|
You say "No Holocaust" you goto jail. (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
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!!! |
You're welcome. Hope you sleep well tonight with your superb debating skills and superhuman ability of sticking to the nature of an argument. ;) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
I'm sorry but that's Canadian slander. I'm actually American and the topic at hand is American free speech so I'm afraid that I really don't care how other countries interpret free speech. I suppose that I could find you some court cases from Iran or N. Korea but I don't quite know how they would be applicable to the discussion at hand. Glad to hear your career in journalism is going well. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
You're welcome. Hope you sleep well tonight with your superb debating skills and superhuman ability of sticking to the nature of an argument. ;) |
Ummm I'm responding to the "nature" of your arguments. Why don't you respond to any of my questions?
Here I'll make it easy for you:
| quote: |
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.
|
This isn't going to be a repeat of the last time we tussled about free speech is it? Because I'm still waiting for a response in that thread ... |
|
|
| Lepanto |
I've answered. Firstly, his "speeches" and he himself were linked to neo-nazis so that right should be enough to say that his speeches weren't innocent. Second of all, they were libel as he is trying to ruin reputation of a people by lies and falsification. Thirdly, if you scream fire in a park and people stampede out and a little 2 year old girl falls down and gets trampled to death, yes you will be guilty of criminal mischief. Yeah, I'm hell bent on criminalizing free speech. Surely nothing wrong with community and nation leaders slandering one another in results that lead to violence. Afterall, the Rwandan Hutu's radio station were just excercising their rights for freedom of speech. And, yes, the world is black and white where you can shove freedom of speech in somewhere and it becomes somehow ok. And it's not my fault you're too stupid to recognize an answer when you see one :rolleyes:
while you commence the impossible task of proving your point by a complex play on words, 1531324 links to online and therefore often unreliable information, events and articles, and libel against my own persons, i will get some well deserved sleep. :) |
|
|
| Vlad |
ACLU can suck gorilla balls.
that is all. |
|
|
| occrider |
Ahhhh finally you’ve stated your principles so I can actually hold you to whatever you advocate.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
I've answered. Firstly, his "speeches" and he himself were linked to neo-nazis so that right should be enough to say that his speeches weren't innocent.
|
So what did these specific neo-nazis do that was illegal? How was this illegal activity linked to his speeches? Hey guess what, the nation of Islam is linked to illegal activities. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. are linked to that organization. Therefore is their speech not “innocent”?? It’s the same freaking message. So should we have locked them up and prevented their free speech?? Yea it sure is easy to legislate the past …
| quote: |
Second of all, they were libel as he is trying to ruin reputation of a people by lies and falsification.
|
US libel law:
| quote: |
In the United States, about 75% of defamation lawsuits are filed in state courts, and the remaining 25% in federal courts. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because each state's definition differs. Some states lump slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are infrequently prosecuted.
Most defendants in libel lawsuits are newspapers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are TV stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, business people, entertainers and other public figures, and inmates. Most states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is already deceased. None of the states allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.
In the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest.
If a defamation lawsuit actually gets to trial, truth is a "defense." Another is if the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous. Another defense that is presented by accused media companies is "fault"—a series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a plaintiff to win a libel case, "actual malice" or "reckless negligence" must be proved on the part of the defendant if the statement in question is about a public official or public figure. In the case of a private figure, the plaintiff must merely prove negligence.
Under United States law libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the defendant's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
|
Sorry there’s no libel. Common sense dictates you need to show tangible evidence of libel that results in material impacts. You must be a huge fan of lawsuits like “my coffee is too hot!”
| quote: |
Thirdly, if you scream fire in a park and people stampede out and a little 2 year old girl falls down and gets trampled to death, yes you will be guilty of criminal mischief. Yeah, I'm hell bent on criminalizing free speech.
|
Yea and you would stand against nearly everything our country stands for from the standpoint of our founding fathers. That phrase you quote, yelling fire in a crowded theater? Comes from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who stated that, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
It has been ruled that the environment of speech has an effect on what is said.
| quote: |
Surely nothing wrong with community and nation leaders slandering one another in results that lead to violence. Afterall, the Rwandan Hutu's radio station were just excercising their rights for freedom of speech. And, yes, the world is black and white where you can shove freedom of speech in somewhere and it becomes somehow ok. And it's not my fault you're too stupid to recognize an answer when you see one :rolleyes: |
Hmmm well perhaps the fault of the violence has less to do with free speech as it has to do with alternative factors. That’s just a guess unless you have anything defnitiive to say about the matter?
