|
You say "No Holocaust" you goto jail. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i wonder how he'd feel if we denied he was raped whilst in prison, despite all the evidence to the contrary? ;) |
Idk what point you're trying to make but you've just supported everyone who's against this prick ;). if we deny he was raped we deny something that is trully horrible and TRUE...just like he was doing with the holocaust :) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
Idk what point you\\'re trying to make but you\\'ve just supported everyone who\\'s against this prick ;). if we deny he was raped we deny something that is trully horrible and TRUE...just like he was doing with the holocaust :) |
*claps hands* yay for mental arithmetic!! :p have you even glanced at any of my previous posts??? ;) |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
*claps hands* yay for mental arithmetic!! :p have you even glanced at any of my previous posts??? ;) |
no i just love arguing with you, bro, haven't you realized that by now? |
|
|
| occrider |
So who cares if he's a holocaust denier? Why is he not entitled to his own opinions, regardless of how silly it is, and why is he not entitled to express his opinions, regardless of what society thinks about what he has to say and who he upsets?
How does this guy's opinions impact any of you personally? FFS if this guy's speech begets intolerance and violence, the surest way to counter it is with more free speech, not censorship and criminalization because you're afraid or not up to the challenge to set the record straight. This is ludicrous. I don't understand why the concept of free speech only applies to speech governments and society are comfortable with and people are perfectly willing to limit speech that threatens them. This is NOT the same as yelling "fire" in a theater. This is NOT the same as slander. The US has specific laws that criminalize speech on the sole basis that direct violence was tangibly linked, and ensued from said speech. An extremely high standard compared to anywhere else in the world. Can ANYONE cite specific cases where the US has failed with respect to its protections of free speech and society was significantly damaged?
| quote: |
fyi, not all countries need an all-powerful constitution to underpin liberal democratic freedoms for its citizens. the way the US worships its constitution, like its a perfect instrument, infallible or necessary for any nation to enjoy freedom is ridiculous.
|
The constitution is not perfect, but it certainly abides by some standards and protocols when it comes to dictating the role of government in society. And if those standards are so inherently fallible there are protocols for democratic amendments to right such greivous errors. IMO it's certainly a much more attractive alternative than the abyss of firmly established power, jurisdiction, rights, and responsibilities of governments that I've seen in Europe. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
Yes it IS like yelling "fire" in a crowded threater. he was warned and knew perfectly well that he wasn't allowed to spread his bull in austria, yet he did it anyway. it's not allowed because it is racial and promotes hatred and violence. in case you haven't read, he had ties to many neo-nazis. therefore his grumble and verbal diahria did not fall upon deaf ears. he broke the law so now he's screwed. his choice. he should've moved to Iran, he would've felt right at home. It's not slander, but it is LIBEL, since it was written. he forges and misuses FACTS, about people and events. he places doubt on MILLIONS of people who were tortured and burned or gassed. This is not freedom of speech.
Oh, yeah his opinions don't impact any children or grandchildren of people who were shoved out of their homes, stripped of all their belongings and were tortured, mutilated, starved, beaten and smelled their fellow men and women's burning skin everyday. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
what are you complaining about?! All us PDDers have at one point or another wisedh upon rainbows, stars, and shooting Cheneys that there somehow would be a way to lock up all the stupid people.
Well there you have it, Austria devised a law against stupidity. If you are stupid, you go to jail:toocool: |
Do I really have to dig up your post defending Pat Robertson's right to free speech to call for assassinations of foreign heads of state?
I'm hoping you were being facetious, but it's hard to tell on the Internets. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Sounds like you guys need an ACLU. And I don't think I need to state my position on the matter (considering my position on all the "incitement" laws):p. |
There will be no ACLU here!
 |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
Yes it IS like yelling "fire" in a crowded threater. he was warned and knew perfectly well that he wasn't allowed to spread his bull in austria, yet he did it anyway. it's not allowed because it is racial and promotes hatred and violence. in case you haven't read, he had ties to many neo-nazis. therefore his grumble and verbal diahria did not fall upon deaf ears. he broke the law so now he's screwed. his choice. he should've moved to Iran, he would've felt right at home. |
Well no it's not like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater because his speech cannot be tangibly linked to any specific crime that imminently resulted from anything he had to say. If I yelled “fire” in a park would I be guilty of criminal speech? Please, just because he was “warned” that he wasn’t allowed to say certain things doesn’t make his right to say what he had to say any less valid. I mean really, a LOT of people were “warned” from saying things under a whole slew of dictatorial regime, so can we say that their punishments were just?
