digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

France to Make Public Promotion of Thinness Illegal

online.wsj.com — PARIS --The French parliament's lower house adopted a groundbreaking bill Tuesday that would make it illegal for anyone -- including fashion magazines, advertisers and Web sites -- to publicly incite extreme thinness.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • cybrspin, on 04/16/2008, -31/+22about time
    • jemka, on 04/16/2008, -14/+9Dear France,

      Stop using skeletons with flesh on them to market your clothing line. Take a typical model from Maxim, FHM, or even the Victoria Secret catalog and compare them to one of your models. Notice how one looks healthy and the other one looks like its already dead? Notice how you immediately want to have sex with one and you want to hook the other to a feeding tube?

      P.S. Feed your models some French Fries.

      Yours Truly,
      Sensibility.
      • spaceddaisy, on 04/16/2008, -2/+14You mean the models in FHM or Victoria's Secret catalog that are also underweight, but have bigger boobs?

        I'm fat compared to those girls, while I'm slim and my weight is perfectly healthy
        • BOFH2, on 04/16/2008, -3/+8comparing yourself to anyone else is a waste of time.
          • spaceddaisy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6Oh I don't, fortunately, am very happy with myself :)

            But it shows how some people have very surrealistic images of how women are supposed to look if FHM models are supposedly healthy-looking and 'normal' women.
          • relentless1914, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Maxim and FHM are known to digitally edit photos to make women look thinner. Beyonce is an example..
          • jemka, on 04/16/2008, -5/+1Why don't you post a picture and show us what healthy looks like?
          • bowe, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2FHM and Maxim models look like they have plastic skin.
      • jemka, on 04/16/2008, -7/+3You being "fat" is perception. You either have visible excess fat on your body or you don't. Do you even know your own body fat percentage? Do you even know what your body would look like with a healthy body fat percentage?
        No one with a healthy body fat percentage would ever call themselves fat, unless they has psychological problems, which is the exact type of person this bill is trying to help.
        • spaceddaisy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7I know I'm not fat, I said I'm slim and healthy. I'm quite happy with how I look.

          If you honestly believe the models you mentioned are of a 'healthy' weight and body fat percentage, you proved my point. I'm not just talking about women's own perception of their bodies, but also the perception of men (young men especially) of how women are 'supposed' to look.
        • jemka, on 04/16/2008, -8/+1It has nothing to do with perception. Your point isn't factual or objective, it's subjective. It doesn't matter if I or you think these women have a heathly body fat percentage. It only matters if they actually do. Until we go with them on their medical exams and look at the numbers ourselves its all speculation.
          Much like your speculating that you're not fat and slim and healthy. If you don't know your body fat percentage, then you're going by perception.
          • spaceddaisy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6What would be the point of lying about my body or my fat percentage? I'm just not the kind of person to post "pix" of myself online or post my numbers or 'fat measurements' to prove myself to complete strangers.
          • jemka, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1The point is you don't know your body fat percentage. You're labeling yourself "healthy", "not fat", and "slim" based on perception, not fact. I thought you understood that by now.
          • spaceddaisy, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I do know my percentage and it's fine, since I've lost weight under professional guidance.

            I just don't think it's any of YOUR business.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3Next France is going to have police stand out on the street and tackle, restrain, and force feed anyone who is 'thin'
    • airquotes, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3I dont like anorexia at all, but we cant celebrate the sickness or stupidity of some people leading to more laws that restrict the majorities.. Government isnt supposed to police every facet of humanity and as the status quo becomes more stupid, we lose more and more personal freedoms, it is very scary, nothing to applaud.
    • jbenson2, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Here is a montage I created with some of these Parisian waifs.
      http://tinyurl.com/4n659h

      Question: What do the European males see in these beanpoles?
  • tobybarnett, on 04/16/2008, -15/+35Sounds like a waste of time!
    • nbcaffeine, on 04/16/2008, -8/+21Moar like a WAIST of time mirite!
      God I'm dumb
    • homercles337, on 04/16/2008, -7/+4No doubt. Sounds like the fatties got some political power or something.
    • Pstall, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Sounds like a waste of freedom.
  • louiebaur, on 04/16/2008, -29/+32Maybe this will help end anorexia and bulimia.
    • badenglishihave, on 04/16/2008, -5/+76I had a friend who was anorexic at one point and I sympathize but I really don't think government intervention is the answer. It rarely is.
      • Spuy767, on 04/16/2008, -13/+9While I normally tend to agree on a nonintervention policy by governments, in this case, I find it hard to fault. This is the government enacting a policy to curb an unhealthy trend, no different that a government policy saying that you can't encourage drinking and driving.
      • sparkrainfir, on 04/16/2008, -5/+25Agreed. Anorexia and bulimia is a personal issue. You can't blame anyone for it. That would be like blaming a salesman for selling you garbage. (your the one that bought it!)
        • xerosawyer, on 04/16/2008, -1/+11you're*
        • pintomp3, on 04/16/2008, -4/+8teenage girls tend to be impressionable. if the only type of woman held up as "models" are impossibly thin. then it creates an unattainable body image.
          • sparkrainfir, on 04/16/2008, -6/+12If you are Impressionable, that is your problem. Not the governments.

          • ronar, on 04/16/2008, -2/+10I'm generally against government intervention but you have to look into reality, you can't fix people from being impressionable, it's just the way the human mind works for many, but you can change the idea of body image. On the other hand, being thin is just a temporary fashion trend anyway, it will probably change again with time.
            Also, the French healthcare system is paid by the government and it means it has an interest in preventing people from getting sick.
          • kittynipples, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3"Also, the French healthcare system is paid by the government and it means it has an interest in preventing people from getting sick."

            So we have finally gotten to the crux of the issue... and the larger problem with the government providing all of these services - namely, they can be used as justification for the government to step in and take control of every other aspect of our lives.

            Watching TV all day and not exercising has been shown to cause people to be less healthy. Perhaps the government should compel us, through force of law, to exercise daily and limit the amount of TV we watch as well?
          • dancercotillion, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2You know, we'd probably be a much healthier series of nations if we were mandated through legislature to exercise daily. So I don't see what the problem is, kittynipples. Some people obviously don't know how to take care of themselves.
          • KodomoNoJikan, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Hey, perhaps you could consider it social darwinism for all the lemmings out there.
        • cawpin, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4xerosawyer - If you're going to correct somebody, do it completely.

          "Anorexia and bulimia is a personal issue"

          Anorexia and bulimia are personal issues.
      • asdfrewq, on 04/16/2008, -3/+6"I had a friend who was anorexic at one point and I sympathize but I really don't think government intervention is the answer. It rarely is."
        Forgive me for going off topic, but I don't fully understand this view that government intervention is, by virtue, a bad thing. It appears to be a typical American view but it's not universal, and also not entirely confined to the US. Is it to do with a poor overall confidence in governmental decision making? Protection of civil liberties? Help me understand.

