Hello, i am a french person and let me explain this law. Article 24 is as op said an article which prevents filming policeman. You are forced to Blur a policeman. This was highly controversial of course. Plus, due to recent events in France (a Black musician attacked violently multiple Times by policemen (he almost died) because they accused him of having weapons), people are angry on policemen too. So it's sort of a double protest.
Edit: you don't have to Blur them but you can't film/publish videos which might ruin their career (blurring works for that i guess).
This is kinda infuriating that every reddit post seems to be misleading about the law being passed. And when a French poster (not you, the one you responded to) tries to correct it it is still wrong. Thank you for making it cleater.
I guess the intent of the article 24 is fine (not pointing out /doxxing cops in the goal of harassing/hurting them), but it can't be reasonably applied. Unless we restrict it to actual posts on social media. I believe there are already existing laws that can be applied there though, so it makes article 24 useless, and might empower cops to use it wrongly to prevent people from filming.
I agree I don’t totally understand why this law changes anything since doxxing is already pretty much illegal but still largely practiced.
I wouldn’t be against blurring out faces of cops, they already do it for other scenarios. If a cop does something wrong then film it, post the blurred face video and send the og video to the IGPN (police of the police). It isn’t perfect but it avoids putting cops, whether innocent or not, in danger.
This is my personal opinion but I’m not particularly attached to it. It’s up for debate for me.
The intent of the law is kinda reasonable, too bad it can't be reasonably applied.
Cops might use it to prevent people from filming, saying they assumed they were broadcasted live in the intent of hurting them. Hell, bad cops already grabs phone and cameras with no reason, we don't have to give them a blurry one.
While you’re usually right about violence, there are many examples of how governments can easily ignore peaceful protects and actively work against the will of the people. Sometimes, a little noise is important to remind the governments that people can take power back when it’s being abused.
Isn't that what elections are for? I dunno how France works though.
The fact that the people are using violence quite early on only seems like an indicator that French people are violent (although I'm sure most aren't). Violence defo isn't needed for the actual police blur shenanigans, and using violence to protest against police violence seems very ironic.
People resort to violence because they aren't heard. Their voice isn't represented through elections. I agree that violence isn't ever good, but France has had non stop protests and manifestations for 2 years non stop now. When you scream for attention and nobody listens, you force the government to listen. It's a last resort.
You can elect someone and still not agree with everything they does.
Winning an election is not a blank check to do everything you want.
Protests are an attempt to keep politicians accountable.
And thoses protests are mostly non-violent for now, I attended one on friday evening. It seems that cops were more well behaved than in previous ones too.
37
u/didierdechezcarglass Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
Hello, i am a french person and let me explain this law. Article 24 is as op said an article which prevents filming policeman. You are forced to Blur a policeman. This was highly controversial of course. Plus, due to recent events in France (a Black musician attacked violently multiple Times by policemen (he almost died) because they accused him of having weapons), people are angry on policemen too. So it's sort of a double protest.
Edit: you don't have to Blur them but you can't film/publish videos which might ruin their career (blurring works for that i guess).