Will Brigitte Bardot be ordered to pay $23,900 fine for inciting hatred?

Mork, hehehe, man you are on a question creating tear man :-D ... Great questions man, and sry they voided your Q about Survivor! I tried to bet on it and am like, oh man that's why I can't! Whatever, hehe :-D
You have some strange questions man, haha :-D

lucidstates

I like your questions because they are a bit different. I always learn from involvement in something that is unusual. However, I might suggest that the fine is too specific. If they end up addiing court costs, or if they give her a break, then the fine she pays will be different than $23,900.00 and the answer is No, I voted no, but hope the question is not voided. Perhaps ask if she will be given a fine, or given a sentence, or community service, or just asked to keep her mouth shut. LOL. (BTW, I agree with her)

Keep up the good work.

Thanks for thinking my questions are strange lucid.

hey lucid gals to see you make a regular post again. is the strike over?

anyhow, glad I live in America where my opinion is not a crime (though some people want to make it one). For the sake of freedom I hope she gets off, but with her past record she probably wont. luckily she may be rich enough to do her thing anyways :D

The verdict is expected June 3rd.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080425/ENTERTAINMENT/868805865/1007

$23,900 is pretty specific. I just had to vote NO :-) Besides I think she has a right to speak out... and 40 years ago she was HOT ;-)

"I've had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing their ways."

this is happening in Minnesota too, where the Islamists want tax money to pay for foot-baths at the university to be used in ritual washings before prayer and taxi drivers wont drive people that have pork or alcohol. They don't seem to understand or care that other people have the right to live how they want as well and their religion isn't about to be favored over the rest (when their lucky it's not at a disadvantage being the minority it is).

Dude! What's up man? I love having a pork after a beer. Sometimes a taxi driver is involved, I admit, but only on the way home with the girl.

Here we go again. The question has a specific amount in it "$23,900." Was she fined this amount? No. Why was it settled as "yes" then? Numerous comments discuss how if the specific amount is not ordered it would be a "no." No official contradiction to these comments occurred allowing people to believe it would be a "no" without this specific amount. The link this was settled on says about $23,000. The links that follow give an exact amount of $23,325 + $1,555 in damages to MRAP, a French anti-racism group (the total, if you want to count it that way, is still = $24,880 not $23,900).


http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/03/not-again-brigitte-bardot-convicted-for-anti-muslim-rants/?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ixP8XeA1fg-eeiNgRz_M4fBicPAgD912LDIG0
http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_100617/life/EURO15000-FINE-Brigitte-Bardot-convicted-over-racism/
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/entertainment&id=6181948

I think the variance is only due to the difference in the exchange rate since this question was created.
I believe the fine she was facing is the fine she received.

She was facing a fine of 15 000 euro, which at the time this question was created translated to $23 900.
She now has been fined 15 000 euro,
Anybody who wagered 'no' on the idea that the exchange rate would no longer convert to $23 900 at time of settlement, was not considering the 'common sense' rule.
just my opinion.

Several other markets in the past have concerned fines (Microsoft, etc.) where the fines were expressed in euros. It's unfortunate that lack of specificity creates user unhappiness (if, in fact, it was the result of currency conversion).

Beyond that, I'm unclear on the Settlement of this market. I see it as being settled as "Yes" earlier today. Then, 2.5 hours later, settled as "No".

Did everyone get paid a winning prediction?

mork, maybe just a suggestion for the next time:
Do not state the specific amount at all: Just refer to the announcement of the fine.
And in case you want to specify the amount: Leave it in the currency in which it was published, maybe the conversion to USD as additional information in parentheses just for the US-Hubdubs.

Make it less vulnerable for nitpickers.

That said: I agree with the "common sense" rule. Did she get ordered to pay that fine (regardless the current conversion to USD, and even regardless any additional dues, fees or anything), or didn't she? YES she did.

no shit

huh?

$23K... 'free speech' is expensive!

She was also fined $1,555 in damages to pay to MRAP, a French anti-racism group. This is not a simple conversion difference.

Mork - what kind of representative of hubdub are you cursing in the comment section?

Kruijs and mork - I take offense to your common sense characterization. Two of the comments before this was settled discuss the problem with the exactness of the amount. No one commented about common sense then or contradicted their assertions. Anyway, the conversion claim is wrong. She was fined 15,000 euros and 1,000 euros to MRAP. Mork, this is not the 15,000 euros you claim. It is a total fine of 16,000 euros.