        Now, I understand that the government deserves no right to control minute details of our lives, but if they're not there to serve us, the voting public, then what exactly is their purpose? Is there so little faith in the democratic process that we don't believe our elected officials are doing what's best for our interests?

        Spuy767 said it and got dugg down, but it's an interesting question that no one bothered to answer. Is there really any difference between this and laws against encouraging drink driving?
        • sphigel, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3"I don't fully understand this view that government intervention is, by virtue, a bad thing"

          I, as well as many others, do believe that government intervention is for the most part inherently bad. So called regulation usually ends up serving the interests of large corporations. Once government gets it claws in any industry you will see it grow and grow until they ultimately have complete control.
          • asdfrewq, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2So I ask again, what exactly is the purpose of government?
          • justinx0r, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2To protect individual rights.
          • ubuwalker31, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1@justinx0r:
            The government established by the constitution was created not just to protect individual rights. In fact, the bill of rights was an "afterthought" of sorts, adopted by the First Congress. In fact, the preamble to the Constitution says that the purpose of government is to form "a more perfect union", "to establish justice", to "insure domestic tranquility", to "provide for the common defense", to "promote the general welfare", and lastly, to "secure liberty".
        • ubuwalker31, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3@asdfrewg
          It is not a "typical American view", it is a view of a very loud, yet extremely small minority of people, who identify with a political philosophy called libertarianism. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism - its a very complex topic since there is a lot of fragmentation of political philosophies within the group that range from Regan era Republican notions of small government to Anarcho-capitalism.
          As far as whether banning extremely thin models is any different than banning drunk driving...well, IMHO, being thin or fat doesn't have potentially immediate deadly results to people around you...but essentially, this is about the public health, safety and welfare of the country, and at least here in the United States, such laws must be reasonable...and there seems to be a disconnect between whether banning these ads would lead to better body image....
        • dancercotillion, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1The people who rail against this policy against portrayals of overly thin people are the same people who will get upset that the government doesn't do more to stop stuff like drunk driving. Don't sweat it, asdfrewq. They don't know WHAT they want.

          But in my opinion, the government is in place to guide our societies. They give us laws, a method to enforce them, public services, all that jazz. If they have to step in and say "Stop making people convinced that being cadaverously slender is the best way to live, *****!", but by all means, step in and say it, governments. The people obviously can't be trusted to get it through their own heads. Democratic governments, at least, are here to serve the people they represent, and if service means telling us what to not do sometimes, I'm fine with that.

          Governments are not sitting there waiting for any chance to take away our civil liberties just to make a buck for Wal-Mart. Anyone who says otherwise is a deranged individual, most likely digging from a shack in the woods where their gun collection shines pristinely in the gaslight. Possibly, those people are their own uncles, as well, proudly flying the Confederate flag from the back of their GM pickup.
      • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Even if it happens to help, forcing people to do it is still wrong.
        • dancercotillion, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1They're not forcing anyone to do anything. They're prohibiting them from doing something. It's a fine line between "YOU MUST DO THIS, THE LAW SAYS SO" (which, by the way, no such law exists) and "Please don't do that anymore. It's the law now."

          Laws are inheirantly prohibitive. No law will tell you to take an action, just to withhold one. Like murder. It's illegal to murder someone, right? It's illegal to steal. Illegal to molest a child. Even laws that seem to tell you to do something are actually prohibitive, again. You "must" carry your driver's licence when driving? More like you mustn't forget it, lest you be charged.

          Laws are simply there to help society run smoother, and to let people know the values of that society. Obviously, France has decided that encouraging the negative body image of skeletal models is no longer something they want their society to do. Why is this offensive to some people?
    • dOOBiEx213, on 04/16/2008, -16/+6How about helping put an end to obesity which actually, you know, kills? Double standard fail.
      • Coffeedemon, on 04/16/2008, -3/+11Fail for being a moron. Plenty of people die from chasing thinness too.
      • KraftDinner101, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5You're so stupid. You think anorexia and bulimia don't kill people? The short sightedness of your statement astounds me.
        • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2Short sightedness...hmm.

          Do you realize 60% of the American population is overweight or obese, whereas anorexia... only 0.6%

          You do realize that, don't you?
        • dancercotillion, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2If we want people to be not giant-eat-monsters, SabrinaHeaven, we must show them a realistic, healthy goal. Banning depictions of incredibly skinny people is a decent first step.
          • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2And you know this how?

            Tell the truth now. Is there ANY scientific basis for your comment, or is it just what "feels" right, based on what you "know" about human nature and what is good or moral?
      • blarch, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2why do so many want to pick on the French over a step in the right direction. Hollywood just allows the problem to get worse. the next step forward is to get youtube.com to remove all of the videos promoting anorexia ("pro-ana") that have been posted years ago and never removed. most guys these days like them thangs round, altho there are a few that like the non-existent booty with a side of ribcage. Ozzy Osbourne fans are the only guys i can think of that are attracted to skeletons.
    • homercles337, on 04/16/2008, -10/+17No it wont. All its going to do is make the fatties "feel better" about themselves. Put down the milkshake and pick up a dumbbell!
      • BOFH2, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3I tried picking you up but dead weight is dead weight
      • KraftDinner101, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2FACE!
        • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1You are working for the destruction of mankind.
          • GrantTLC, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1"And you know this how?

            Tell the truth now. Is there ANY scientific basis for your comment, or is it just what "feels" right, based on what you "know" about human nature and what is good or moral?"
    • Rodman930, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5Those are mental problems. Not seeing skinny people on billboards won't stop it. They will just focus on the skinny people they see on the street.
    • steeeeve, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Nope. It will just create another greyzone of "can this possibly be interpreted as something we are not allowed to write?"
    • docquan, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5Maybe, but it certainly won't do anything to help obesity, which is arguably more damaging and affects a much larger segment of the population.
    • jessehadden, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2These disorders predate the media.
  • roosevans, on 04/16/2008, -25/+71Because France is ostensibly the "fashion capital" of the world and top models are slender young women anyway, the law is obviously intended to stop models from becoming anorexic and encouraging other would be models from becoming anorexic. Sounds like a good law for France to me.
    • Bantec, on 04/16/2008, -7/+33How about a law against the promotion of violence? I mean if we are going to allow the government to become the thought police, lets start with something that takes a few more INNOCENT lives. Then we can illegalize any promotion of reckless driving. Every movie would be held to a 10 o'clock 2 o'clock standard. Car accidents from reckless driving take many many more lives than anorexia. How about illegalizing any promotion of anything that is bad for your heart. Like sitting around on your fat ass and waiting for the government to fix all of societies problems!
      • Elderon, on 04/16/2008, -6/+8I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand something though. When young people go to the movies they don't think 'wow awesome car crashes lets go ram into people and kill them for fun!" but they would think to themselves "wow that person is pretty hot, if i was like them maybe people would like me more". Thats the problem. People will go to great lengths to feel accepted and for a lot of people that means being thin.
        • TekTrixter, on 04/16/2008, -4/+8It should not, however, be the government's place to interfere. It is up to parents to ensure that their children (and teens) have a healthy body image.
          • jebudas, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4Should billboards along our highways be alllowed to advertise porn? Eventually it becomes impossible to shield your children from everything, and that is why you have to draw a line somewhere.
        • Screwy1138, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3Yes, and anybody who believes in freedom would clearly understand that this is not the government's place, that the government is not (nor should it be) responsible people's personal choices. If your personality makes you susceptable to anorexia, I'm sorry, but you are responsible for fighting that urge just like others are susceptable to other things that are bad for them (obesity is in my genes, should I blame everyone else for advertising potato chips?)
        • asdfrewq, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4Ok, so most governments in the western world have a ban on tobacco promotion. Does that mean they are imposing on the individuals free choice to smoke? Of course not, but they're restricting tobacco companies from actively promoting something that is harmful to population.

