- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary
In October 2020, Samuel Paty, a French teacher, was murdered following a false accusation by a 13-year-old student who claimed he’d shown anti-Muslim bias. The girl had made up the story to cover the fact she had been suspended from school for bad behaviour.
In reality, Paty’s lesson on free speech included optional viewing of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but he hadn’t excluded anyone. The student’s story triggered a social media campaign led by her father, who, along with others, is now on trial for inciting hatred and connections to Paty’s attacker, an 18-year-old radicalized Chechen.
The school will be named the Samuel Paty School from next year.
What I see in this story is a question of whether Brahim Chnina ever was actually in contact with Abdoullakh Anzorov, and if he was if he ever instructed or encouraged violence against Samuel Paty. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they are attempting to use this incident to criminalize free speech, which is exactly what it appears Samuel Paty would not have wanted.
Here in the US, would we want the government locking people up for calling Trump a fascist or even a Nazi, especially if one of the alleged assassination attempts had been successful? If I make a video saying I hate Marjorie Taylor Greene and she’s a dangerous sociopath, and the next day they go and kill her, does that mean I should be locked up as well? What if I call Trump the antichrist… afterall, it could be claimed that I participated in a video presenting “false and distorted information intended to arouse hatred.”
The US interpretation of free speech is not what the world considers free speech.
Yeah in may fascist countries you get locked up for saying things like Israel is committing genocide and are behaving like Nazis.
Frankly, I think this is new territory. We have a new kind of phenomenon: stochastic terrorism, that has specifically as a vehicle the virality of social media. I don’t think old absolutes, like the American First Amendment, are useful, sort of like how your Second Amendment was written at a time of muskets, not assault weapons. Social media virality plus algorithms that prioritize engagement at all costs (including via rage) over accuracy are a new thing, causing a new problem. It’s right for courts, legal scholars, and lawmakers to be taking on this problem.
Your concern over balancing the different social goods is of course legitimate and at the centre of this debate.
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”