French government presents "global security" bill banning the filming of French police

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,281
3,104
118
Country
United States of America
Australia too. Bunch of SASR soldiers might have been committing war crimes, the whistleblower is the only one facing charges.
Manning, Snowden, Assange-- as ever, the United States plays the role of global leader.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,097
5,393
118
Australia
Australia too. Bunch of SASR soldiers might have been committing war crimes, the whistleblower is the only one facing charges.
SASR 2ND battalion has been disbanded and the report from the inspector general of the defence forces - which even if only half true - is damming as fuck and 25 troopers have been referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation against 39 individual offences. I mean it could all still end in a fuckin’ whitewash but no one has (yet) gotten off Scott Free.

Edit: misunderstood 2nd Battalion as two battalions.

Edit 2: updated number of affected soldiers and charges to be answered
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,697
2,881
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
The two battalions have been disbanded and the report from the inspector general of the defence forces - which even if only half true - is damming as fuck and 39 troopers have been referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. I mean it could all still end in a fuckin’ whitewash but no one has (yet) gotten off Scott Free.
Wasn’t it 2nd battalion, not two battalions?
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,697
2,881
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
You know what, I went and checked and you’re right. I saw 2ND Battalion as 2 battalions.
I think they did the soldiers who did the right thing dirty. I don’t like punishing a whole bunch of people who weren’t involved
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,097
5,393
118
Australia
I think they did the soldiers who did the right thing dirty. I don’t like punishing a whole bunch of people who weren’t involved
They aren’t going to toss innocent troopers out of the service. Apart from being a gross overreaction it would be an appalling waste of the money spent training them to their elite level. In all probability a new battalion comprising of those not involved (or uncharitably, not known to be involved) in this travesty will be stood up to replace it.

Plus, they probably don’t want to cut them lose because that then puts fifty odd men with skills, training, contacts and truckloads of spite onto the open market for any number of rich and nefarious actors to take advantage of.
 
Last edited:

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,143
3,341
118
IM assuming this is a government bank?


The central bank of France is an independent institution empowered by the government of France and the Eurozone to function as the primary bank of the government, and is one of the banks who can issue Euros.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68

This is the sort of thing the bill aims to address.
You should stop following blatant liars. Sharing the image of a wounded journalist wouldn't be illegal.
Also, what about the Irony of all these peaceful protestors, who were alledgedly protesting against violence, wounding 62 police officers?
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,281
3,104
118
Country
United States of America
You should stop following blatant liars. Sharing the image of a wounded journalist wouldn't be illegal.
It's borderline, but it could be called a picture of a public event involving police officers that could harm their psychological well-being.

Also, what about the Irony of all these peaceful protestors, who were alledgedly protesting against violence, wounding 62 police officers?
That few?
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
It's borderline, but it could be called a picture of a public event involving police officers that could harm their psychological well-being.
Not even close to borderline as the original Article 24 only renders publishing images punishable if police officers are clearly identifiable on them AND the goal is to cause harm to the identifiable police officer. I don't see any face or ID (other than their police ID number considering that would be legal) of police officers on that image. The only person who could and already can sue anyone is the wounded journalist himself due to privacy laws.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,281
3,104
118
Country
United States of America
Not even close to borderline as the original Article 24 only renders publishing images punishable if police officers are clearly identifiable on them AND the goal is to cause harm to the identifiable police officer. I don't see any face or ID (other than their police ID number considering that would be legal) of police officers on that image. The only person who could and already can sue anyone is the wounded journalist himself due to privacy laws.
In any case, filming the actions that wounded the man would be illegal. And that is preposterous.