|
You say "No Holocaust" you goto jail. (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
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 ;)
|
Well point is, denying the holocaust isn't just stupid or wrong, but its tantamount to being mentally ill...
| quote: |
So how's denying the right of someone who is clearly critizising the goverment's stance on the holocaust comiting an illegal act? |
No, I never said that. A person clearly has the right to critize his country's policies. Mr. Irving was not doing this.
| quote: |
What is it if it's not questioning the past? |
What do you mean, questioning the future? the present? a perosn? a dog?...
You can be slandering the present yes.
| quote: |
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?!). |
If a country decides to draw the 'line' there, then yes, it could very well be. Although the theory of evolution is not a proven theory, denying such things I could defintely see as causing harm and injury to many (children for instance) who could then sue those propogating such myths and lies. However, if they are resonably able to produce holes in evolution (not impossible) the suit might fail.. but yes, it would be nice if shame scientist would have to prove their statements to at least a certian degree of skepticality. I think society would be better for this, not worse, but thats my own personal opinion.
| quote: | | Is it really in Sweden? I have never heard about such law... |
Ya, thought I read it in an article somewhere... can't pinpoint it exactly right now, you know how it is sometimes just when you look for that article that you read a day, week, month, year ago, and got absorbed in your brain but you can't attribute the source.. :( happens to much.
| quote: |
So you honestly think that some idiot comming up with that report should be put behind bars? :conf: |
That is up for the society to decide. Me personally, just civil action would be enough. However, if a country deams it criminal, which it very easily could be consider, yes criminal action is fine ... i.e. put him behind bars.
| quote: |
Clearly people would just consider such report as idiocity and it would help no one to put the scientist behind bars. |
Clearly people do not just "consider such reports as idiocity" otherwise we would not have any islamophobes or holocaust deniers in the world living today. We do. And many believe in these theories because of the shame "scientists" that make these ridicilous and unproven claims.
I don't know why you used the phrase "put the scientist behind bars" in your above paragraph. Either you misread or interperted what I wrote or you don't comprehend the difference between a person who makes up lies to one who observing the world and making assertions and tries to extract conclusions.
| quote: |
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? |
Wait 50+ years, see how tame the Muslims will be then after you draw cartoons of them. Using hilter to compare against to world leaders today like, Sharon is Hitler, Bush is Hilter, your mom is Hitler, and the term nazi for simialr purposes, Putin is a Nazi, your Dad is a Nazi, you are a fashion nazi whore, have all taken the sting out of the terms. But these still invoke a lot of emotions, especially in those that lived during those times and they are more then just legends and murmors but real live and strong memories.
Regardless, no drawing pictures of someone's God or prophet, etc. is not libel, in my own philosophy freedom of religion grants the freedom of speech on religion, both good and bad. It changes however, if you claim that "no Iraqis civilians were killed by US forces in Iraq, and all such things are lies and all Iraqis who claim they had relatives killed by US forces or bombs are sycopathes trying to swindle money" --- yea thats slanderous.
| quote: | | Check what occrider posted on libel and you will see the difference. |
Its all a matter of where you draw the line.... is it at fire? at bomb? at telling people to blow up buildings? telling people to slaughter millions? telling people swedes like goat sex? I dunno...:p ;) |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
by that token its ok to yell \"fire\" in a crowded theatre because it is the listeners that decide to stampede. |
Abso-freakin'-lutely!
Even if you're thoughtless enough, when confronted by a fire in a crowded theatre, to respond by blindly charging in the direction of the nearest exit with no regard for the health or safety of others, you can still be responsible enough to, you know, actually verify that there is indeed a fire before you proceed with the scrambling and the trampling. After all, if there was a fire of sufficient magnitude that "stampeding" would be even remotely necessary, there would be plenty of very obvious signs that one could quickly recognize like, you know, flames, heat, and smoke.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist here, all this requires the bare minimum level of intelligence to even come close to being able to operate in any sort of a rational way. Anyone who is not capable of this level of thinking probably shouldn't be in a public place at all, but rather some sort of special care center or maybe a barn.  |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Abso-freakin'-lutely!
Even if you're thoughtless enough, when confronted by a fire in a crowded theatre, to respond by blindly charging in the direction of the nearest exit with no regard for the health or safety of others, you can still be responsible enough to, you know, actually verify that there is indeed a fire before you proceed with the scrambling and the trampling. After all, if there was a fire of sufficient magnitude that "stampeding" would be even remotely necessary, there would be plenty of very obvious signs that one could quickly recognize like, you know, flames, heat, and smoke.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist here, all this requires the bare minimum level of intelligence to even come close to being able to operate in any sort of a rational way. Anyone who is not capable of this level of thinking probably shouldn't be in a public place at all, but rather some sort of special care center or maybe a barn. |
Yes, but here you're missing a couple of points. First of all, you don't have to be the idiot who goes on stampeding to get killed, you just have to be surrounded by such idiots. So if someone yells fire and you get stampeded over, he's as guilty as if he'd open up the gates of a barn and unleashed upon you a bunch of bulls.