          These sort of governmental regulations exist everywhere, and I just don't get how this is different. If people want to be anorexic, they still have that choice, by all means, only now they won't have people in the media with certain agendas promoting being wafer thin as the solution to all life's problems.
        • Bantec, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Good response by 'asdfrewg'. Sounds good in theory, but it doesn't hold up. Who is deciding what is good for you? Anorexia is to general health of people as a hair is to an elephants ass. This is a conditioning/ feel good law. First it conditions you to having the government tell you what you can view, hear, say etc.. Second, it makes the author and his supporters seem like they genuinely care about society. Problem that most socialists like yourself don't seem to realize is that this always starts out well-intentioned and ALWAYS ends up in tyranny. It's very tempting to allow the government to legislate morality. Especially when it seems so obviously benign. Problem is, most of the people running the government are morally inept, and once we begin to accept them telling us how to thing, act, say etc....... well, you seem intelligent.
          • asdfrewq, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I agree that the government has no right to dictate what you view, hear or say. That's a no-brainer. I think you may, however, be blowing the law in question out of proportion. To quote the article:
            "The bill mainly targets Internet sites that explicitly encourage anorexia, offering tips on food deprivation."
            Now, this may be short-sighted and ultimately useless given the nature of the internet, as far as I'm concerned this can only be considered in the best interests of the people.

            What concerns me is you seem to believe that our elected officials are inherently bad people who are not working for our best interests. This would indicate a complete breakdown of the entire democratic process, which is a pretty worrying prospect. If this is the case, and the system is indeed broke, shouldn't we be a little more worried about fixing it rather then debating on the internet?
    • WNW3, on 04/16/2008, -7/+2This has to be the first time I've agreed with anything France has done...well, this and French toast.....MMMmmmmmmmmmm
      • WNW3, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1What? You bastards don't like French toast?
    • Onychophora, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5Exactly. Models are *told* to starve themselves by their modeling agencies. Occasionally, they starve to death. If those aren't abusive labor conditions, I don't know what is.
      A lot of the girls are from poor Eastern European countries, and desperate. A lot of their fellow countrywomen come to wealthier countries and wind up prostitutes, so the option of mere starvation could look good in comparison. I don't think they have a lot of choices.
      • Bantec, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1So if you are working in such a crappy industry, find a new profession. Try using your brain. I don't hear people crying for bodybuilders being pressured to look bigger. Booh hoo! Maybe living in a 'Material World' isn't all it's cracked up to be. And don't give me that crap about being 'forced into prostitution'. Like women having to dance at strip clubs to get through college. If you're that stupid, then you are right were you're supposed to be.
    • OriginalReplica, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1What needs to be understood is WHY the models are super tall and thin. First you have to understand the real purpose of fashion show: to sell product lines to retailers. Models are there to be walking clothes hangers, the designers don't want things like curves to interfere with the displaying of the clothes. People in the industry understand this, but when magazines show everyone the photos of "next year's hot fashions" people think they are actually supposed to look like the super skinny models. I have worked at a number of fashion shows in NYC, and I can tell you first hand, that there is nothing less sexy than a six foot tall girl whose thighs are the same size as my calves.
  • OfNumbers, on 04/16/2008, -5/+17Do I really need to reference their first ladies nude photos? I see more ribs than monetary value. And it sold for a LOT.
  • SpencerLavery, on 04/16/2008, -17/+9Rather they made promotion of ugliness illegal
  • dOOBiEx213, on 04/16/2008, -4/+15Paris not welcomed in France...interesting.
  • hirshi, on 04/16/2008, -10/+97I am not a supporter of extreme thinness and eating disorders, but why should the state have any say in this?
    • Azio, on 04/16/2008, -22/+19Because in modern societies government serves the public good. It's not just a corporate tax cut rubber-stamping apparatus like the US gov't
      • FLarsen, on 04/16/2008, -6/+19So? If it conflicts with peoples freedom of speech and choice, it's bad.
        • Opiate, on 04/16/2008, -7/+18Don't try to rationalize socialism, it can't be done.
        • Handcannons, on 04/16/2008, -13/+5Those so called modern societies don't have the US constitution and don't have the same freedom of speech. They aren't nearly as enlightened as they like to believe.
        • mister23, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5neither are we.
        • nobelief, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Handcannon, stop acting like the constitution means anything anymore
        • GrantTLC, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1By that logic, FLarsen, we should remove all prohibitions relating to murder, rape, arson, theft...

          This law is designed to protect people from harm, same as those others. Whether it will work or not is an entirely different matter.
          • FLarsen, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Murder, rape, arson and theft are crimes committed against another person. Being murdered or raped, and getting your property burned or stolen, are not something you consent to, it is forcefully done to you. That is why those things should be illegal (as they are).

            Laws should protect peoples freedom, this law does the opposite.
      • cranium, on 04/16/2008, -3/+23You don't serve the public good by micromanaging everyone's lives.
      • govsucks, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Public good? Whatever. Government sucks. Yeah, this is far more important than double digit unemployment numbers in France. You live in a magical world don't you. Maybe they are so skinny cause they can't find a ***** job.
    • shauncorleone, on 04/16/2008, -6/+15The state shouldn't have any say. Given how the US big government types (in all parties) love looking to Europe for inspiration, I'd bet we'll see legislation like this proposed sometime soon. We already have municipal governments banning certain types of fats and cooking oils. Because after all, who is an individual to make health decisions on his/her own? This simply isn't the government's place.
      • lionpirate, on 04/16/2008, -6/+2Until Americans can prove that they are smart enough to handle their own choices, which by the way they are failing miserably at, their government will have to continue to attempt to make "the right" choice for them. Not everyone in the states has time or the education to know why trans fats are bad for them, they don't taste any different, they are easily replaced, they have no benefits, they should be banned.
        • sphigel, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4You seem to have it backwards. Increased government regulation is what makes people dumb. People have learned that they are not responsible for their actions. Mainly because politicians continue to tell them so.
          • xerigen, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Amen. It seems a lot of diggers are fans of borderline socialism.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Unfortunately (at least in the US) a lot of citizens think the government is that answer for everything.
      • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Educate yourself on the dangerous of trans fats before you complain about banning "certain types of fats and cooking oils."
        • shauncorleone, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Make sure you don't drink any coffee either. I think this week, studies show it's bad for you.
          If I want to eat food that has trans fats in it, it's my decision, not my local representatives'. Newsflash: LIFE has dangers. It's our job to educate ourselves and make the final decisions on what to eat and what to avoid. It is not my government's job to mediate my diet or lifestyle, then raise my taxes to do so. If I want to have McDonald's for lunch, I shouldn't have to drive out of town because my local community is disallowing development of fast food restaurants.
          • SabrinaHeaven, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2I repeat: EDUCATE yourself on the dangers of trans fats before you post such ignorant comments. There is no comparison between coffee and trans fats--the two substances are not similar. You are making these comments out of a bullheaded belief in "individual liberty" with no regard for science or public health. You are not a thinker, and that offends me.
        • govsucks, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Most of the trans fat seems to be safely contained between your ears. Not a freedom lover are you?
    • Uranium118, on 04/16/2008, -2/+10To play the devil's advocate, it's basically the same in the US too. Anorexia is unhealthy and France doesn't want to promote it. In the US, you will never see someone drinking beer in a beer commercial. Public promotion of alcohol consumption is not allowed in the US, why should the state have any say in that? Then we can talk about pornographic censorship but that's another thing...
      • steeeeve, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2"It is just the same somewhere else" is no argument for or against anything.
      • yournightmare, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4"Public promotion of alcohol consumption is not allowed in the US, why should the state have any say in that?"

