France had an unfortunate history of self censorship from the media and active control of the public media from the president(de Gaulle that controlled the only TV channel, Mitterand ordering illegal wiretapping of journalists)
The actual french President is a control freak. Sarkozy has strong relationship with most of the private media owners and is using it.
He has since the start of his mandate tried to control the internet eg.
He is (ab)using a common view in France that speech should be controlled and freedom of speech isn't absolute. For instance, it is illegal to make xenophobic or racists comments. La quandrature du net is doing a good job of exposing the latest of his attacks and, hopefully public pressure can shame him out of his willingness to control everything.
He likes the French motto of "Liberty, equality fraternity". If enough people see him trying to replace the first one by censorship, he might be less aggressively trying.
Fortunately, his approval rate is record low, part of this is likely due to his abuse of power and willingness to control everything. Unfortunately, the best opposant is currently accused of sexual abuse.
Then, another member of the G8 is Italy, with Berlusconi as the president....
Freedom of speech isn't a law of nature, and it wasn't handed down from God or whomever. In the United States it is provided by the Constitution. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and hate speech is forbidden, for example, members of the Westboro Baptist Church are banned from Canada.
Actually, the US constitution does not provide any rights, it does assume that Freedom of Speech and other rights are inherently ours and it only limits the powers of the federal government.
Didn't mean to imply it was, but in the US, it seems to be more permissive (ie. no matter how stupid and outrageous, you can say it) than in France. That's a general attitude about what is "allowed" to be said in the public sphere (a bit of a generalisation, but mostly confirmed on my biased sample of people I know on both countries).
eg. when Chomsky said that Faurisson had the right to write whatever crap he wanted (ie. pro freedom of speech), it was widely understood in France as a support of Faurisson's theories (Haulocaust denial)
Which is rather ironic in a country where Voltaire is said to have written "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I don't think Russia needs approval from from G8 to control the internet traffic. I am not from Russia, but from one of the post soviet countries, so I can assure you things are run differently over here. Russia might seem to be one of the most democratic countries (among post soviet countries), but from the inside it is completely another story.
Sure, it's a synonym, but usage dictates it's incorrect to say "actual President" when you mean "current President", whereas "actual situation" is okay. The original context the writer is most certainly French where actuel means current, however the usage generates a false cognate.
Albeit spending most of my time speaking/thinking English, I'd have to confirm that French is my mother tongue. Well, swiss French, but close enough ;)
And I meant to write about the current president indeed.
Speaking as a professional translator, let me encourage you to look beyond dictionary definitions - each definition in a dictionary means that the word in question can stand in a particular role. A true pair of synonyms would coincide in meaning in all situations. Dictionaries can be very dangerous tools indeed in unsure hands. I know I've injured myself with them repeatedly, as has every translator at some time or another.
"Actual" is a common mistranslation from French or German. As a rule of thumb, actuel/aktuell can almost always be translated as "current". "Actual" in English means something more like "true".
In the phrase "actual situation", "actual" does take on the Latin meaning of "existing now or current", but you can see that today's gloss of "true" also fits there: "true situation" works pretty well to describe the actual situation. Although come to think of it, "actual situation" sounds little odd to my ear (although that is a very dangerous metric, because everything can sound odd if you think too hard about it).
It's one of those instances where a synonym isn't actually (ha!) equivalent, and doesn't quite work the same way in the sentence. In this case, 'actual President' would contrast with some fake President running around, whereas 'current President' contrasts with the upcoming President.
As a French I don't vote anymore. The truth is that Freedom is incompatible with having full time elected people at all scales of the society, since they need to justify their work by taking all kinds of unsollicited stances and intempestive measures.
Left or Right ? Both of them will spend the most of their time fulfulling their purpose : to make new laws. Generally on a wide range of topics they don't understand (not only the Internet).
Unfortunately, the blank vote isn't recognized in France: abstention is the best option. So far, no political party suggests that we drastically reduce the number and power of representatives.
I think your stance should be commended. However, while they do say "We want full time parliamentary elected representatives, free to set their own agenda, free to control the country's budget, free to debate all public issues...", what are your thoughts on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Alternative ?
In the age of the web, we have the power to make democracy more direct. I also believe we don't need so much statemen whose daily job is to make new laws. A strong and centralized state is mandatory during war, and that's it.
In aviation, a lot of crashes could have been avoided if the captain released the commands instead of desperatly hook on them, because the plane is programmed to get back on its feets alone.
It think it would be the same for our governments, people would be really surprised to see that the world wouldn't collapse if you removed the bulk of our elected and non-elected statemen. We give them too much credits. The industrial revolution happened in spite of them rather than thanks to them, that's why every western european country encountered about the same progress overall with different political systems. Unless a certain amount of freedom was missing, progress grew naturally. Thats what happening right now with the Internet.
Ah, the G8 and G20, only getting things done that benefit everyone at the top. These meetings are meetings for collusion, none of the leaders represent the actual values of voters.
Italy + France trying to get some of glory back they once had. Wanting to have the success Germany has had these past years. Problem is that Germans like quality and working while the French, Italians, Spanish, Portugese and Greek do not. The latter countries protest against unemployment (???), higher pensions ages and higher taxes. They waste time instead of working for their countries to get better. Then get in a few corrupt presidents who like to be popular instead of running/saving their countries (give me Merkel any day over those imbeciles in FR/IT/ES). France needs to do something to get it's former glory back, so yeah, why not try to get 'control' over the internet?
Disclaimer: I live in NL/FR/ES, not in Germany. I spent a lot of time in all 4, although my main country is NL; the Spanish and French are just lazy. Nothing else to say about it; they really do not want to work, just maintain their level of comfort. Come on; protesting unemployment? They want cushy jobs from the government in government run facilities so they cannot get fired. What crazy attitude is that? /endrant
Edit: downvoters; reply and tell what's wrong with this; I live(d) in all these countries; I know the people and I know the mindset. Most inhabitants agree with these sentiments. Maybe you (hopefully you live in one?) don't, but you can have the decency to reply he?
Your contribution sounds like repeating common stereotypes. Now we all know stereotypes often have a grain of truth to them, but nonetheless it's useless to use them as argumentats.
At any rate, protesting unemployment can be understood in various ways. Suppose the protester's postulates were: less taxation on small business, simplier laws to ease running small businesses, wide-ranging education on running own business, a bit of import/export protection -- now that'd make some sense, right?
The thing about unemployment is that you can't just stand up and work on something and then sell it -- aside of labor (what you have), you need capital (both liquid assets and infrastructure) and enought knowledge to pull bargaining with (parts, materials) vendors and customers as well as to navigate the legal framework.
The actual french President is a control freak. Sarkozy has strong relationship with most of the private media owners and is using it.
He has since the start of his mandate tried to control the internet eg.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/may/13/france...
He is (ab)using a common view in France that speech should be controlled and freedom of speech isn't absolute. For instance, it is illegal to make xenophobic or racists comments. La quandrature du net is doing a good job of exposing the latest of his attacks and, hopefully public pressure can shame him out of his willingness to control everything.
He likes the French motto of "Liberty, equality fraternity". If enough people see him trying to replace the first one by censorship, he might be less aggressively trying.
Fortunately, his approval rate is record low, part of this is likely due to his abuse of power and willingness to control everything. Unfortunately, the best opposant is currently accused of sexual abuse.
Then, another member of the G8 is Italy, with Berlusconi as the president....
Interesting countries, all in all.