|
You say "No Holocaust" you goto jail. (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Floorfiller |
i would've hoped that in the PDD, people would be able to put bias aside and look at the more abstract issue here...
perhaps this guy is racist...perhaps he is anti-semitic...
the real issue here in my mind is the fact that they are attempting to control the way people think by giving punishment for differing opinion. how many historical persons have been persecuted for offering different opinions, especially in opposition to the catholic church, who now we look at as pioneers?
i know the holocaust is a fragile subject in the jewish community and europe as a whole, but if you take away the ability for people to question things or offer a different point of view than where does it stop? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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 ;)
|
One would like beg to differ as I’ve had to fight off both “liberals” and “conservatives” with respect to this argument. Really is it that easy to defend neo-nazis, the kkk, the bnp, muslim clerics, etc.? ;)
| quote: |
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.
|
Well let’s be frank here, I don’t feel worried about my government abusing its citizens (abuse of non-citizens is a different matter altogether, but I’m sure you’re well aware of that given the Australian government’s alleged treatment of illegal immigrants). There are an assload of protections enshrined in the bill of rights, the constitution, etc. Despite all of this I don’t think that free speech should be limited in my country in a way that’s any different than a country where people might have to worry about their government. I think it’s a universal inalienable right that transcends any system of government and any societal conventions.
| quote: |
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. |
So the proscribed method to counter intolerance is to be intolerant? “Incitement”, promoting “hatred”, and advocating “terrorism” can be applied to virtually any speech depending upon how one wishes to interpret these concepts. The last thing you want is the government to be able to tell its citizens what they can and cannot say regardless of how safe and secure you think your government is. Just because you personally disagree with what this guy has to say does not mean that you can legislate what he can and cannot say. But let me ask you, can you pinpoint any free speech case in the US whereas our liberal free speech laws have caused substantive harm to our country and we would be better of with a more “European” approach?
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Occrider:
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.
|
Unfortunately this does not pass the Zionist mustard of US law. Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. I really doubt that your grandparents, as plaintiffs, could claim that they’ve suffered tangible damages. You might have more of a case if Irving singled out your grandparents personally and called them pathological liars as opposed to questioning the accuracy of the general events as they’ve transpired. Otherwise you would see defamation suits being filed against 9/11 conspiracy theorists, defamation law suits against ufo deniers, hell defamation law suits against anybody practically every historian who does a critical analysis of a historical event. Thankfully, there is a rather high standard and what is regarded as "opinion" is protected. If the person makes a statement of opinion, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation depending upon context. For example, if your employer calls you a pathological liar it less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met or somebody you have never met.
| quote: |
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:
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:
Mr Irving made/published the following remarks:
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...
|
Hehe if this were convictable under US law (which it’s not) you would see many more people prosecuted for libel before this guy (starting with the KKK, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.). As a matter of fact I’m sure Muslims as a whole would LOVE your loose interpretation of libel and would have a field day by taking a whole load of conservative commentators to court. A direct or indirect defendant requires a bit more substance than simply stating a race. As I said before, none of the states allow the defendant to be a group of people. Furthermore you would have to establish that tangible damages were suffered by the defendant. Why do you think defamation suits are so uncommon in the US? Because the burden of proof is extremely high on the plaintiff.
But this argument is irrelevant to this case. A defamation suit is a civil case brought by one person against another. There are no criminal punishments and a government cannot take a citizen to court for defamation. That would be simply ludicrous.
Edit: btw I guess I'm guilty of slandering muslims by insinuating that they might be inclined to be litigious when it comes to slander which is clearly a false generalization. Please don't sue me Shaolin Z. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
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.
|
Republican Senator Tom Coburn: “I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!"
Here you go. I expect you'll lead the charge to put him in jail (for a civil court action :conf: )? I bet I could dredge up a lot worse considering how stupid politicians are. And I'm sure there's enough to send Coulter away for several life sentences.
| quote: |
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.
|
You can't slander a religion, a historical event, or a body of people. Otherwise I'm taking 80% of the Tranceaddicts here to court for indirectly slandering me as a United States citizen when they've said "americans are ..." . |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
INCITING RACIAL HATRED DOES NOT BELONG IN A CIVILIZED WESTERN SOCIETY.