        --First, I'm pretty sure beer commercials and print ads count as "public promotion of alcohol consumption," even if they don't show people actually drinking the beverages. Second, the state shouldn't have in say that so you aren't doing a good job of playing devil's advocate.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Agreed. That's a bad analogy. It would be like saying that you can show skinny people, you just can't show them not eating.
          • Ahnteis, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Your analogy is worse. Beer is the PRODUCT. Clothing/fashion is the PRODUCT. Those are the things that should be compared if you are going to make an analogy.

            You can show beer, but you can't show people people it. You can show the clothes, but you can't show skinny people wearing it. See how it works?
    • Screwy1138, on 04/16/2008, -8/+2Yet I suppose you're all for national healthcare. *sigh* wake up people.
      • Screwy1138, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2Of course I got dugg down for my comment, but I fail to see the difference. Nationalized healthcare is going to be the grounds for loads of "take care of you" laws and regulations. We'll literally be making them our nanny.
        • shauncorleone, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Amen. John Edwards' plan included mandatory yearly examinations, and possible disqualification from the government-sponsored program if you did not submit to this requirement. Aside from the fact that I haven't had a physical in several years out of personal choice, what if I forgot? Where's my alternative plan to sign up that doesn't have this requirement? Oh that's right, it wouldn't exist.
    • TotalHalibut, on 04/16/2008, -4/+6EU states don't play from the same non-interventionist laissez-faire score. That's not how it works over there. The government does take an active role in people's lives, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/16/2008, -6/+5Actually it is necessarily a bad thing and rarely a good thing. Governments are terrible at managing most of the projects that they take on and are efficient at very few projects that they take on.
        • TotalHalibut, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Not quite. Your government is terrible at it, doesn't mean they all are. The world's a big place, and there's rarely such thing as a universal truth.
    • ZenMojo, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6Yes, how dare the state tell you whether or not you can promote the self-destruction of individuals. I wonder if it would be okay for a guy to make a billboard saying, "Kill yourself, smoke, and inject yourself with AIDS, kids," or is there some imaginary line where state intervention is reasonable or not?
      • shauncorleone, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Promoting a fashion line using very thin models is hardly the same thing as promoting suicide. That being said, you've made me want to inject myself with kids.
        The problem with the "imaginary" line is that it's not fixed. A perfect example is a northeast municipal government (NY or MA) trying to ban smoking in your car, and now areas are trying to ban smoking in your home. The government has NO place in my residence.
  • Tssst, on 04/16/2008, -19/+5For once.. france does something sensible
  • nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -3/+41I don't understand why they use the word "thinness" and not something along the lines of state of being grossly underweight. Thin and Underweight are too very different concepts. There is nothing wrong with being thing, but being underweight isn't healthy.
    • nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -5/+3Correction: "There is nothing wrong with being //thin//, but being underweight isn't healthy."
      • nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4why did my correction to a type for my own comment get burried?
        • analogkid01, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Because it's more fun to think that you were making a point about the acceptability of being a disembodied hand.
        • yournightmare, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2I didn't digg down your comment, but I don't agree that "being underweight isn't healthy." You can be underweight and healthy, you can be overweight and healthy. There is certainly a point at which it becomes unhealthy, but that point is different for different people.
          • nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3By definition, being underweight or overweight is when a person passes what is scientifically considered to be a healthy weight.
          • yournightmare, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1I, like the vast majority of people, just use the common dictionary definition for underweight--"weighing less than the normal amount for one's age, height, and build." This is the definition I use, and clearly it allows much more leeway than your definition for underweight.

            But since you disagreed with me, I decided to search the web a little bit. Wikipedia was the only site I could find that says it means what you say it means, but it also has this caveat: "It is important to note that the BMI is a statistical estimate and some individuals classified as underweight may be perfectly healthy." The American Dietetic Association says that for men, a BMI less than 20 is underweight, but it generally doesn't start to become unhealthy until you drop to around 17 or 18. I don't know where you got your definition, but it's either not correct or open to debate even in the medical community.
          • theHM, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2If you want to be pedantic, "individuals classified as underweight" aren't actually underweight, so what nominalgeek said is right. The BMI is an estimate or guide to whether people are under- or over- weight.
          • Ahnteis, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2The medical community congregates on wikipedia?
          • macoafi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2@yournightmare: Minimum BMI for a normal weight is 18.5 according to http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ Granted, I was healthy with a BMI around 12 when I was younger. I was just too active of a little kid to gain weight. Now that I'm a lazy geek who spends all day in bed with a laptop, it's 19.