As for his “ties” that simply reeks of McCarthyism. Fortunately American law has matured to the point where we don’t convict people based upon their associates. But hey, you seem hell bent on criminalizing free speech, I’m guessing you’re a proponent of convicting:
Ann Coulter for saying, “we should invade (Muslim) countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
Or Republican Senator Tom Coburn for saying, “I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!"
Not to mention the “treasonous” rhetoric coming out of MANY prominent republicans during the Balkan war … rhetoric which could be construed as advocating violence against our troops and accusations of war crimes. I guess I could suggest that they should have moved to “Iran” but thankfully I support our freedoms. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lepanto |
lol you're so cute with the little smiley.
When I said he was warned I mean that he was warned that he's not allowed to enter the country and that there are laws in that country that he must follow. One of them is libel or slander against historical facts such as the holocaust. Or does your brain not compute the idea of LAWS?! You break it you pay for it. Simple as that. Make a big, complex web of morals out of this, but you'll only confuse yourself and lose. Because bottom line is that I could say that I think that there's nothing wrong in killing a man, and get a FAMAS and blow away 100 people in middle of NYC and then be jailed and have a bafoon like you argue it was my right to say whatever i feel like and then break a law because i believe i have the right to say and do whatever i want. And yes that comparision is the same as what happened :) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
It's not slander, but it is LIBEL, since it was written. he forges and misuses FACTS, about people and events. he places doubt on MILLIONS of people who were tortured and burned or gassed. This is not freedom of speech.
Oh, yeah his opinions don't impact any children or grandchildren of people who were shoved out of their homes, stripped of all their belongings and were tortured, mutilated, starved, beaten and smelled their fellow men and women's burning skin everyday. |
To take into account your edit: Please read the US libel laws. They are very specific as to establishing guilt and the facts of this and most cases of free speech in regards to generalizations would not be applicable. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
Umm, buddy, wake up. It didn't happen in the US. :haha: not to mention the fact that i work in journalism so I know exectly what libel is. ;)
and as posted before.
. v. Keegstra
In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher was charged with denying the Holocaust and making anti-semitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code (now section319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.
1.
1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
2. The act of presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
freedom of speech is one thing. this is another. get it through your head.
yes his words were false in writing and print and damage people's reputation. not only were his words false, but so where his "facts" and intentional misuse of events.
and when a rival took him on, he recieved death threats and personal attacks. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
lol you're so cute with the little smiley.
When I said he was warned I mean that he was warned that he's not allowed to enter the country and that there are laws in that country that he must follow. One of them is libel or slander against historical facts such as the holocaust. Or does your brain not compute the idea of LAWS?! You break it you pay for it. Simple as that. Make a big, complex web of morals out of this, but you'll only confuse yourself and lose. Because bottom line is that I could say that I think that there's nothing wrong in killing a man, and get a FAMAS and blow away 100 people in middle of NYC and then be jailed and have a bafoon like you argue it was my right to say whatever i feel like and then break a law because i believe i have the right to say and do whatever i want. And yes that comparision is the same as what happened :) |
Yea what smiley dude? Ummm thanks for the update that Austria has LAWS :conf:. And one of those laws is the topic that we're discussing ... what a coincidence! I honestly didn't know that. Because if I knew that this thread was about what was legal in Austria I would have just looked it up! Or I would have just read the FIRST freaking post. Instead, I assumed that the goal of this thread was to debate the moral, legal, and civil rights implications of free speech. Hey, guess I was wrong! Thanks for clearing things up genius! Oh and thanks for responding to ANY of my arguments!!! |
|
|
|
|