The only people that deny the holocost do it to spread racist propaganda. Not only is Irving doing it, the president of Iran is doing it as well. The freedoms of extremist muslims & nazis should not be protected in a democratic society because they will only abuse those freedoms to spread their own hateful agenda, and they do not respect the same freedoms or even the life of anyone else. As for Irving calling himself a historian - thats laughable. That would be like a surgeon in my hometown that got arrested for practicing medicine without a licence, after the school listed in his credentials denied he ever attended there. |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Holocaust Denial = Libel and Slander. |
if that is correct, why have an extra law declaring holocaust denial as illegal, given libel and slander as existing laws?
or why not an extra law for every other genocide as well? why is holocaust any different? death count statistics? |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
Saying "There is no holocaust" is not libel or slander. It is not libel because it is not directed towards an individual and does not damage anyone's reputation. It is not slander because it is not defamation, does not damage a reputation, and is not "abusive".
Do most find it insulting and uncouth? Sure. Should people be put into jail becuase what they say is against the popular belief and feeling at the time? If your answer is yes, then I hope you never get into a position of power.
To have free speech you cannot censor that which you do not agree with or like. You must take the good with the bad when dealing with free speech. You might think societies today are enlightened enough to give free speech "only where it has place" and censor everything else. I do not. Once a government or a society starts censoring that which is "wrong" or "out of place" you tend towards, and become, societies like Cambodia under Khmer Rouge, or China during the Cultural Revolution. Or like the Catholic (i think) society that censored Galileo when he said the earth revolves around the sun.
To outlaw people like Irving who have a different viewpoint, whether or not you think it is false, just because you find the viewpoint to be wrond or insulting is hubris and is in the same Spirit as the groups I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Many in this thread have equated denying the holocaust to yelling fire in a crowded place, or actual physical acts of violence, and to inciting racial hatred. It is not like yelling fire because it is not a false proclamation that directly endangers the well being of those around. It is obviously not a physical act of violence. And it is not inciting racial hatred, at least within the idea or belief itself. It is within the way that someone would tell of the belief that the holocaust did not happen that might incite racial hatred. It is possible to deny the fact of the holocaust and not hate jews.
Think of it this way:
If you lived in Europe during the peak of power of the Catholic Church, you would be jailed/killed for talking about anything contrary to church doctrine. If you were living in that time, with the knowledge you have now would you just accept the laws and views of the time? Would you just live quietly and tell yourself that you must go along with society and its views are right?
Now think about today and notice that Irving may feel like you would have back then. Just becuase today society accepts a certian viewpoint does not mean that all other viewpoints should be outlawed. Or even that the insulting viewpoint should be censored. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Free speech, by it's very nature, must be completely free and unrestricted. As soon as one restriction is placed upon what may be said, regardless of the justification of that restriction, the notion of speech being "free" is reduced to utter absurdity.
As soon as any speech is restricted on the basis of it being too dangerous, too inflammatory, too obscene, or too slanderous, the idea of free speech is completely and totally obliterated. If all someone wishing to silence speech they don't like needs to do is persuade the governing authority that the speech in question fits into one of these purely subjective categories, then what free speech can be said to exist? Of course, this is to say nothing about the governing authority itself, which can assign these labels to anything it chooses and effectively restrict speech to the level of the police state. As soon as speech can be restricted for subjective reasons (and given the entirely subjective nature of language, there can be no objective reasons,) there is no sufficient protection for legitimate speech.
To take it further, I would argue that it is entirely outside the purview of any legitimate government to place any restrictions upon the content of speech. The reason for this is simple. Because language is subjective, a speaker cannot control how his or her speech will be interpreted. Therefore, speech fails to meet the necessary criterion (namely, direct influence) for responsibility for anything bad that might come of their speech. The real responsibility is the listener's - every individual can and must decide how to interpret and react to everything they hear or read. It is the listener who has direct influence on any and every result of speech, and therefore, it is the listener, not the speaker, who is personally responsible for any of those results which are harmful.