FYI: Despite your claims you never responded to my original free speech thread. If you want to respond please do so in that thread. Otherwise please stop insinuating that you did so. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
as per usual, you make a very compelling argument occrider. granted its far easier to defend free speech than it is to attack it ;)
a right to absolute free speech is a great thing in a country where one might worry about ones government and their tendency to abuse their citizens. however, lets take a country like australia, whose constitution guarantees its citizens a whole lot of all. we still have a tolerant society where free speech is a valuable asset, but we also feel there should be limits and responsibilities.
imo, if there are people in my society preaching hatred then no, i dont wish their rights to free speech to continue. some of the ridiculous rhetoric radio talk show wits were espousing shortly before our recent race riots in New South Wales are a perfect example for me of free speech taken too far. you dont have to be putting up recruitment posters or ordering people about to be breeding an environment within which people do terrible things (such as bashing random people of middle eastern appearance).
there are muslim cleric(s) here that are being prosecuted for preaching hatred and intolerance. i dont wish to live in a society where its viewed ok to be advocating terrorism and violence under the umbrealla of free speech. say whatever you like in your own home, but once you start preaching or publishing you become responsible for your opinions.
in the case of irving, i just watched an interview with him and he's the same as he's always been. anyone that thinks he's changed his views since the comments he made in 1989 are kidding themselves.
irving isnt a historian on a search for truth, he is a nazi pushing a thinly-veiled anti semitic agenda under the pretense of historical inquiry. now, he's more than welcome to push that agenda in loads of countries, however germany & austria dont tolerate it. i dont see too much wrong with making laws to curb or punish those whose avowed goal(s) are overtly prejudiced to the extent neo nazis are. its difficult to provide a causal link between speech & outcomes, however i would argue breeding prejudice and hatred were pretty bad outcomes anyway.
i understand all the "thin end of the wedge" arguments, and i grapple with the rights V responsibilitiy issue constantly, however i would like to think advanced liberal democracies have matured enough so that we can safely outline the outward limits of acceptable behaviour. if the germans and austrians believe holocaust denying is unacceptable behaviour, then so be it. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| 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 :) |
No, look, you do have the right to say it's ok to kill somebody, but you don't have a right to actually do it. Although it may seem silly at a first glance, the reason for this is that if you somehow manage to get enough supporters who think it's ok to go around killing people, and if the majority of population votes for it, you will be allowed to go around killing people. Of course, a vast majority of people would disagree with such idiocity, but everyone should be entitled to express his views on how the world should work. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Honestly, though Holocaust Denial has no place in regards to free speech - it is not a political issue, there are no canidates running on a pro-Holocaust or anti-Holocaust platform... its a matter in the past. |
Ehm, what kind of argument is that? Okay there are no political candidates running on cartoons that humiliate Muslims either, does that make it right to outlaw it?
And you do realise your unconsistency here? Many times have you defended the right to free speech when it has not hurt yourself (as dave pointed out with christian fundies in the US calling for the assasination of foreign leader, or when it comes to humiliating cartoons), but now when someone is trying to hurt you, or rather your people, you get upset and think it's right to have such law.
Holocaust denial is no different from other free speech issues.
Btw, do you think Nazism should be illegal as well? Cause really in most countries that is legal?! |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
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. |
In the first post was being facetious... I thought you could detect it by now... come on :P
And on the surface this does look like a violation of free speech, when you dig a little deeper it clearly isn't.
Anyway onward to Rebutt Occrider... |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Occrider:
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
How does this guy's opinions impact any of you personally? |
My grandparents (living) are holocaust surviors. David Irving by using a facade of academia and scholarly is calling my grandparents liars. He is slandering their, and other holocaust survivors reputation.