            When your skin hangs from bones with no tone between them and your cheeks sink in, then you know for certain you are an unhealthy sort of underweight.
    • umdigger, on 04/16/2008, -6/+10And why don't they make really overweight people illegal too?
      • nominalgeek, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3I'm not saying that this is right, but I think their semantics could use some work. My girlfriend is under 100lbs, not because shes starving herself but because her body burns fats excessively fast, people give her ***** for be anorexic all the time. I think/feel that if we're gonna make steps towards removing the public appeal of being excessively underweight that we should at least be intelligent about it and make the proper distinctions between thin and grossly underweight just like overweight and obese.
      • mickoneill30, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2They probably would if anybody thought that being overweight was a good thing.
        Being underweight can cause you lots of problems, even death but some people aspire to be a lot lighter or smaller because of the images in these mags. I don't think putting a group of fatties in a mag is going to make me want to eat more to be like them.
        • ceraphin, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1lol have you seen those fat pride groups man are they scary
      • Tippis, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3It's in the works – just like this measure prohibits advocating malnourishment through starving yourself, there are laws being worked on that will prohibit advocating malnourishment through overeating unhealthy food...
    • talonstriker, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2They used "excessive thinness"...I think the adjective makes a difference. But yeah, I don't see why they didn't use "anorexia" or something of the sort.
      • kirralin23, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Because "excessive thinness" can be caused by more eating disorders than anorexia alone.
    • priegog, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Yeah, they kindda make me feel illegal :(
  • jkahrs595, on 04/16/2008, -10/+11I never got the whole fashion thing. Clothes, regardless of who they're made by, all serve the same purpose. If you think that certain clothing items will make you more sophisticated/intelligent/what have you... then maybe you need to rethink your priorities. Fashion is only there to give people a false sense of what beauty really is.
    • skatastrophy, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5And that is why you'll never be popular ;p
    • atomicrobot, on 04/16/2008, -6/+5And I suppose you think art is the same? Meaningless background noise, designed to separate people by their level of sophistication? Seriously, you're a ***** philistine. The reason you don't get it is because you don't have any class.
      • smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -3/+5Haha, "class". What exactly IS class (in your context) if not a notion that certain objects and behaviors are good indicators of a person's character? It is retarded to assume that because someone does or doesn't completely conform to your idea of social/cosmetic taste they are somehow unworthy to be in your presence

        For the record, art is a means of self-expression and usually intended to convey some sort of substantive message. What is considered good art, unlike "good" fashion, isn't for profit, doesn't immediately have 500000 copies manufactured and doesn't go out of style and get tossed aside in 6 months when the latest trend is released. To compare them is an insult to art and artists everywhere
        • Spottswood, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1In my life, I strive to stay as far away from materialism as possible. However i dont think that that would mean a denial of the link between economic tastes/preferences and personality.
          I dont think atomicrobot implied by 'class' that people are 'unworthy to be in his presence'. Thats bull *****. If you think that there is such a thing as good music and bad music, good and bad clothing, then by extension there is good and bad taste.
          And lastly, something is not deemed art by its scarcity nor by its timelessness. You clearly do not understand art, so dont claim to defend it or its artists.
          • smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2I try to remove myself from materialism and trends as well and, like you, I don't do so to *deny* such a link between taste/personality, but rather to transcend it and hopefully encourage others to do the same.

            I concede I may have been overly critical of atomic's use of the word but I find it demeaning in such a context where he/she seemed to imply jk was somehow deficient or inelegant for not not appreciating fashion or for, accurately IMO, perceiving it as an inefficient/misguided method of defining economic/intellectual status.

            As for the art statement, you clearly misinterpreted it I believe. Art is highly subjective and takes many forms. I was attempting to describe differences between what is *commonly accepted* as *good* art and *good* fashion. I'm not pretending to fully understand art or artists in general but based on my own belief of what art is, I find it completely dissimilar to fashion.

            Regardless of how well I understand art, I will try to defend it (and most other things I respect to some degree) when I see it being misrepresented or diminished in some capacity. Excuse me if my interpretation isn't up to standard with whatever you believe or were taught etc. The way I see it, true art is personal expression for the sole purpose of expressing and a lot of the modern definition and nuances are the result of social and economic pressure to contort or manifest expressions into what they want (like fashion for instance)
      • solid12345, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3General art is appreciated by millions. The only people who appreciate these clown custom rags on the catwalk are HIV infected weirdos whose brains runs on a combination of martinis, crab cakes, and laxative pills.
    • brettg102, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6@atomicrobot: I'm going to go ahead and guess you'll be in the vast minority on digg who have a great appreciation for high fashion....he's a philistine? You're a pretentious *****. Let me know when a fashion tab is added under lifestyle...
    • solid12345, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Fashion is a scam anyway. Historically all fashion trends are set by what the common man wears not what millionaire fashionistas tell you what to wear. You think the classic black suit and a tie was set in stone by catwalks and magazines? Hell no, it looks good because most people know it looks good after a century of established practice.
  • smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -8/+5As long as they properly define "extreme" it sounds like a good thing to me, but I'm wary of the "anyone" in the description. Will this infringe on individual free speech?

    *proceeds to actually read the article*
  • bmorlok, on 04/16/2008, -13/+7This is great. I feel it is similar to stopping anything glorifying smoking in the media.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -4/+6Yeah, maybe one day we can block all violence from the media too, and then the handicapped, handicapped people are depressing. And then maybe we can move on to meat, meat and meat products are bad for you so they shouldn't be allowed. And then maybe we could illegalize extreme sports because they're dangerous. Oh, and bicycles, bicycles are very dangerous.

      The ideal would be to just put everybody in pillowed boxes and have them move around at a speed of no more than 4 km/h using motorized propulsion, so they won't strain their muscles. Oh and things that are too bright should also be illegalized, either that or make everybody wear sunglasses at all times. And music should never be louder than 20 decibels, and no high pitches.

      One day, we will be free of all of these dangers, the great mother state will take care of our poor little brittle selves.
    • leopardflames, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1and i bet your one of the people who support the banning of the cartoons we all grew up with where the villians smoke and bugs bunny makes fun of everyone.
  • Latimer, on 04/16/2008, -11/+13Communists
    • funzo, on 04/16/2008, -11/+4Retard
    • Bantec, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4He's correct. This is something that a communist government would do. Actually, it's a form of Socialist thought process. 'Retard' is somebody who lacks the mental capacity to understand things like simple political concepts.
  • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Sounds juicy.
  • Sinnic, on 04/16/2008, -11/+44Promoting abusive food behavior? 3 years in PRISON?!

    If you have a problem, talk to someone. See a therapist. Throwing people in jail for 'incitement of excessive thinness' is ***** insane.
    • GrantTLC, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1"If you have a problem, talk to someone"

      Way to miss the point, you and the 33 mental midgets who have Dugg you up.

      It isn't the *victims* of eating disorders that will be hammered, but the people who willfully promote it. From the article you haven't read:-

      1) "The bill mainly targets Internet sites that explicitly encourage anorexia, offering tips on food deprivation."
      2) "Instead, the proposed law aims to crack down on "social pressure, notably exerted by the media," she said, adding that the bill targets anyone who "promotes abusive food behavior that can turn pathological."
  • nebbo, on 04/16/2008, -2/+12Why don't they just ban Skeletor?
  • donte, on 04/16/2008, -10/+41Nice to know that we here in the US don't have a monopoly on completely retarded laws.
  • SlackerCSB, on 04/16/2008, -3/+15I really thought this was going to link to a theOnion article.
  • diggSJaustin, on 04/16/2008, -10/+7Sounds to me like France could use a better Bill of Rights.
  • ukfoole, on 04/16/2008, -7/+9WTF? The Onion is now publishing at wsj.com?