Case closed. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Republican Senator Tom Coburn: “I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!" |
I do believe that there is no limit on free speech of or free speech directed towards elected officials, with the exception noted above of assination talk. If this were between two unofficial and it was more like, "I want to impale that guy because he is a lying bastard" it would be slander and 'that guy' could go to court over it and win after proving he is not a lier or fatherless son.
First, I'll put this out, even though I think I already mentioned it in the begining. I don't necessarily agree with the Austrian law. Freedom of speech should be protected and the government should not place limits on it. That being said freedom of speech in the private domain, of individual to individual should not be limited as it can cause harm. Therefore yes, libel and slander, should be a civil matter tried in civil courts, not criminal (unless there is an obvious direct intent to incite or soon go about violence) as opposed to how Austria has decided to go about it.
Now what the pro-Free speech crowd here seems to forget is that there is no such thing as total free speech and despite the elequence of Arbiters plea, there will never be.
Therefore the society must define where that "fine-line" between free-speech and endangerment lies.
Austria, a society which has experienced the brut of WWII immensely and live with a population who can vouche for exactly what happened and what they did to their Jewish population chose that holocaust denial crosses that line.
The United States, a society, experienced with racial hangings, race wars, and civil unrest, has decided that "hate crimes" and "hate speech" cross that line. If you preach to Timothy McVegh to go out and blow up a federal building, and then he goes out and blows up a federal building, then you are a criminal.
Austrilia has its own line, Canada its own, Israel its own.
Each society decides for itself where that line is "placed".
If you don't believe in the fine line, as the cliche goes, yell fire in a crowded theatre (people would just probably laugh at your really, but give it a try... ;) oh wait, I'm inciting violence.!). But thats fine, you can't always joke about these things either, try and tell the security gaurd at the airport that the bomb is in your others pants and enjoy ;)
So yes, I personally beleive holocaust denial = libel.
If you don't believe me, go tell my grandfather who was a laborer in Auschwitz and watched hundreds being gassed alive to death with the fervor and certainty of David Irving's own conviction in his book that the Nazi's didn't gas anyone, and the whole thing is just a big Jewish conspiracy. Go ahead, I just won't be liable for the consequences.
To tell a man that you do not believe anything of his past, and that he is a money grubbing , is libel, because that is what you are telling my grandfather if you deny the holocaust. Here is a survivor, here is his testemant, and there are thousands like him, and countless documents and testimoney.
If you do not understand the inherint deprevation of reputation and respect made when one levels such a claim in an completely dishonest and malicious intent, then I can't see why you think its ok for Donald Trump to sue an author who claimed his net worth is worth less then Donald claims it is....
Each society defines the line. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
One would like beg to differ as I’ve had to fight off both “liberals” and “conservatives” with respect to this argument. Really is it that easy to defend neo-nazis, the kkk, the bnp, muslim clerics, etc.? ;) |
hehe, i mean its much easier to be consistent in the argument imo. and consistency is the key! ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So the proscribed method to counter intolerance is to be intolerant? “Incitement”, promoting “hatred”, and advocating “terrorism” can be applied to virtually any speech depending upon how one wishes to interpret these concepts. The last thing you want is the government to be able to tell its citizens what they can and cannot say regardless of how safe and secure you think your government is. Just because you personally disagree with what this guy has to say does not mean that you can legislate what he can and cannot say. But let me ask you, can you pinpoint any free speech case in the US whereas our liberal free speech laws have caused substantive harm to our country and we would be better of with a more “European” approach? |
thats the thing though, im not saying there should be legislation because i disagree with what someone says, i think there should be legislation to prevent and/or punish those that cause harm. ive read people's rough interpretations of libel/slander, and the biggest difference seems to me that there is a quantifiable/measureable outcome for this particular exercise in free speech. so because it is virtually impossible to measure any negative outcomes that flow on from certain acitivites, those activities can continue unabated even though there are almost surely strong negative repercussions? the recent terror case involves a cleric leading a bunch of young men towards the goal of committing an attack on australian soil.
| quote: |
In electronic surveillance conducted by police since July 2004, the apprentice electrician was heard discussing with his group's so-called \"spiritual leader\", Benbrika, 45, of Dallas, whether it would be better to martyr himself overseas or in Australia.