Look at St. Andrew, he himself questions the validity of survivors like my grandparents, whether the events really did or did not take place, in large part contributable to the defamatory and libel work of Mr. Irving:
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
In fact, it is against all our basic principles of in society to limit free speech when it comes to opinions like this (who knows, maybe the holocaust didn't happen?).
|
There is no problem about questioning the holocaust, if you are uncertain of its existance St Andrew, I suggest you pick up a history book, review the records from the Nuremberg and Eicheman trials, as for that matter, you could simply check the preecedings of the libel suit against Penguin and Deborah pursued by Mr. Irving himself. Afterall to win that case, one has to "prove" the holocaust happened, and not only that, to prove that Irving deliberately and intentionally lied about it.
Occrider, using your own definition of libel within the United States:
| quote: | | Under United States law libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the defendant's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault. |
Mr Irving made/published the following remarks:
| quote: |
Another challenge for Irving has been the survivors of the Holocaust, who experienced firsthand the horrors of Nazi policies. Irving told a Canadian audience in 1990 that people claimed to be survivors because “there’s money involved and they can get a good compensation cash payment out of it.” He has also suggested that many of the survivors are mentally unstable; he told the magazine CODE in 1990 that “the psychiatrists should concern themselves with this matter some time. There are many cases of mass hysteria.”
Ridicule alone isn’t enough, you’ve got to be tasteless about it. You’ve got to say things like “More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.” [Applause] Now you think that’s tasteless, what about this? I’m forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it’s called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can’t get more tasteless than that, but you’ve got to be tasteless because these people deserve our contempt.
|
Five elements:
1) Published in CODE magainze and online otherwise, we can still consider it slander.
2) The defendant, holocaust survivors, are clearly directly and indirectly identified by his remarks (above).
3) The remarks were defamatory to the reputation of holocaust survivors calling them mentally ill, liars, and money-grubers.
4) Holocaust deniers are not S.
5) Irving has gone out of his way to defame and insult the reputation of holocaust survivors everywhere without fact or cause beyond the call of any reason or scholarly pursuit.
There you have it, I'm suprised the ADL hasn't gone class-action on Irving in the USA, it shouldn't be too hard to hold him guilty for libel or slander according to current USA laws it seems...
:) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Ehm, what kind of argument is that? Okay there are no political candidates running on cartoons that humiliate Muslims either, does that make it right to outlaw it? |
Its remember what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want. But it affords you a basic right to critize and participate in government and ensure 'they' can't do anything to you about it. To ensure diverging views and opinion.
Holocaust Denial = Libel and Slander.
And that has no place in society. There is nothing wrong with questioning the past, however holocaust denial (as the example of Mr. Irving) is not questioning the past.
In some nations it is illegal to defame the dead (as I believe in Sweden and Austria) and in some countries it isn't (as in some states in the USA). That is up to those countries to chose. Personally I would side with no defaming the dead, but I won't get into that now..
| quote: |
And you do realise your unconsistency here? Many times have you defended the right to free speech when it has not hurt yourself (as dave pointed out with christian fundies in the US calling for the assasination of foreign leader, or when it comes to humiliating cartoons), but now when someone is trying to hurt you, or rather your people, you get upset and think it's right to have such law.
|
There is freedom of speech and freedom of speech.
The only reason I sided with Pat Robertson is because there is no law against it, he is in his right. Now if he would have said off with the head of a Congressman, or the President, that would not be free speech, that would put him behind jail.
The cartoons don't slander Islam as you can make the argument (since it is art and open to interperation) that it critiques it. Now if a Danish newspaper were to publich a 'scientific paper about Islam' and come up with "newly aquired sources that prove" Muhammad actually crusified Jesus, ate 20 little kids, 10 little girls, and 4 pigs, when basically making all that up. I would not have supported the issue. That is not free speech, that is libel.
| quote: |
Holocaust denial is no different from other free speech issues. |
Yes it is.
If you make the above claim, then what you are saying is Freedom of Speech should allow me to make up whatever the hell I want, hurt whoever the hell I want doing it, and care little if people lost their lives, livelihood, reputation, or social acceptance because of your lies.
Freedom of speech does not excuse libel, and as I mentioned before and proved above; Holocaust denial = libel.
| quote: |
Btw, do you think Nazism should be illegal as well? Cause really in most countries that is legal?! |
Depends on context: If it is a peaceful political party no.
If it incites violence and terrorism, yes.
For instance, I have no problem with the Communist party in the USA (except thinking that they are a bunch of loons). I do have a problem with Hamas. |
|
|
|
|