    Oh.... it is real. Well, I guess this is due to France's expanding wastelines, they are outpacing the US in recent obesity increase rates.
    • DailyWail, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3I think you mistake France with England (the fattest country in Europe)
      • Navicerts, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1"outpacing" not already there. And it only makes sense that france would outpace other countries in europe since they are starting with a lower avg(weight) to begin with.
    • HappyScrappy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1As other countries adopt tough anti-smoking laws, their average weight will rise also.
  • spyd3rweb, on 04/16/2008, -10/+3Guess the Nazi occupation never really left.
  • qwertyuio, on 04/16/2008, -4/+7Apple is going to be pissed.
  • RaDeus, on 04/16/2008, -7/+1its abit weak, they should have put a BMI limit on all models and having a value under that limit makes you liable for forced psychological admission...
    should be anual or bi-anual checkups and random spot checking...
    • lucasmaximus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3BMI is *****.

      Some people can have a BMI which idicates that they are obese, when they are blatently look perfectly normal. And vise versa.

      Read here if you are interested

      http://themiddlemanager.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/q ...
    • ChanM, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0the body mass index (BMI) is old and should be thrown out the window. As Lucas mentioned the BMI may indicate an individual is obese when they can be in perfect health. Take an individual who is 6 feet tall and weighs 180 lbs with a BMI of 24.4 (normal). Now the individual packs on 20 lbs of muscle and weighs 200lbs with a BMI of 27.1. According to the BMI at 200lbs the individual is considered overweight. WTF? Throw that that piece of crap index out the window and create a new one that takes other things in consideration besides height/weight into consideration
      • kirralin23, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Packing on more muscle doesn't change the BMI. The problem may be that an inaccurate test was used. The only accurate way to measure BMI requires immersion in a pool of water. Most people don't ever have such a test done.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -6/+6So about the opposite?

    Shouldn't this also apply to all fast food chains? I don't see how they are not promoting abusive food behaviour.
    • Tippis, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4They are, and lawmakers are trying to work something out that will get them too. I suppose the difference is that the (fast)food industry has a slightly more powerful lobby than the "no-food" industry...
    • edzilla, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2We have a law (I'm french) that makes it mandatory for every ad that promotes food to include one of four or five sentences like "you should not eat to much sugar or fat".

      But most french people do think those laws suck.
  • blah247, on 04/16/2008, -4/+21do people not read the articles before they comment? "The bill mainly targets Internet sites that explicitly encourage anorexia"
    • Aitese, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5You think Digg users read articles? Click on the video section...choose any random video and compare the views to Diggs. I saw a Hillary video that had 2000+ Diggs and only 700 people had viewed it.
      • xerigen, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1I don't want to stick up for obamabots because they have ruined digg but youtube doesn't update views in real time.
      • kirralin23, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1lol
    • Navicerts, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Regardless of what it is meant to "target" laws can get used in a lot of different ways once they are in the books. It has to be very well written; and i doubt it will be. Hell, even if it was well written i disagree with the concept of writing laws to govern advertisements (so easily abused).
  • PompousPilots, on 04/16/2008, -11/+6they don't care much for free speech in europe.
    • Coffeedemon, on 04/16/2008, -4/+10Apparently they don't care for reading comprehension in Bloomington. What does this have to do with Free Speech?
    • wiihateeveryone, on 04/16/2008, -3/+8Tell you what, walk through an airport in the US and shout "I love Bin Laden!" a couple of times and see where freedom of speach gets you.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3Actually that's not against the law. You might get beaten down by an angry mob but you won't get arrested. However, if you were to shout "I love Bin Laden and I'm blowing this place up in the name of Allah!" then you could be arrested.... AND hopefully beaten down by an angry mob.
      • protogenxl, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2It wasn't me It was the chicken.
    • Aitese, on 04/16/2008, -2/+10I'm sorry but did you read the article? I'm guessing no. From a person who lives in a country where a TV network can be fined millions for showing a woman's bottom you want to talk about Europe and it's lack of freedom?

      The article...when you get round to read it instead of making baseless comments, is about websites that PROMOTE eating disorders like pro-ana sites.
      • steeeeve, on 04/16/2008, -4/+3Idiotic American laws don't make idiotic European laws any better.
        You can reinterpret a lot of things as promoting eating disorders, if you are creative enough.
        • Aitese, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2The point is...worry about idiotic American laws before pointing out idiotic European laws that don't effect you.
          • steeeeve, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1which presupposes, that i am American, which i am not.
      • justinx0r, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1So a law making it illegal to talk about how great anorexia is isn't an infringement of freedom of speech?
  • jordanau, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3Grocer and Farm Lobbyists.
  • sfacets, on 04/16/2008, -2/+6Is it just coincidence that the PM's wife is a model?
  • ninjacob, on 04/16/2008, -4/+8Freedom from choice
    • tuflehundon, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0Freedom of choice is an American right.
  • RonniePudding, on 04/16/2008, -4/+15Allowing any government to dictate what we can see and hear is NOT a step in the right direction.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Hitler would have to disagree with you.
    • GrantTLC, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1So there are no limits? Govts should allow us to watch kiddie porn after all?

      Schmuck.
  • mGARANDEUR1, on 04/16/2008, -7/+2So now people are going to be punished for being thin?
    • mickhead, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6No, people are going to be punished for promoting anorexia and food deprivation for the goal of being ultra thin.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Then when that doesn't work they'll go after the "users" of the pro-ana sites and arrest/fine them "for their own good". It's all about the slow slipper slope of stripping people of their rights.
    • drmangrum, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4You didn't read the article did you?

      You're not allowed to PROMOTE thinness. it's geared towards the fashion industries that destroy proper female image. They tell women they need to be excessively thin to be pretty when in reality women should have like 15% body fat.
      • mGARANDEUR1, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Does freedom of choice mean anything to you? The same type of arguments are made for why marijuana should stay illegal. How is it any of your business how thin models are? I'm sick of the notion that the people always need big brother's approval to do anything.
        • drmangrum, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3I don't give a rat's ass how thin models are. However, I *DO* give a rats ass about the industry telling people what is and is not attractive. Real women have boobs. Real women have butts. Real women don't look like a hat rack. This has nothing to do with big brother. This is about an industry that feeds on insecurities and breeds various disorders.

          That industry blatantly tells women they aren't pretty if they are not ultra thin. They hype it up by having only skeletons model their clothing, pimping their fragrance lines, and of course endorsing various weight loss regimen. They set the bar hopelessly out of reach and all the while rake in the cash.