Federal agent Jennifer Vandermoss told the court Merhi was \"seeking revenge on the 'kafar' — which are the infidels — for their actions.\\\\\\\"
Benbrika was charged with intentionally directing the activities of a terrorist organisation and knowing the organisation was a terrorist organisation. |
link
do i want people punished for engaging in these activities? yeah.
and just coz youve drowned the world in your mostly awful popular culture doesnt mean we also get all the useful or important information about your wonderful country :p so no, i dont have any free speech cases for you. but i will use my aussie example again of radio talkshow host Alan Jones using his free speech to:
| quote: |
He assured his huge audience he \"understood\" why that famous text message went out and he read it right through again on air. \"Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge. This Sunday every Aussie in the Shire get down to North Cronulla to support the Leb and wog bashing day …\"
Daily he cautioned his listeners not to take the law into their own hands, but he warmed to listeners who had exactly that on their minds.
Last Thursday Charlie rang to suggest all junior footballers in the Shire gather on the beach to support the lifesavers. \"Good stuff, good stuff,\" said Jones.
\"I tell you who we want to encourage, Charlie, all the Pacific Island people because, you want to know something, they don't take any nonsense. They are proud to be here — all those Samoans and Fijians. They love being here. And they say, 'Uh huh, uh huh. You step out of line, look out.' And, of course, cowards always run, don't they?\"
W
hen John called on Tuesday to bluntly recommend vigilante action — \"If the police can't do the job, the next tier is us\" — Jones did not dissent. \"Yeh. Good on you, John.\" And when he then offered a maxim his father had picked up during the war — \"Shoot one, the rest will run\" — the broadcaster roared with laughter. \"No, you don't play Queensberry's rules. Good on you, John.\" |
link
and what do you know? large scale rioting occured and innocent bystanders were attacked for having the wrong coloured skin. does someone who hosts a radio show have a higher responsibility with what they say than your average citizen? yeah they do.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The real responsibility is the listener's - every individual can and must decide how to interpret and react to everything they hear or read. It is the listener who has direct influence on any and every result of speech, and therefore, it is the listener, not the speaker, who is personally responsible for any of those results which are harmful. |
by that token its ok to yell \"fire\" in a crowded theatre because it is the listeners that decide to stampede.
there are so many different limits to so-called absolute free speech, that im really unconcerned with telling murderous clerics or nazi liars that their activities are not welcome in my country. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
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:
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. |
Fyi: I don't question the holocaust, at all! In fact I think people who deny that fact are amongst the stupidest we have on earth! However, I will defend people's right to have a critical opinion on things, even though their opinions are "wrong". So chill down ;)
| quote: | | 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. |
So how's denying the right of someone who is clearly critizising the goverment's stance on the holocaust comiting an illegal act?
| quote: | 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. |
What is it if it's not questioning the past? Of course he got an agenda, but so do people who is denying evolution, should their opinion be illegal too since they are denying something obvious? Of course they are not equally as bad, but still just to give you an example (oh god would I love sueing Nellie for being stupid or what?!).
| quote: | | 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.. |
Is it really in Sweden? I have never heard about such law...
| quote: | 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. |
Well, as far as I know most discussions we have here are not defending laws, but rather defending philosophies? Besides, were there anyone in that thread denying his right to say what he said? As far as I know we were only criticising his stupid opinion, but you were defending his right to say it?
And what makes it different if you are advocating the death of your president and the death of someone else's president?
| quote: | | 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. |
So you honestly think that some idiot comming up with that report should be put behind bars? :conf:
Clearly people would just consider such report as idiocity and it would help no one to put the scientist behind bars.
Anyway, obviously the Muslims are equally if not more offended by the cartoons than the Jews are by holocaust deniers, and one picture actually had their prophet as a terrorist, isnt that libel too by your definitions?
| quote: | 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. |
Check what occrider posted on libel and you will see the difference. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| This law its rediculous. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
This law its rediculous. |
Then Rwandan DJs can't be on trial either :) and in fact the whole "genocide" was just a result of "free speach". |
|
|
|
|
