NationStates Jolt Archive

You are pathetic.
An old book.. written by other men (your bible) dictates what race you can (or cannot) be friendly to.

Same as the Koran...

I never said I hate Palestinians; I just said I wish they would leave Israel alone and stop trying to exterminate them.of course you didnt :rolleyes:
When I quoted you with bold red.. I must have misinterpreted your words.

Same as the Koran...Like I said:
My view is that you should read -yourself- those old religious writings.. and make YOUR OWN interpretations.

Like I said:

Kind of hard to misinterpret the parts about killing non-Muslims, and killing Jews.

Could you two take this out of the thread and into another? Please? This has nothing to do with the subject. I'd like to have one Holocaust thread that isn't ruined with religious flamewars.

Kind of hard to misinterpret the parts about killing non-Muslims, and killing Jews.have you -yourself- read the Koran..

I don think so.. You likely picked-that-up from some Evangelical web site.. or maybe you are a Pat Roberson(or the other wackos) "fan"

The conspiracy grows and grows...

Wait... you know too much! You're one of them!

Agggggghh! God-hating Jewish communist baby-eating liberal! Agggggh!

Of course I know too much.

You know that Jews have quirky sexual powers that pass on that knowledge during sexual intercourse? Of course I know too much. ;) That's why there is such a crusade against pre-marital sex. They have to keep the whole conspiracy a secret!

This is all clearly evidence of the Jewish Mind Control Ray. There is no other rational explanation.

Damn, those Jews have it all. :D

Could you two take this out of the thread and into another? Please? This has nothing to do with the subject. I'd like to have one Holocaust thread that isn't ruined with religious flamewars.

What about having it ruined by people who hijack it and make conspiracy jokes? :D

have you -yourself- read the Koran..

I don think so.. You likely picked-that-up from some Evangelical web site.. or maybe you are a Pat Roberson(or the other wackos) "fan"

I have a copy, and I've read it.

And no, I'm not a Pat Robertson fan.

What about having it ruined by people who hijack it and make conspiracy jokes? :Djewish jokes are funnier when told by Hot jewish females.. I say u probably qualify. ;)
BTW Krys.. I still like that song.

jewish jokes are funnier when told by Hot jewish females.. I say u probably qualify. ;)
BTW Krys.. I still like that song.

Damnit, so I didn't ruin it for you? ;) Oh well... time to try and rain on someone else's parade. :D

I have a copy, and I've read it.Let me double check that..
#1 you've read the Koran (sp?)
#2 you say the Koran says you should hate people based on their race.

Damnit, so I didn't ruin it for you? ;) Oh well... time to try and rain on someone else's parade. :DNo.. plz stay.
I like your Jewish jokes.. and I do picture you as Hot.

anyways.. I am going AFK.. see you later.

Let me double check that..
#1 you've read the Koran (sp?)
#2 you say the Koran says you should hate people based on their race.

Based on their beliefs...

What about having it ruined by people who hijack it and make conspiracy jokes? :D

You flatter me.

You flatter me.

I misread this as 'flatten'. :D

Or pursued their sinister religion?
quoted as proof that UB is an anti-semitic dirtbag.

have you -yourself- read the Koran..

I don think so.. You likely picked-that-up from some Evangelical web site.. or maybe you are a Pat Roberson(or the other wackos) "fan" Ah, now no one called Robertson a moderate. Al-Sistani is consistently called a moderate, though, and he puts unbelievers on the level of shit, pigs and dog sweat (najis). Imagine if Robertson or Falwell said that about non-Christians!

[/religious flamewar]

s
You are pathetic.


I quoted this as an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

No.. plz stay.
I like your Jewish jokes.. and I do picture you as Hot.

All you need to make a tasteful Jewish joke is a snide comment that twists what the other person says. Or fail that, just say something about the nagging nature of Jewish mothers and how they could nag bin Laden into surrendering.

quoted as proof that UB is an anti-semitic dirtbag.

Quoted as proof that IDF likes to start flamewars. You could have done without the name calling.

quoted as proof that UB is an anti-semitic dirtbag.I'll take that as a compliment.