          I'm sick of your notion that corporations have the right to rape our society.
    • Aitese, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3No...read the article fool.
  • SebK666, on 04/16/2008, -8/+11This is really great. =) A year ago a friend of mine died because of anorexia.
    My ex-girlfriend is anorexic and it's ruining her life. I really think this is going to help end anorexia and bulimia.
    • Screwy1138, on 04/16/2008, -4/+6So someone else made them anorexic? Or they chose to themselves? Because what they're trying to prosecute is those who encourage others to be anorexic. Another blow to personal responsibility. I'm sorry about those who have this psychologial and difficult problem, but they need to seek help and their family and friends have to intervene. This law is akin to prosecuting people for telling you to go kill yourself, I'm sorry, but each person is responsible for what they do to themselves.
      • tuflehundon, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3No someone else didn't make them anorexic. But public perception of what is thin did. These magazines and websites give our kids a distorted view of what is atractive. I have seen some of these models in person, and believe me they are not attractive. When they get next to a "normal healthy women" you get the proper perspective of how thin they are. A woman who is 5'10" should not weigh less that 100lbs. What we need to do is change the public perseption that this is OK. Becuse it's not, it's not healthy to be that small. Someone that thin is way more at risk than someone who is overweight. All I want to do when I see a women that small is shove a cheeseburger down her throat.
        • ryancxx, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1But the public perception isn't that it's ok. Tabloids spend as much time ridiculing celebrities who get really skinny as they do celebrities who get really fat, if not more time. I don't know anyone who actually finds extremely skinny people attractive, or any girls who actually wnat to look like that. We're all exposed to the same things and not everyone is suffering from anorexia/bulemia.
    • tman84, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3I'm glad we can help protect anorexic and bulimics at liberty's expense.
  • ssawyer06, on 04/16/2008, -3/+6How about a ban on fast food commercials that make you crave fries? Let's stop the public incitement towards obesity. Let's get people to step away from the Big Mac.
    • skewer324, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Obesity or not, next time I'm in France, I'm definitely getting a Royale with cheese
    • Smeeeprig, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1In some countries fast food commercials are already banned during kids tv.
    • macoafi, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Commercials make people crave fries? When free fries come with whatever I've ordered, I usually throw them away. I think I've eaten maybe 10 fries (individual fries, not orders of fries) in the last 3 or 4 years. Last time, I didn't slather ketchup all over it. They're not that good, taken as plain old fries. They're basically just tools for scooping ketchup. Why not get a spoon?
      • kirralin23, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1lol
      • GrantTLC, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Another response of the lines of: X doesn't bother me, so I don't believe it affects other people. God, I wish they taught empathy and critical thinking in schools nowadays.

        While opinions are valuable and even welcome in certain contexts, please try not to confuse them with studied reasoning by people in possession of all the facts.
  • jessdub99, on 04/16/2008, -9/+5America. Please Please follow suite, except instead of extreme thinness, ban the muffin-tops & rolls hanging out of obese women's bikinis! Summer's almost here so act fast!
    • Kythas, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2But then our women would lose the bodunkadunk!
    • Tippis, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2RTFA
    • tuflehundon, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I never understood why girls would want the muffin top, it make them look heavier than they are. Wear the right size pants and you will look better. Again this goes to the whole perseption of what is thin, they buy the wrong size and fit so they can say they are a size smaller. How many of you have had friends or girlfriend s that have had pants so tight that they had to lay down to zip them up?
    • macoafi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1WTF is a muffin top? I'm imagining when a woman gets a cup size too small and her boobs get that funny dent along the top edge of the bra and then they overflow from the top and cease to look like boobs.

      Oh....Google images shows the backfat that hangs over the back of your jeans. Yeah, that and plumbers crack both go away when you get pants that don't stop halfway to your cooch and you wear a belt (to keep it from sliding down and showing the plumbers crack).
  • ErikHarrison, on 04/16/2008, -8/+2So I take it no one will be playing the Humpty Dance over there? "Hey yo fat gurr, come here are you tickilish? YEAH I CALL YOU FAT, LOOK AT ME IM SKINNY, never stopped me from getting busy. I'm a freak I like the girls with the boom, I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom."
  • TJATL, on 04/16/2008, -6/+7There are little French boys and girls that are now looking forward to joining the Thought Police when they get older.

    Eating disorders have been around before Kate Moss. What about the state banning the promotion of fat chicks? Oh everyone is up in arms about that huh?
    • mickhead, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4Where in france have you ever seen promotion of overweight people?
    • Kythas, on 04/16/2008, -7/+5He's not saying there is a promotion of overweight people. However, this is simply the next logical step in the progression.

      This is what happens when you get a socialist state, boys and girls. The State knows better than you do what's good for you and will take care of you better than you can take care of yourself.
      • RobertPatrick, on 04/16/2008, -4/+0You're an ***** and speak of nonsense : France has never been closer to the USA way of governing ! Our president wants France to become another state of yours.
        That said, that law is another evidence of his mediocrity.
        • Kythas, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1France may not have a socialist government, but it does have a very socialist view of society. France has laws limiting the number of hours a person can work, how much vacation a person must have, etc. These things should be left to the market. If I'm working 80 hours a week at my job and don't like it, guess what? I find a new job where the hours are more acceptable to me. I don't need government doing this for me.

          Government should get out of people's way and let them live their lives, not regulate the lives of people. Socialists think that people aren't smart enough to think or do for themselves and need government to think and do for them.

          Unfortunately, the U.S. is moving ever closer to this as well.
      • Screwy1138, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Kythas - it amazes me that so few people realize what is so obvious. I am shocked at the hypocracy of Digg... we're all constitutionalists and we all value our freedoms yet we also want the government to just take care of us. So funny.
      • GrantTLC, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Dugg down for you not being able to control the flood of BS spewing from your keyboard.
  • Technoidatx, on 04/16/2008, -5/+1Buried for .. uhm who cares
  • levelwave, on 04/16/2008, -9/+14Everyone of you who agrees with this needs to pack up all their ***** and move to China... obviously you'd much rather have the government tell you what you can and cannot do... ***** sheep
  • techweenie1, on 04/16/2008, -11/+6Only in France, where it's illegal to speak freely about your opinions on Islam and where it's illegal to be anorexic.
    • Aitese, on 04/16/2008, -2/+9Yeah! I mean...Americans are free to do WHATEVER they want...amiright!

      http://digg.com/television/Nude_buttocks_may_cost_ ...

      http://digg.com/politics/So_much_for_free_speech_2

      http://digg.com/politics/So_much_for_the_land_of_t ...

      http://digg.com/politics/Bong_Hits_4_Jesus_denied_ ...

      I have more...just stick the words freedom, and speech into Google and follow it with site:digg.com

      There's an old saying about stones and glass houses...Google can help you with that too.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Ya gotta love the "I know you are but what am I?" rebuttal.... amiright?
      • techweenie1, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Aitese you may want to take a look at the story involving Brigitte Bardot, I know you are all about you're sophmoric crude speech being uncensored..and probably even some of the music you listen to, by the way I'm sure if you ever tried listening to it or watching any of things you mentioned in an Islamic Theocracy you'd have much worse happen to you than a fine...something you should think about if you can get your head out of your ass for just one second.
        • Aitese, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Some fun facts for you...I live in the UK...not an Islamic Theocracy...how that is relevant I'm not sure.

