You’d think you have seen it all. Well, not quite and the best is still to come by the day, should you show some patience.

The now convicted journalist of something pretty disturbing, I mean “incitement to racial hatred” the court decided, something that can be opposed to him anytime, employers, some have of course asked for his firing of his actual positions, he tomorrow decides to turn his career around and applies for a position at CNN, let me introduce myself, I’m an ex con but I have paid my debt to society, oh yeah, hum, what was it about? racism…. (silence) hum yes, (may be not) Thank you for applying, we were pleased to meet you and we’re sure there is a very successful future ahead for a qualified journalist such as yourself with a very exciting overall knowledge of the profession and we wish you all the best… Thank you. Anyway, a few days later he was invited to speak at a french right wing gathering partly to take advantage of the sympathy the public showed, the court’s decision being considered crazy, partly because common sense, his books and writings in newspapers testify for him making a so serious conviction look a nonsense.

I guess it’s alright and at the same time, weird, letting me with some strange mixed feelings. Culture? I can’t prevent myself to question the interest of turning the criminal justice into a circus after what has been a difficult period with the public infuriated following several disturbing crimes on parole released convicts committed and a kind of equivalent of a probation officer had declared on tv that over a hundred thousand convicted criminals that should be in prison are in fact on the loose.

I don’t know what to think of the choice to criminalize hate speech because of the legal challenge it represents, the need of very talented and experienced judges you inevitably need and the specific risk each case brings to ridicule the criminal justice society needs to rely on, trust and revere. But if you do (criminalize hate speech) you’d expect special interests organizations to be extremely selective and show extreme restraint to make sure the legislation intended goals to protect society of ideologies of hatred and death are never ridiculed. Obviously, to use it to shut up a journalist over a few disliked words disconnected of any such ideology is a terrible mistake and show the choice to criminalize hate speech isn’t and can’t be a substitute to the free speech of the sometimes difficult relations between communities, conflicting interests and the need to be true about demands as well as objections.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/03/05/hate_speech_society_steps_in_even_if_law_doesnt/

Above, “But in voting 8-1 that Constitution protects the group’s self-expression, the court wasn’t just acknowledging the far reach of the First Amendment.The ruling also reflects a faith in Americans’ ability, independent of any government action, to condemn loathsome speech.” and I’d say underlines powerfully the Founders faith in the People and the Bill of Rights ability to teach was the right bet.