I think it's inapropriate to make *any* historical discussion illegal.

Firstly, it sets a bad precedent for Government censorship. If it can be acceptable to silence discussion on the historical accuracy of the Holocaust, what's next?

Second ,like most, I believe the Holocaust occurred. At the same time, I have nothing to fear from someone who doesn't. Let them speak. Let the audience decide based upon the evidence. It shouldn't be necessary to silence them.

Third, by making a special point of outlawing this particular topic, it does cast a light of suspicion on the motives of these governments. It certainly isn't going to convince someone who is undecided or who doesn't believe the Holocaust occurred.

I think it's inapropriate to make *any* historical discussion illegal.

Firstly, it sets a bad precedent for Government censorship. If it can be acceptable to silence discussion on the historical accuracy of the Holocaust, what's next?

Second ,like most, I believe the Holocaust occurred. At the same time, I have nothing to fear from someone who doesn't. Let them speak. Let the audience decide based upon the evidence. It shouldn't be necessary to silence them.

Third, by making a special point of outlawing this particular topic, it does cast a light of suspicion on the motives of these governments. It certainly isn't going to convince someone who is undecided or who doesn't believe the Holocaust occurred.

Denying the holocaust is not a "historical discussion". And it's not a matter of belief either. The holocaust is a fact and there is nothing to doubt. You might discuss details, reasons, impacts, but not say it did not happen.

Let them speak. Let the audience decide based upon the evidence. It shouldn't be necessary to silence them. You have not understood what this is about. Folks who deny the holocaust are not folks who don't know better, but folks who pursue an agenda with spreading misinformation.

You might discuss details, reasons, impacts, ..I think that is what he means by "historical discussion".

and I agree with his line of tough. he brings a lot of logic to the subject.

I think that is what he means by "historical discussion".No, his "historical discussion" would be about the holocaust being real or not. He says "I believe the Holocaust occurred." But the occurrence just is not a matter of personal opinion.

Let me double check that..
#1 you've read the Koran (sp?)
#2 you say the Koran says you should hate people based on their race.

It doesn't say to hate people based on race, but rather on religion. Good job twisting around what was said.

No, his "historical discussion" would be about the holocaust being real or not. He says "I believe the Holocaust occurred." But the occurrence just is not a matter of personal opinion.

Holocaust deniers argue about lots of details, and often they are right. This will not make the Holocaust go away, still their arguments helped uncover the truth in more than one case. Still I don't think they should get any government fund for their research. That would be like funding slavery deniers in the US. Well, it happened. They have a good argument for their case only because there are tons of contradictory and baseless statements presented as facts by researchers who really should know better. Attacking bad research is good. If it is done by holocaust deniers, or other lunatics, it is even better because it clearly shows what kind of ugly worms can surface when irresponsible bums publish their work as if they did some research, not just listened to some rumors and urban legends.

Obviously my original post has been misinterpreted. I DON'T deny that the Holocaust happened. I was just trying to make 3 main points. I will list them out for those of you too dense to understand what I was saying before.

1. While civilians were targeted based on certain groups they belonged to (such as Jews), and many were killed in concentration camps, there is no evidence to incriminate the top Nazi officials. By evidence I am refering to documentation. Don't mention the Wannsee conference, since the record of that was proven to be a forgery, and no longer considered credible by objective historians. Any such genocide that occured was not connected to the Nazi government. Germans are good record-keepers. If Hitler, Himmler, or another top Nazi official had ordered any such genocide, there would be evidence to show that.

2. This mass slaughter of civilians was not just aimed at the Jews. I have a problem with the Jews getting all the attention. I get so annoyed whenever I hear someone say "Never forget.", because it seems people have forgotten about all the other people that died. Why are they so special?

3. I don't think it is a good idea to outlaw the debate on an issue. If European governments outlaw free speech, then how is that any different from when Hitler outlawed free speech. You may think that everything you believe about the Holocaust is completely factual. If that is so, then what does anyone have to be afraid of in having that thesis scrutinized. I know that it is irresponsible to allow total freedom of speech. Incitement to violence should not be tolerated, but other than that, what harm is there in resonable discussion about the facts? Outlaw this, and you are just encouraging anti-Semites, such as neo-Nazis and Muslims.