          But...let me see if I'm following you. You are all for freedom of speech and expression...so obviously you are against Brigitte Bardot being prosecuted for her opinion...fair enough. It becomes confusing when her opinion is that Muslims are destroying France because they are practicing their religion there, her main bone of contention is their ritual sacrifice of a goat during their religious holiday as she's an animal rights activist. So in summation you're against the hindering of her right to say that the rights of the Muslims in France should be hindered. Good example...really. I'm right on your side now.
          • techweenie1, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Ah lovely...your marxist professors and The Guardian have molded you very well....yeah it's all very simple she hates muslims because they killed a poor innocent little goat..not because they stand on street corners with signs saying kill the infidels or that they kill people like Theo Van Gogh for making a film. Surely she must also hate anyone who isn't a vegetarian by your logic...yep you're totally right I hindered my own argument by saying I'm for free speech as long as it's not a muslim saying it....how silly of me.
    • edzilla, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3What is illegal again?
    • tuflehundon, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0Csrew the French, they are a bunch of pu$$ies anyway.
  • h4mx0r, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3In other news, France has just begun idolizing the American shape.
  • GeauxLSU, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3Can we do the same with Fat people here in the US? Our heath care costs might actually go down.
    • tuflehundon, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0An anorexic or Bolimic will cost 2 to 3 times as much over a lifetime in healthcare than an obese person. Obese people don't go to the doctor as much and don't have te health problems assosiated with malnutrition or forcing yourself to throw ap all the time.
    • Screwy1138, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Obese people die early. They don't end up in nursing homes for two decades. Same with smokers, they're less of a healthcare burden than healthy people.
  • orangefly, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3why don't we just make a world wide law that states "you may not do anything that has a .0001% chance of hurting .0001% of the population"....save some time, paperwork, and rubber stamps....
    • xerosawyer, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2so no driving?
      • Screwy1138, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Oh God no. And throw all the driver's training instructors in jail for 3 years for promoting it.
  • ozymandias2012, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8Good to see someone tackling the really important issues of our time...
  • o0joshua0o, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4I don't understand. First France outlaws smoking, now extreme thinness. What's next on the hit list...berets, wine, and cheese?
    • Sherman901, on 04/16/2008, -3/+5i'd prefer they go after wine first. french people are always complaining.

      see? i'm a pretty funny guy... right?
    • GrantTLC, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Actually, I predict they'll outlaw the English next. Relations have never been exactly cosy between those two. ;)
  • Kmap, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4Cool....ban Paris Hilton in France.
  • tman84, on 04/16/2008, -5/+7Yay for Socialism!
    • smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -7/+3Boo for misapplication of terms/words!
      Should we start referring to all war-mongering as democracy?
      • tman84, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7This is clear cut Socialism. why do people think Socialism is this happy form of government? This is nanny state laws, which is a basic principle of Socialism, you are not responsible enough for your own well being, the state however knows best. Before you give me the pooling resources rhetoric about socialism, the same thing was used to sell communism.
        State rule by force and intimidation is also classic Socialism, because the State owns you, Instead of you owning yourself. This is the opposite of Liberty.
        • smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1The only thing this law is "clear cut" is a perhaps overkill attempt at preventing bad influence

          Socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with "rule by force and intimidation" and this law has nothing whatsoever to do with with socialism. Most laws are enforced by "force and intimidation" and they will continue to be until you can somehow manage to find a better means of enforcement.

          What you are *trying* to describe is "Fascism" which is nowhere near the same thing. You *know* what socialism is but you choose to reject the very definition as "rhetoric". I suppose we should dismiss the constitution and bill of rights as "rhetoric" since they aren't always observed/followed by the democratic government and laws?

          Who cares what was intended and specified by the people who founded the the terms? Since the democratic government permitted Hiroshima and allowed slavery for hundreds of years it must mean democracy is REALLY about slavery! ***** the rest of the government, the will of the people and all other contextual references!
      • Bantec, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1What's misplaced? Socialism is the control of the socio-economic system by branches of government.
        • smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1By that definition, all governments are socialist.


          Socialism is the belief that all people have the right to some bare minimum necessities by default (pretty much just food, water, medicine and shelter). Socialist governments do what they can to provide these for you. How those necessities are provided, what laws/restrictions are placed on individuals and how they are enforced are not defining factors of socialism.


          The basic premise of true socialism, to my understanding, is that if people have their bare necessities provided for them and their families, they can focus on/pursue occupations that not only do they find more fulfilling. This in turn will provide happier workers who can/will work longer, harder and become more skilled/educated in those endeavors.


          Any form of government can make ***** laws. Any form of government can abuse it's power. Any form of government can infringe on civil liberties. Pure socialism has it's faults, just like any other system but just like any other system, it also has it's merits. Don't let indoctrination blind you from good lessons or lead you into improper labeling/vilification/attacks
          • tman84, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1This is why less government is better government. France is a Socialist country, these laws are bi-products of a Socialist regime, All forms of government sound great in theory. If I described Communism it would sound like a beautiful thing.
            Socialism in a basic form, might be "pooling of resources to provide basic necessities" But the caveat is that the State has all of the control, it's not the people who have control over these resources, by nature that is evil, because you are removing self ownership.
            Socialism is not about self ownership, it's a group ownership. The group makes decisions that are supposed to benefit everyone, the problem with this is the same problem with Democracy, which our nation now is, instead of a Republic, which is what we were intended to be.
            Democracy says, if 51% of the people think free healthcare is good, then 49% are screwed.
            I've labeled this correctly as Socialist behavior, it's not Fascist. Fascism is the act of extreme Nationalism, where the State is all that matters, you are giving yourself up for the State, (see I can make Fascism sound nice) In theory anything sounds good.
            Socialism if it should be practiced at all, should be at the Family level, not a national level.
          • smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1"Socialism in a basic form, might be "pooling of resources to provide basic necessities" But the caveat is that the State has all of the control, it's not the people who have control over these resources, by nature that is evil, because you are removing self ownership."

            WRONG - Socialism doesn't mean the state controls/owns all resources or wealth. To suggest that is absurd. That might be a certain implementation of socialism/communism at best. It doesn't meant the state owns/controls everything and there is no private property. The only thing the state would control is distribution of those bare *required* necessities if/when you need them. Not all resources and property in the entire country. There is no removing ownership, there is using tax dollars to buy/distribute ***** for those who require it.

            "Socialism is not about self ownership, it's a group ownership."
            The two are not mutually exclusive. You can have assets/resources and still have private property.

            "Democracy says, if 51% of the people think free healthcare is good, then 49% are screwed"
            Not getting what you want isn't the same as getting screwed. Inability to get desperately needed help when you have worked as hard or harder than anyone else, however, is.

            "I've labeled this correctly as Socialist behavior, it's not Fascist."
            You are correct that it is not Fascist, you are incorrect in labeling it socialist. I said you were trying to describe Fascism which, to my understanding, is the idea that the minority of people can force their will onto the majority (I thought you were referring to the philosophies/acts themselves, rather than the government, since the government is by definition a democratic one)
  • therealkdog, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Well you know we should promote people being Fat, like many people are today.
  • MikeResar, on 04/16/2008, -5/+1They should make baldness illegal as well and throw the people in prison until they regrow their hair. Nobody like bald people they depress people.
  • thingnumber2, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Nothing like killing a little bit of free speech.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.