Secondary, in such situations I don't think it's very smart to go search around the building to check out every possible corner and see if there really is a fire, because by the time you may find it, it may have already be spreading all over the place and possibly cut your routes of escape.
As for things like hate speech and similar stuff, there is such a thing as indirect responsibility. Say you find an idiot on the street and convince him to kill a person. While you technically didn't commit the murder, you were the reason for it, because if it weren't for your intent action, the murder wouldn't have happened. And since you are the one who intentionally caused that, you also have to suffer consequences of it. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
I have relatives on one side of my family who were forced to be Hitler youths & seen people who refused to join be publically executed. The town they are from was also bombed to in World War 2. How did Hitler pay back Germany ( and all it's neighbours ) back for all the death & destruction he caused - the ing coward killed himself & let everyone else deal with the consequences. So I guess that would make him both a mass murderer & the ultimate traiter / treasonist as well.
The Holocaust did happen & Hitler did cause World War 2 and alot of honorable Canadians, Americans, Europeans & Russians also died fighting in Europe. Also where the hell do all the holocaust deniers
think all the Jewish people that died went?
While Hitler is not the Worlds only mass murderer, he was intent on being the most efficient & he had turned mass murder into a profitable industry. They even made lamp shades out of human skin & used human hair on stuffed animals. His death squads gassed people, stuffed them into compression chambers to see how much pressure kills them, put them in frozen water so see how long it would take them to die, injected people with hydrochloric acid, hung people from trees on meat hooks, and the list goes on from there. Also if Holocaust deniers do not believe all the film from World War 2 Germany ( alot of which I did see ) then what the do they think did happen? Do they believe Hitlers propaganda films instead. I've seen several of those, which are some of the fakest, cheesiest video footage I've ever seen.
Austria is a democratic country, and unlike what alot of people here seem to think, is not a colony of the U.S. The people that live there mostly support the hate laws that have been passed. I support them as well. Anyone that denies the Holocaust is disrespecting all people that died from Hitler & the European battles of World War 2 including all the soldiers that were injured or killed fighting for freedom & human rights that most of us take for granted. The fact that people who deny the holocaust to incite racism are considered criminals there, may be their only way to pay back the World for the fact that alot of people in Austria did support Hitler in the 1930s. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
Canada's hate speech laws have also been used to prosecute people on multiple occasions. One being back in the 1990s when a racist heavy metal band & neo nazi music producer in Windsor, Ontario; called Racial Holy War had it's record studio, all it's equipment & thousands of CD's seized by the RCMP. They also faced Federal charges. Hopefully someone else on ths forum from Windsor knows more on exactly what those charges were.
On another occasion Eminim was denied entry into Canada at the Windsor - Detroit border while on his way to a Concert event in Toronto because he "violated Canada's hate speech laws". |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Yes, but here you're missing a couple of points. First of all, you don't have to be the idiot who goes on stampeding to get killed, you just have to be surrounded by such idiots. So if someone yells fire and you get stampeded over, he's as guilty as if he'd open up the gates of a barn and unleashed upon you a bunch of bulls. |
I don't agree. It's not unfair to expect a human being to operate in a more rational manner than a barnyard animal. If you are there, and you get trampled by a bunch of idiots, it is those idiots and only those idiots who are responsible for their own actions. The guy who yelled fire probably ought to be thrown out of the theatre for being disruptive, but holding him responsible for the actions of other people is a bit daft in my opinion.
| quote: | | Secondary, in such situations I don't think it's very smart to go search around the building to check out every possible corner and see if there really is a fire, because by the time you may find it, it may have already be spreading all over the place and possibly cut your routes of escape. |
If there is a fire of sufficient magnitude and/or proximity that an orderly evacuation is not possible, I very much doubt that much searching would be required if in fact such a fire did exist. You don't have to perform an exhaustive search - you only need to gauge the urgency of the situation. And if there is absolutely no sign of fire in the immediate area, the situation isn't really very urgent.
| quote: | | As for things like hate speech and similar stuff, there is such a thing as indirect responsibility. Say you find an idiot on the street and convince him to kill a person. While you technically didn't commit the murder, you were the reason for it, because if it weren't for your intent action, the murder wouldn't have happened. And since you are the one who intentionally caused that, you also have to suffer consequences of it. |
Again, I don't agree, and the claim "you were the reason for it" strikes me as a complex cause fallacy. The real reason for it - that is to say, the most direct and necessary cause of the undersired outcome was not your persuasive power but the conscious and volitional choice of the murderer to respond to your words by physically killing another human being. Suggesting to someone that they commit a murder is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to actually bring about a murder. On the other hand, deciding to murder someone on the basis of whatever information is available is a necessary condition (according to most legal definitions of murder) to bring about that consequence. If we can assume that there will be an opportunity for this act to be carried out, then it is also a sufficient condition. In this situation, the only person who is justifiably accountable is the person who actually makes the decision that results directly in the murder.