By the way, I am not anti-Semitic. In fact, I am pro-Israel.

I don't hate the Jewish people, because God says He will CURSE all those who curse the Jews (Genesis 12:1-3; Esther 9:1).
You can hate them, just don't curse them. I mean if you take literature like Genesis as seriously as if it was a world factbook entry for Earth.

I'll take that as a compliment.
I'd expect no less from someone who supports it when a terrorist group kills Jews sitting in cafes.

Germans are good record-keepers. If Hitler, Himmler, or another top Nazi official had ordered any such genocide, there would be evidence to show that.
You mean like this (http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/)? :rolleyes:

http://www.hdot.org/ieindex.html A great collection of evidence there.

In fact, I am pro-Israel.
So, bascially, you're telling me the Nazis were swell guys because there is apparently "no evidence" but expect me to not treat you accordingly because you add "I'm pro-Israel"? Like that excuses it?

Any such genocide that occured was not connected to the Nazi government. Germans are good record-keepers. If Hitler, Himmler, or another top Nazi official had ordered any such genocide, there would be evidence to show that.


Actually they did with the help of IBM Hollerith systems......

I find this quote interesting. This is from a speech Himmler gave in Poland in 1943. It's from one of Neu Leonstein's links...

We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it to kill this people who would kill us.

The Nazis were afraid the Jews would kill them? Anyone else find this exceedingly amusing?

I'd expect no less from someone who supports it when a terrorist group kills Jews sitting in cafes.

You're being an ass.

Denying the holocaust is not a "historical discussion". And it's not a matter of belief either. The holocaust is a fact and there is nothing to doubt. You might discuss details, reasons, impacts, but not say it did not happen.

You have not understood what this is about. Folks who deny the holocaust are not folks who don't know better, but folks who pursue an agenda with spreading misinformation.

I understand fine. My point is that by making such an effort to silence them, you lend them credibility.

When I was a student at the University of Maryland, there was a big controversy when a self-described historian wanted to come to our campus and give a speech about how he believed the Holocaust never happened. The controvery and backlash was enormous and im ny opinion, counterproductive. If people hadn't reacted the way they did, with protests, noise, editorials and so forth, this guy wouldn't have gotten nearly the attention he did. I knew nothing about him or his speech until I heard people complaining about it.

Do I agree the Holocaust is historical fact? Yes. But it's not my place to decide that it must be categorized as something that's no longer up for discussion, whatever the motives of thsoe who want to discuss it. Bullshit has a way of making itself obvious. Just let it happen.

1. While civilians were targeted based on certain groups they belonged to (such as Jews), and many were killed in concentration camps, there is no evidence to incriminate the top Nazi officials. By evidence I am refering to documentation. Don't mention the Wannsee conference, since the record of that was proven to be a forgery, and no longer considered credible by objective historians. Any such genocide that occured was not connected to the Nazi government. Germans are good record-keepers. If Hitler, Himmler, or another top Nazi official had ordered any such genocide, there would be evidence to show that.

So what youa re in effect telling me, is that these camps appeared out of nowhere, and the Jews were rounded up and gassed in these camps, and the top officials of the DICTATORSHIP had no idea? These people, that were too scared to do anything without the OK of Hitler and his officials, did this totally spontaneously? And Hitler, the dictator of the country, had no idea that millions of his dollars were being spent on this program? What did the Gestapo and SS tell him it was spent on? You're telling me also, that the leader of the SS had no idea that his soldiers were manning these camps and rounding up the Jews? His soldiers just en masse, disobeyed orders, or moonlighted in this project, and Himmler just had no idea? Where did they get the money? What did they tell their leaders was happening?