Don't give an exact amount for a fine if you are not looking for that exact amount. An extra 1,000 Euros would make a difference to me, wouldn't it to you?

What about other questions that give certain amounts (i.e. will this item sell for at least a certain amount of dollars, will a movie make a certain amount)? You wouldn't just say they made money, so we can settle those questions for any amount of earnings. This is just like those situations, it is a certain amount. That certain amount was not achieved.

Mork and Kruijs. Bardot was fined before for similar offenses. So in all likelihood, she would be fined again for repeating a similar offense. If the question was about whether she would be fined again, then write it that way. But this question was also about how much she would be fined (whether you wanted it as such or not, since an exact amount was given). I wagered that she would not necessarily be fined the exact amount the prosecutor was asking for. I would have wagered differently if it was about whether or not she would have been fined at all.

I am confused too....seems like one time I was notified that I'd lost, then I'd won, and now I'm not sure....

Apparently the amount of the fine was different than was listed in the question, but for whatever reason, it was pretty close....it's not like they fined her only half the amount listed or twice the amount...but, there was an exact amount listed, so I guess that's what we should go by....

This was settled correctly. "pretty close" doesn't count, we weren't wagering on horseshoes. We were wagering on the exact amount of a fine that was clearly posted.

@epicur
I think you are nitpicking this thing.
What kinda bugs me is that I suspect you wagered on this question with full intention to do so if it didn't work out for you,
In other words, This question went to shit because you intended to challenge it over a technicality so you could make a little bit of $H.
I concede epicur. You got me. Please spare me your preaching.

epicur, done ranting?

Sorry that I offended you with my common sense.

Let see if we can get it together after all: The question asks "Will BB be ordered to pay $23.900 fine for inciting hatred"

The point is "$23.900 fine" which is open to interpretation.

One could say "it must be exactly 23.900" - ok, but that is not very likely because of the conversion rate - remember? A starting likelihood of 80% YES would be waaaaaay off. Did you mention that anywhere? No?

One could also say "she must pay a fine currently around 23.900", no matter what the exact value of the fine would be in the end - it's all about "that fine". But this is problematic in a way that the difference to the value of the fine can be too large so it is actually no longer "that fine" but an other one (logically spoken, ok?). And that's the point in this case: How large may the difference be - this is a highly subjective matter.

So, when leaving out the conversion rate part, the fine is still the same. When doing a currency conversion, your still at about the same amount. You put in another 1k EUR - an addition to the original fine. This does not belong to "that fine" (logically spoken). She is charged "that fine" plus an additional 1k EUR. Anyway, if "that fine" wasn't 15000 but 16000 in the end, IMHO it is still "that fine" because, ok, 1000EUR is a lot of money for me too, in relation to "that fine" (original value) it is not that much.

I tried to point out the problems I see in this question in my last comment. I actually spoke of common sense, and against my own wager at that moment, because I changed my mind in the mean time. Anyone is free to try that too.

Thanks for listening.

Krujis makes a good point.
You guys should have flagged this thing for bad starting odds instead of wagering on it.
Poor sportsmanship in my opinion.

If we can agree the starting odds were off then this question should be made void.
When I created this question I thought it 80 percent likely she would be found guilty as charged, which she was.
I agree this question should have been worded differently or had background info clarifying my intention but I thought the starting odds spoke for themselves.
I've learnt from this one.

@ mork
"When I created this question I thought it 80 percent likely she would be found guilty as charged, which she was."

Then why is this settled as "No"?

[Disclosure: at no time did I have predictions in this market.]

@ newswrangler

Unfortunately I didn't provide a link to the original news article which drew my attention to Bardot's dilemna. It described how she was facing a fine of $23,900.
The trial was taking place in France and in actual fact she was facing a fine in the euro currency 15 000. The article I had read had converted it to the American dollar.
Now she has been found guilty and fined the euro 15 000.
As you can see in this article; shrunklink.com/artg , the euro 15000 no longer converts to $23 900.
This question was originally settled as yes but has since been challenged and the decision reversed.

Newwrangler, she was found guilty. The question doesn't ask about guilt. It asks "Will Brigitte Bardot be ordered to pay $23,900 fine for inciting hatred?" That part is a "no."

