Imagine a law, considered constitutional, that didn't allow a citizen to film or broadcast a violent act unless that person was a professional journalist. I think most Amercians, most Westerners, would find that an inconceivable violation of the freedom of speech.

But such a law was just ruled constitutional by a Constitutional Council, asked to rule on it by Senators and other representatives.

Oh yeah, did I mention it was not in Right-Wing-Fundamentalist-Nazi-Amerika?

It's in France...

I can see the reason for wanting, in situations where the filmer is in fact encouraging assault ("Go on!  Camera's running!  Smack him a good one!"), to spread some of the blame for the assault around.  Likewise with the folks who (at an additional remove) are adding encouragement by providing loads of public fora on which to distribute the video.

But ... yeah.  While I see wanting it, I think you have to accept that you can't do it without restricting people's ability to show the truth, so you can't always get what you want.  Any time you give people the freedom to speak about bad things, you also give them the freedom to encourage people who will do bad things just to be talked about.

Heh.  I wasn't actually heading for a parallel with forum-moderation, but I think it might be there if you wanted it.

A lot of americans rip on the ACLU but thank god for it as it keeps laws like this from getting passed in america. I bet the french cops like it as now they can beat the hell out of people and not worry about it being celcammed onto the local news.

Damn Nox, nice troll! you almost caught me.

Quote from: James McMurrayDamn Nox, nice troll! you almost caught me.

If I'd caught you, I'd have probably thrown you back.

Quote from: TonyLBI can see the reason for wanting, in situations where the filmer is in fact encouraging assault ("Go on!  Camera's running!  Smack him a good one!"), to spread some of the blame for the assault around.  Likewise with the folks who (at an additional remove) are adding encouragement by providing loads of public fora on which to distribute the video.

We already have sufficient laws for this in most Commonwealth countries.

For the people who plan a fight or gang rape, we have "conspiracy to commit assault" and so on. For those who "egg on" the assaulters, we have "incitement to violence", "accessory during the fact", etc. Distributing the material after charges have been laid could easily fall under a court order supressing evidence being published until the actual trial is completed, or "distributing unrated material", and so on.

Recently here in Melbourne we had a case where a young woman, mentally retarded, was taken off to a spot by a river, sexually assaulted, beaten, urinated on and so on. It was all filmed and then the film reproduced and sold. It was done by some teenaged boys. Since they were brilliant enough to film their own faces grinning stupidly, charges have been laid.

In another case, some young guys were getting together to smack each-other over, and film it and put it up - a sort of teenaged idiot's fight club. They, too have been charged.

Our current law is quite sufficient to deal with this sort of thing.

One of the many , many reasons to like Australia.

Sane legal system .

- E.W.C.

Oh we have plenty of craziness in our legal system, don't worry about that!

But a few bits here and there are sane, almost by accident

God, sucking up to a whole country.......:rollbarf:

Incidentally, the young guys accused of sexually assaulting the retarded girl, filming it and selling the film, the ABC reports they've now been charged.
   
Eight teens charged over DVD showing alleged sexual assault

Eight Victorian teenagers have been charged over the making of a DVD, which was posted on the Internet last year.

The DVD allegedly showed a group of teenage boys sexually assaulting a teenage girl.

Police allege it was being sold in Werribee schools for $5.

After a five-month investigation, detectives charged seven 17-year-olds and one 18-year-old.

They will appear in the Children's Court next month on charges of procuring sexual penetration by intimidation, manufacturing child pornography, and assault.
No special laws about who gets to film violent acts were required to deal with these guys.

How old do you have to be before you're not in "Children's Court"?

Usually, 18. The one who was 18 in the article was probably 17 at the time of the crime. Same deal with "child pornography" - if they're under 18, they're counted as children in that respect, even though the general age of consent is 16 for heterosexual sex, ages 10-16 it's legal provided there's not more than 2 years' age difference, and it's 17 for male-male homosexual sex. The age of consent for your sexual partners is 18 if you're a person in authority, like a schoolteacher, cop or magistrate. Still, if the people filmed are under 18, it's "manufacturing child pornography." Which I think is a fair law in general.

Anyway, yeah - once you hit 18, you're no longer subject to "Children's Court," but cop an adult one. There have been a few cases where an under-18 was charged as an adult, usually due to the seriousness of the crime.

Children's Court differs from an adult one in that the sentences are generally much less, the names of defendants can't be reported in the press, and generally the conviction won't appear on your record once you're an adult. The idea is that kids are less responsible for their actions than adults, and you shouldn't be burdened your whole life for something stupid you did when you were a kid. There are sometimes exceptions, but that's the general law.

Anyway, the on-topic point is that they were able to throw a whole swag of charges at the guys without the need for any special laws about who can and can't film violence. The French are being silly.

Quote from: James McMurrayHow old do you have to be before you're not in "Children's Court"?

In America a 10 year old was tried and sentenced as an adult not long ago for shooting his step father.

The supreme court rules that you can try someone under 18 as an adult, but you CANNOT sentence him to death even if tried as an adult.

Thanks for the info JimBob? I like the sound of that system.

Nox, not even if it's Texas and he's retarded?

Quote from: James McMurrayThanks for the info JimBob? I like the sound of that system.

Nox, not even if it's Texas and he's retarded?

Not even if his public defender slept thru the trial and steve jackson was on the jury.

Texas may not like it, but the supreme court can override even it's legal system in some cases.

Thank god for that. The SCOTUS has ruled that no one under 18 can get the death penalty, period.