Is France banning citizens from reporting violence?

Good god. What next ? This is an extremely important item of news. Of course they won't be able to police such a ban very effectively. but that won't stop them from selectively making some people's lives hell , especially as the summer is coming on and with it the season for Parisian riots.

I believe the intention of this law is to ban quacks from broadcasting executions of political prisoners as a short term political solution.  This would work within the limitations of French governing institutions more differently than you have interpreted, especially after extensive judicial review.

Lee. 

I think you are all absolutely right, but this law appears in a very particuliar context in France.

Recently, we had to face a kind of a new entertainement in teenagers groups. Some of them film an act of violence while some others are striking someone (a teacher, a classmate, anyone...), after taht, they broadcast and spread the video. It's called "Happy Slapping", i think it exists in some other countries. The kids often get caught in a few days, but their victim may have some bad injuries.

This phenomenon appears in rural, urban, poor, wealthy areas, the authorities look absolutely unable to stop or prevent it.

I think this caused the law we're talking about. But the consequences of such a law may be terrible, especially for independent sources of information.

I hope my french point of view lights this piece of information.

 claire.

Well, the latest French initiative falls neatly in line with over-afraid European governments cutting civil liberties at a frightning pace. Here in Germany, ISPs need to provide the authorities with a back door not even the ISPs themselves are allowed to detect when used. Certain kinds of computer games will be banned shortly, the rate of wiretapping is amongst the highest in the world. In London, it is virtually impossible to take a single step (I suspect not even to the restroom) without being videotaped, and the French seemed to have "learned" their lesson from the suburb police violence and repercussions through riots in Paris last year. Liberties going down the drain, we are in for a wonderful new era of handcuffed societies, and turning to the U.S. as a beacon is not an option as it used to be. No idea how we are going to get out of this again. Maybe emerging countries can lead the way this time, Enlightenment and the Western societies as its offsprings seem to be in a dead end road.

It is growing harder each day to dismiss the role citizen journalism played in the Participatory Age.  The Message is the Message. Either that message comes from the drugstore clerk or the guy-next-door neighbor, if it is relevant news and very important, we must still accept and see it.  Of course, we also have to be careful with background checks and verification to fact-check the reports, but in spite all these, there is a glowing promise to the world of citizen journalism.

Besides, clarapeix, if that was the intention to this law, wouldn't it be more effective to ban the violence itself as perpetrated by youth, rather than the photographic representation of it?

I find it so interesting to watch how this idea of participatory journalism in some places ends up furthering the channels of effective, public accountability and transparent process, and how in other contexts it ends up being a catalyst for all kinds of crazy plans to codify the expertise of journalists.

And the participatory journalism is still alive... this law is to prevent, no to sanction every one, especially to show a real matter or any case of violence. Its first application is turned against small, stupid but young inconscious groups who "starized" themselves with their violence ("some jungle force: who is the stronger ?").

But of course law in France is highly interpretable, and case by case is the process: so diffusing some violences to inform could be done (perhaps directly to the police, or any right institution, or TV). I repeat : its first role is to  avoid the humiliation and mediatisation of a violence, not any other thing. ( imagine filming a rape, and difuse it just to humiliate the victim !!! are you ok with that ?)...that's one response...and be pragmatic, the authors of that films are really not involved citizens, nor journalists...

translation: "The phenomenon, very popular in England, made its appearance in France. In April 2006, diffusion of the images of the aggression of a teacher, filmed on a mobile, had caused a sharp emotion. "(lefigaro (newspaper) )

 here a link: in wikipedia,  ...:The French law relating to the prevention of the delinquency makes liable to continuation Fit to film any physical aggression knowingly. The professional journalists are not concernbe by this provision.  : said not filming as a witness ! ... innocent witness is a right too.

And what about those videos released by terrorists of decapitations and other executions?

The re-broadcasting of those? Would that be also a criminal offense? 

This might get very interesting. Especially if there are consequences for those who re-broadcast that kind of 'propaganda.'

I wonder, do terrorists rate how well they do by how much air-time they get?