2. This mass slaughter of civilians was not just aimed at the Jews. I have a problem with the Jews getting all the attention. I get so annoyed whenever I hear someone say "Never forget.", because it seems people have forgotten about all the other people that died. Why are they so special? While the Roma and Sinti gypsies per capita suffered far more losses than the Jews, the Jews were the main target of propaganda and the various laws restricting their rights. They also suffered the most brutally. Also, gypsies are still on the fringe of European society even today, and are viewed with suspicion and outright hatred by many, many people. So they are less sympathetic than the Jews.

3. I don't think it is a good idea to outlaw the debate on an issue. If European governments outlaw free speech, then how is that any different from when Hitler outlawed free speech. You may think that everything you believe about the Holocaust is completely factual. If that is so, then what does anyone have to be afraid of in having that thesis scrutinized. I know that it is irresponsible to allow total freedom of speech. Incitement to violence should not be tolerated, but other than that, what harm is there in resonable discussion about the facts? Outlaw this, and you are just encouraging anti-Semites, such as neo-Nazis and Muslims.

I am not afraid of having my thesis scrutinised by people that use actual facts to refute my claims. Holocaust denial has no facts to support it's claims and in fact is fuelled only by hatred and anti-Semitism, no matter how you try to dress it up.

Having been apart of this discussion from the start, I would like to ask everyone this: Given that the MAJORITY of us accept the Holocaust as truth, is it considered anti-Semitic or Holocaust denial if we question the number of people actually killed? It has been shown that the number of people, including Jews has fluctuated with time as we get a better grasp of the extent of the damage. It is wrong to question anything about it that doesn't seem right, or doesn't make sense?

The Nazis were afraid the Jews would kill them? Anyone else find this exceedingly amusing?
That's how antisemitism has always worked. Jews snatching children, Jews controlling the world economy, Jews controlling the world media, Jews making Germany lose the war.

It's easiest to justify killing innocent people if you pretend they're not really innocent.

So, bascially, you're telling me the Nazis were swell guys because there is apparently "no evidence" but expect me to......*snipNo, the Nazis were NOT swell guys..
The Nazis were... Germans.

No, the Nazis were NOT swell guys..
The Nazis were... Germans.
That post makes remarkably little sense to me.

No, the Nazis were NOT swell guys..
The Nazis were... Germans.

Psssst. Hitler wasn't German.

That's how antisemitism has always worked. Jews snatching children, Jews controlling the world economy, Jews controlling the world media, Jews making Germany lose the war.

It's easiest to justify killing innocent people if you pretend they're not really innocent.
That's the basis of a popular theory as to why Hitler persecuted the Jews. They were an easily identifiable minority on whom he could pin the blame for any number of things, thus making himself Germany's saviour.

But I still oppose restrictions on free speech like this. Holocaust denial is illegal in Canada, too. That's why we deported Ernst Zundel. But I don't see what benefit we derive from prohibiting speech?

Psssst. Hitler wasn't German.

But he really wanted to be. He wished real hard and tapped his shoes together and said thrice, "I wish I was a German..."

Psssst. Hitler wasn't German.

Pssst....Yeah, he was.

Having been apart of this discussion from the start, I would like to ask everyone this: Given that the MAJORITY of us accept the Holocaust as truth, is it considered anti-Semitic or Holocaust denial if we question the number of people actually killed? It has been shown that the number of people, including Jews has fluctuated with time as we get a better grasp of the extent of the damage. It is wrong to question anything about it that doesn't seem right, or doesn't make sense?

An honest search for the truth is never wrong.

But I think it's a sad sign of the times that it's necessary to even ask the question.

But I still oppose restrictions on free speech like this. Holocaust denial is illegal in Canada, too. That's why we deported Ernst Zundel. But I don't see what benefit we derive from prohibiting speech?

Zundel, so funny...stupid git renounced his Canadian citizenship. You can't deport someone for denying the holocaust...but you can deport someone who isn't a citizen of your country, and it just so happened that he claimed to be German and the Germans wanted him :D

Pssst....Yeah, he was.

He was Austrian.

Pssst....Yeah, he was.
Yeah, you try and go to Austria and tell them they and Germans are the same thing. :p

Yeah, you try and go to Austria and tell them they and Germans are the same thing. :p

I will.