If the persuader committed an overt act towards the goal of bringing about this murder - for example, giving the murderer money, then perhaps a seperate case for criminal conspiracy could be made. But not on the power of words alone. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| Your argument is tired seeing as how millions of people throughout history have followed the words of just ONE man in any given age. Be it Jesus or Hitler, without the man or his words or teachings there'd be no followers. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
Your argument is tired seeing as how millions of people throughout history have followed the words of just ONE man in any given age. Be it Jesus or Hitler, without the man or his words or teachings there'd be no followers. |
And without their parents, there'd have been no "them." But they are still responsible for their own actions, not their parents, or people who they choose to follow. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
And without their parents, there'd have been no "them." But they are still responsible for their own actions, not their parents, or people who they choose to follow. |
So what you are saying is that people should be responsible for their own actions so like a guy who convinces someone to kill another being they shouldn't be held responsible. How about this scenario; a husband hires a hitman to kill his wife for him and while they do not find the hitman they find sufficient evidence that the husband is to blame. So you believe that the husband shouldn't go to jail for the murder of his wife because he did not do it physically? So for the husband you would say that he shouldn't be held for anything?
|
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
And without their parents, there'd have been no "them." But they are still responsible for their own actions, not their parents, or people who they choose to follow. |
I'd reply but metalgearsolidsolid beat me to it. There's no way you're going to prove that the man/woman who encourages events isn't the cause. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
I'd reply but metalgearsolidsolid beat me to it. There's no way you're going to prove that the man/woman who encourages events isn't the cause. |
You probably should anyways Arbiter hates me; so chances are he won't reply to my comment.
he fears the tin hat |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I don't agree. It's not unfair to expect a human being to operate in a more rational manner than a barnyard animal. If you are there, and you get trampled by a bunch of idiots, it is those idiots and only those idiots who are responsible for their own actions. The guy who yelled fire probably ought to be thrown out of the theatre for being disruptive, but holding him responsible for the actions of other people is a bit daft in my opinion. |
Whether you expect that humans do or do not behave in a more rational way than barn animals, somethimes they just *do* act as barn animals, and you and I both know it. By yelling fire in a theater, any person who is not mentally retarded knows that such an action *could* result in a stampede, because human stampedes *do* happen. Now, without venturing into discussions why people sometimes tend to behave like barn animals, or whether such a thing can ever be avoided, doing something that you know might very well directly result in a situation where an innocent person could be harmed or killed should not be legal.
| quote: | | If there is a fire of sufficient magnitude and/or proximity that an orderly evacuation is not possible, I very much doubt that much searching would be required if in fact such a fire did exist. You don't have to perform an exhaustive search - you only need to gauge the urgency of the situation. And if there is absolutely no sign of fire in the immediate area, the situation isn't really very urgent. |
That is correct if you're talking about 1 story buildings. But imagine yourself being in a basement of a tall building whose top few floors are on fire and are starting to collapse. Or vice-versa, imagine yourself being on the top when the basement sets on fire. In such situations you really do have to make a retreat as hasty as possible because every second might count. And you really can't blame the people for being selfish and starting a stampede, because everyone is looking out for his own ass. If you see a bunch of people starting to push around you, you can either push back and join the rush or get stampeded over. Stopping and saying "hey guys, let's slow down and think this over" just won't work.
| quote: | | Again, I don't agree, and the claim "you were the reason for it" strikes me as a complex cause fallacy. The real reason for it - that is to say, the most direct and necessary cause of the undersired outcome was not your persuasive power but the conscious and volitional choice of the murderer to respond to your words by physically killing another human being. Suggesting to someone that they commit a murder is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to actually bring about a murder. On the other hand, deciding to murder someone on the basis of whatever information is available is a necessary condition (according to most legal definitions of murder) to bring about that consequence. If we can assume that there will be an opportunity for this act to be carried out, then it is also a sufficient condition. In this situation, the only person who is justifiably accountable is the person who actually makes the decision that results directly in the murder. |
Theoretically, again, this is agreeable. But in reality utilitarianism should sometimes be used instead of idealism if it provides better results. In other words, having a member of society who intentionally talks idiots into commiting crimes is obviously harmful and potentially dangerous to completely innocent people. Of course those idiots are guilty of crimes as well, but jailing such small fish who commit crimes accompleshes nothing because it doesn't stop the guy at the top from continuing on his agenda. On the other hand putting the top guy in jail usually provides better results. Saying that the idiots should not have listened to him does not really do any good, because every now and again some idiot *does* listen and do what he's said. So in one scenario you may have x (x>1) people killed and x people jailed, while in the other one you may have 1 person killed and 2 people jailed. Overall the second scenario is less harmful than the first one. |
|
|
|
|
