Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Aubry-Hollande, Hollande-Aubry

So, yesterday Hollande was up in the polls, today it's Aubry. With left sympathizers. Hollande leads with "all the French." Whatever. I'd bet most of the people polled would be hard pressed to name any significant programmatic differences between the two. Of course, a presidential preference is a visceral as well as a programmatic choice. And when it comes to the gut, Aubry and Hollande seem to be running about neck and neck. It would have been interesting to see how either fared against DSK, but now we'll never know. Take your pick. It seems as though it will be one of these two.

7 comments:

Kirk said...

Are there any differences? I haven't been following this stuff at all, but if they're both locked into the socialists' platform, I can't see anything much to separate them, other than Aubry's anger and grumpiness, and Hollande's spacy happiness.

In any case, if one wins, the other will be PM.

Anonymous said...

I'm wary of French polls. Just a month ago they were trumpetting that Hulot would win in a landslide, like, 20/60 for Hulot. And guess what happened?
And weren't Hollande and his friend the Paris Mayor supposed to win something else, and didn't?
Wasn't the poll about Marine Le Pen done with fewer than 200 people?
I wouldn't discount any candidate at this point. The people I talk with, mostly 30-50 college-educated, favor Montebourg. Those who favor Aubry tend to skew older and more conservative. Those who support Royal tend to skew younger or less well-off.
As for DSK, here's why so many don't support him anymore: http://www.marianne2.fr/Affaire-DSK-des-news-qui-ne-franchissent-pas-l-Atlantique_a208391.html

Arthur Goldhammer said...

Cincinna, a comment you tried to append to this post was caught by the spam filter. I decided not to approve it because of a gratuitous comment about a former vice-president of the United States. I have become somewhat concerned about the content of comments since learning that the host of a blog may be held legally liable for defamatory postings by commenters, so am I going to remove anything I consider questionable. My apologies for the censorship, but if you want to post such comments, you can assume the risk yourself by starting your own blog. Perhaps you already have. In any case, it's quite unnecessary for you to repeat the comment of NY Times articles to which I have already linked.

Kirk said...

Art, you're not in France where that ridiculous law exists. In the US you have no responsibility

Arthur Goldhammer said...

The law may be ridiculous, and I may be immune from it, but I don't want to serve as a vehicle for other people's slander. If you want to slander somebody, start your own blog.

Arthur Goldhammer said...

Cincinna, You consider proof a statement in "The Smoking Gun?" I thought you were a lawyer. You can exercise your free speech elsewhere. I don't wish to make my blog an instrument of your slander.

FrédéricLN said...

well, Kirk, why is our French law ridiculous? It just sets a principle of joint responsibility of the author and the publisher, on any published text: the publisher is expected to check that the text is legal. Even our most "libertarian" bloggers don't oppose to that, as far as I know.

See http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-societe/blogs-que-dit-la-loi/1597/0/276970

Perhaps your feeling is connected with "a priori" (ex ante?) moderation of comments; but that is not requested by French law.

The issue that raised mot concern about freedom of speech in France, was about the responsibility of the ISP and the host (say Blogger in Art's case). The present state of legislation is well accepted. The host is expected to censor texts only if and when he has been informed of their illegal content.

As Me Olivier Iteanu puts it, the publishers of blogs or online newspapers where comments are allowed, are easily considered as hosts by the judges. Do they moderate "a priori" or not: having read a text is not enough to be informed of its illegal character.

http://www.journaldunet.com/ebusiness/expert/49530/faut-il-ou-non-moderer-les-contenus-sur-le-web.shtml

"la personne qui se prétend victime de contenus illicites devra préalablement prouver, pour engager sa responsabilité, que l'hébergeur avait « effectivement connaissance » des contenus illicites, et qu'en ayant eu connaissance, il n'a pas « agi promptement pour retirer ces données ou en rendre l'accès impossible ». A l'inverse, si ces sociétés ne sont pas reconnues hébergeur, leur responsabilité pourra être engagée par la même victime, directement et par le seul constat de la présence de ces contenus sur les services ou sites offerts.
La Loi fait entrer dans la catégorie des hébergeurs, des personnes qui sont dans les « fonctions » d'héberger, lesquelles ne sont pas forcément les hébergeurs d'un point de vue technique. Ainsi, et à titre d'exemples, Lci ou Le Monde peuvent revendiquer le statut d'hébergeurs pour des commentaires publiés sur leurs sites, eBay pourrait se prétendre hébergeur des annonces publiées, les employeurs hébergeurs des contenus de leurs employés, les parents, des contenus de leurs enfants etc. .... Les juges ont tendance à leur accorder un tel statut dès l'instant qu'ils ne sont pas évidemment intervenus dans la création et l'édition des contenus, qu'ils ont publié ces contenus de manière automatisée et qu'ils ont conservé un rôle passif."

A personal statement: I do moderate "a posteriori" (after their publication) comments on my blog, with a more restrictive understanding than French law (my blog follows "la charte néthique"). But if it had as many comments as Art's, a few of them with aggressive behaviours, I would prefer "a priori" moderation.