Pssst....Yeah, he was.

Funny. I thought he was born in the Austrian town of Braunau.

Psssst. Hitler wasn't German.technically he was Aussie.. But he was a German.. he was a German Patriot..
Just like my favorite American Patriot.. Arnold Swazshjtjznehgger :D

Arnold for president !!!

I will.
Hehe, remember to take a camera.

But he really wanted to be. He wished real hard and tapped his shoes together and said thrice, "I wish I was a German..."

Ok. That got a laugh from me. :D

technically he was Aussie.. But he was a German.. he was a German Patriot..

Uh... Aussie is NOT an Austrian...

Uh... Aussie is NOT an Austrian...I did not say Oz'sie :D
In some places by centralEurope they do call them Aussie. and some Football fans call just call them krautz (like the Germans)

Obviously my original post has been misinterpreted. I DON'T deny that the Holocaust happened. I was just trying to make 3 main points. I will list them out for those of you too dense to understand what I was saying before.People trying to relativate the extent of the holocaust aren't much better than those that deny it outright.

1. While civilians were targeted based on certain groups they belonged to (such as Jews), and many were killed in concentration camps, there is no evidence to incriminate the top Nazi officials. By evidence I am refering to documentation. :rolleyes: Don't mention the Wannsee conference, since the record of that was proven to be a forgery, and no longer considered credible by objective historians.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Evidence? Any shred that it was a forgery? Names of respectable historians that don't consider it real?
Any such genocide that occured was not connected to the Nazi government.You're an idiot to believe the Nazis weren't connected with their genocide.
Germans are good record-keepers. If Hitler, Himmler, or another top Nazi official had ordered any such genocide, there would be evidence to show that.And when such documentation exists, it is conveniently labelled "forgery". And Hitler wasn't German, so perhaps the documentation doesn't count. Unless you want to read the interviews with his secretary or watch the movie based on her memories (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/).

2. This mass slaughter of civilians was not just aimed at the Jews. Most of the attention went to the jews. Show me pictures of stormtroopers standing in front of shops with signs saying "Kauft nicht beim Zeugen Jehovas" or the names that homosexuals had to have written in their passports or the patches Sinti and Roma had to sow on their clothes. You probably won't find any, though.
I have a problem with the Jews getting all the attention. Then put the blame where its due: With the NSDAP. They were the ones that started it.
I get so annoyed whenever I hear someone say "Never forget.", because it seems people have forgotten about all the other people that died. Why are they so special? I get annoyed when someone tries to whitewash the Nazi party.

3. I don't think it is a good idea to outlaw the debate on an issue. Why? When people say never forget over here, it doesn't mean just the Jews. Besides, its not as if debating it is outlawed. Making up things about it is. The exhibition of the Sachsenhausen memorial site has been undergoing continued revision because the Soviets and GDR exagerated a few details.
If European governments outlaw free speech, then how is that any different from when Hitler outlawed free speech. Missed a question mark. Perhaps the difference is that holocaust deniers aren't hung by the neck until dead and that holocaust deniers younger than fourteen wouldn even be tried.
You may think that everything you believe about the Holocaust is completely factual. If that is so, then what does anyone have to be afraid of in having that thesis scrutinized. Scrutiny isn't outlawed. It gets practiced. It has lead to the consensus that there have been about 11 million victims. Of course, that there is scrutiny isn't something holocaust deniers and relativators care to remember.
I know that it is irresponsible to allow total freedom of speech. Incitement to violence should not be tolerated, but other than that, what harm is there in resonable discussion about the facts? You have a misconception about what "reasonable" means.
Outlaw this, and you are just encouraging anti-Semites, such as neo-Nazis and Muslims.Nah, not really.

By the way, I am not anti-Semitic. In fact, I am pro-Israel.Hard to tell. You do have strange bedfellows.

