FENETRE SUR LE MONDE Brigitte Bardot: Censorship in Action David M. Mercer     23 septembre 2003 des États-Unis pour strasmag.com David M. Mercer dmercer1@att.net La traduction en français sera bientôt disponible... > Free speech rights... Talk is cheap, free speech isn’t. In France there’s no such thing as free speech—literally. Free speech in France can be expensive. Brigitte Bardot, who has been outspoken against Muslims, homosexuals, and Frenchmen, has been fined again for “inciting racial hatred”. Recently, her book “A Cry in the Silence”, despite its inflammatory rhetoric sold more than 300,000 copies, placing it atop the French bestseller lists for eight weeks this summer. In the late ‘90s Bardot, a long time critic of Islamic immigration was sued and convicted three times for publishing statements critical of Muslims. At worst, these fines have cost her as much as 48,000 francs. Bardot’s marriage to Bernard d’Ormale, a senior spokesman in the National Front, and comments praising Jean-Marie Le Pen has further marked her with controversy. Although her support for Le Pen will not place Bardot in further legal jeopardy the content of her book might. Already several civil rights groups have sued Bardot for “incitement to religious and social hatred”. While French laws prohibit racially charged commentary, or “anything that would drive people to racism” is it right to do so? Indeed is it moral for the government to attempt to determine the intent of thought? Let’s look at it. In the United States the First Amendment protects free speech. It states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. Simply put, American citizens are able to engage in racist or otherwise offensive speech and often exercise these rights. The federal government is not allowed to interfere, or determine what sort of speech is permissible. The idea is to encourage public debate, and a “marketplace of ideas”. Free speech advocates argue the answer to politically incorrect speech is more speech. In essence they urge counter arguments to even the most unpopular forms of expression. While I agree cultures should transmit (not enforce) values and morals in terms of socially acceptable ideas, the marketplace ought to ultimately determine which ideas become ubiquitous in the public sphere. In brief, government has no business limiting the free speech of private citizens like Bardot. Although her ideas are controversial she ought to have the right to express them freely and openly. Communication intent mustn’t matter lest democracies sanction thought police—a throwback to tyranny. Therefore, the French courts should do the right thing and affirm Bardot’s free speech rights as essential to democracy in France. More broadly, France should enact new laws to protect the most endangered point of view, that of the individual. In brief, let the libertarian dream live!(1) (1)By libertarian, I do not mean to reference the modern U.S. libertarian party but rather the idea of liberty, and those who believe in free will. > Les lecteurs ont la parole_! Vous pouvez nous écrire, engagez vous dans le débat... Vous pouvez nous écrire. N'oubliez pas de de préciser à quel article vous faites référence. ..	FENETRE SUR LE MONDE >Article STRASMAG >ACCUEIL >MONDE DEBATS >Ecrivez nous! >Courrier

| © Les auteurs / Strasbourg Webmag, 2003. Tous droits réservés. | Toute utilisation ou reproduction doit faire l'objet d'une demande écrite. | Les documents sont publiés sous la responsabilité de leurs auteurs.