If mork is a representative of hubdub as a super user, then this site is in trouble (cursing in comment #14 and 23, accusations of my motives in #23 without any evidence). How can you suspect my motives (comment # 23)? Got any evidence? NO. So I suggest you stop making wild accusations without evidence and just worry about writing your questions better next time. And for that matter, read and respond to comments in your questions. Comment # 2 and your lack of contradiction in comment # 3 and 5 (besides comment #6, which was after your comment) is what prompted my wagers.

With regard to our flagging questions for poor starting odds, I do it when I perceive it. In this case, I thought we were wagering on whether the prosecutor was going to get exactly what was asked for or whether the court might use discretion and adjust / change the punishment (such as the 1,000 Euros the court ORDERED for MRAP). The odds at the time of my wager seemed reasonable so I bet "no." Isn't that part of what this site is about? Disagreeing with people about potential news story outcomes and wagering against them.

Anyway, I'm done with this. The question has been settled and I'm moving on.

Mork the fine is a total of 16,000 Euros that the COURT ORDERED. Check my links in comment #9.

You sound like a drama queen

the additional euro 1000 is not a fine. It is a payment to the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship of People in addition to the fine. They filed the lawsuit.
If you need a second link explaining it to you epicur, here it is:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080604.wbuzz04-1/BNStory/Entertainment/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080604.wbuzz04-1

or here: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1N4N6pzrHw9Lunbyjbb4u4yrqxg

or here: http://in.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idINIndia-33883520080603

@epicur
your attempts to distort the facts from the links that you yourself provided confirm my suspicions.

Ok everybody - lets take a deep breath here.

There are valid arguments for both a 'yes' and a 'no' settlement -- which is why it was settled both ways. No one lost any money on this.

The exchange rate issue was a little confusing -- that alone could have caused massive confusion and discussion on this question.. although there is a 'common sense' approach to handle that type of problem.

The trickier part is the payment to the other people. I've looked through about 10 articles now and about half of them lump the fine and payment together into the 'fine she had to pay' and the other half break them apart and call the 15k the fine and then the extra 1k something seperate.

Mork, I understand the spirit of the question was just talking about the 15k fine, but I hope you can take a step back and see that the settlement is indeed a little murky when you look at the extra 1k "fine".

Can we all be friends again?

(Disclosure: I'm pretty sure I've never had h$ in this market)

mork already said to do better next time,

It still is court ORDERED. In your question title it does state ordered.

Anyway, I'm tired of this. If this site is going to allow you to curse (comment #14 & #23), accuse me without evidence (comment #23) and make bigoted sexual orientation slurs (comment #31) and still represent it, I have no place here. See the following getsatisfaction link.

http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/a_hubdub_representative_super_user_mork_not_being_a_good_role_model_for_hubdub

This question should be void because a french court would never fine somebody in American dollars.
I look forward to watching your pity party epicur.
I conceded in comment 23

In reviewing this disgraceful dialogue, it is quite clear that this question was settled correctly. The question states the singular word: "fine", while in fact two fines were imposed. If only the one fine were imposed, it should have been sorted as yet (regardless of the current currency conversion). As the author mork left no room in his yes/no answer for "other", it has correctly settled as NO.

Again, DISGRACEFUL DIALOGUE HAS DONE DAMAGE, LEFT A SCAR ON THE FACE OF HUBDUB, AND CAUSED THE DEPARTURE OF A VALUED AND RESPECTED MEMBER. Nobody is perfect, but there is NO EXCUSE for some of the comments that have been made here...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure: I have had no financial interest in this question for at least the last month and a half. I can't remember if I temporarily bet on this question when it first came out.

That should have read: "If only the one fine WAS imposed, it should have been sorted as YES.."

Feedback appreciated randburg.
I suggest you add your comments to the GetSatisfaction thread.
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/a_hubdub_representative_super_user_mork_not_being_a_good_role_model_for_hubdub

Personally, I find your tone disgraceful, as did I of our friend epicur.

I would like to consider your declaration that it should have settled as "NO"
I can't quite make sense of it because two days ago Lesley Eccles stated in the GetSat thread: "It is clear that the question should have been voided."
I feel, I assume you do too, that the importance of questions settling without ambiguity is vital to the integrity of hubdub and it's future.
I look forward to seeing any constructive arguements you might have on the GetSat thread.

who left, what happened here, i never had money on this either, it seems a little angry around here.... i get questions voided and settled "not to my liking" but this level of arguing is beyond the spitzer argument.... wow.... good thing this is about real money, or i might point out that it's silly to argue so much over fake money....

This market was resettled as "No".