribuzione di un fatto determinato).
http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/italy/

 

And how did the newspaper publisher actually go about injuring the reputation of anyone, deceased or otherwise, through the publishing of satirical drawn images that depict an event deemed by some to be a tragedy?

What was the accusation made by these satirical drawn images, that would actually qualify them as being defamation, and thus actually subject to criminal charges? You have failed to prove such, despite all of your posts arguing about how having a lack of respect for others is somehow defaming them. You cannot demonstrate precisely how rudeness is criminalized.

 

We will see when Italy starts the litigation.
They have a law and therefore they have a foothold.
They have their own disaster and deaths aftermath of the disaster they don't need humiliation but actually needs support and help. Satire with that very sad form will never help them, but actually adding insult into the injury, and is very shameful and inhumane.

 

Meaning that you cannot actually go about proving the argumentative standpoint you have adopted as your own. When cornered with hard questions pertaining to matters of actual proof, you instead state that there is a need to wait and see how things play out, meaning you do not have proof of what you have been claiming this entire time.

Nothing has been done but wasting the time of others with an indefensible argument that holds no actual basis in reality, and the deliberate confusion and substitution of insults and defamation.

 

I've already given you all the facts, it's up to you to agree or not to agree,
and you only complicate things up, playing with words, not so healthy an argument I could say.
If it's okay for you to insult countries in distress with innocent people dying, then it's up to you.

 

I do not know for sure, but I would prefer that the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that is created sometimes in the media did not reach the audience.

 

I do not know exactly how these cartoons cause someone to do something, but they apparently do if you remember the blow up of the office of this junk magazin. Which individuals you mean? Those, who create these cartoons? No, they do not have a critical thinking, because they do not think that these cartoons are provocative and can cause distructive behaviour. Neither do they have skills for making good cartoons-very low level of art. This principle that if you do not like something- shut up and move on resulted in coming to power Nazis in Germany.