Having been apart of this discussion from the start, I would like to ask everyone this: Given that the MAJORITY of us accept the Holocaust as truth, is it considered anti-Semitic or Holocaust denial if we question the number of people actually killed? It has been shown that the number of people, including Jews has fluctuated with time as we get a better grasp of the extent of the damage. It is wrong to question anything about it that doesn't seem right, or doesn't make sense?Obviously not. The fact that mistakes get followed up on and corrected isn't something that gets publicized much for some reason.

Zundel, so funny...stupid git renounced his Canadian citizenship. You can't deport someone for denying the holocaust...but you can deport someone who isn't a citizen of your country, and it just so happened that he claimed to be German and the Germans wanted him :D
Okay, but he renounced his citzenship because we kept punishing him for speaking. I don't get why anyone thinks that's okay.

Obviously not. The fact that mistakes get followed up on and corrected isn't something that gets publicized much for some reason.

Massive Jewish conspiracy! :eek: :eek: :eek: ;)

Okay, but he renounced his citzenship because we kept punishing him for speaking. I don't get why anyone thinks that's okay.Because some people understand the gravity of holocaust denial and what it does to the victims involved.

That's how antisemitism has always worked. Jews snatching children, Jews controlling the world economy, Jews controlling the world media, Jews making Germany lose the war.
Jews programming NL to say all of this... :eek:

Because some people understand the gravity of holocaust denial and what it does to the victims involved.

Pisses them off?

Jews programming NL to say all of this... :eek:

You were programmed to say that as well. Have to keep that plausible deniability in place!

Jews making Germany lose the war.what is wrong with "Jews wanting Germany to lose the War"???
If I was Jewish.. I would want Germany to lose.. I would dance on the tombs of you German Grand-Parents.
(OK maybe I would not Dance at their tombs.. but I would understand some Jews doing that)

You were programmed to say that as well. Have to keep that plausible deniability in place!
Well of course. :) We're all programmed. <.<

Pisses them off?If your great-grandfather was a spindly skeleton of a nervous wreck, still traumatized by what happened where he was interned, and then some two-bit idiot came up to you and claimed he made it up because he reveled in being a victim... yeah, somehow "pissed off" doesn't quite capture the full extent of emotion involved there.

I find it very unnerving how many people are comfortable with the idea of Government mandated censorship of this topic.

Either the freedom of speech applies to ALL forms of debate and discussion or it applies to none at all. This isn't like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. This isn't like telling people to go out and commit race based crimes. You can't tell someone that a topic is not open for discussion just because it doesn't agree with the consensus.

Is this an emotional subject? Of course. Is is painful? Obviously. None of that justifies silencing the debate. None. What shall we outlaw as a topic next, with the guise of protecting somebody's feelings? Abortion? Slavery? Creationism? How about the death of Diana? September 11?

No. this kind of censorship CAN become a slippery slope. I'd rather put up with the hate speech of some phony historian than live in a society where the Government has started deciding what is and what isn't an acceptable topic of discussion.

Okay, but he renounced his citzenship because we kept punishing him for speaking. I don't get why anyone thinks that's okay.

Because in any society there are limits on the freedom of speech. Laws dealing with libel and slander, laws against shouting "BOMB" in an airport, laws against promoting genocide, and laws against claiming that a proven genocide didn't happen. I consider those reasonable restrictions.

what is wrong with "Jews wanting Germany to lose the War"???
If I was Jewish.. I would want Germany to lose.. I would dance on the tombs of you German Grand-Parents.Nah, "the Jews" were Germans at the time, and many fought with distinction for the Kaiser. The British and French jews wanted the Germans to lose, because they were British and French.

Because some people understand the gravity of holocaust denial and what it does to the victims involved.
My speech cannot harm you.

I find it very unnerving how many people are comfortable with the idea of Government mandated censorship of this topic.

No. this kind of censorship CAN become a slippery slope. I'd rather put up with the hate speech of some phony historian than live in a society where the Government has started deciding what is and what isn't an acceptable topic of discussion.

Could it be Germany doesn't want to make the same mistake it did with Hitler?

His views were known and people didn't give him much thought at the time.

You will probably find this laws gone when all those involved are dead and you really don't have the neo-nazis and the nazi wannabes around anymore.

I find it very unnerving how many people are comfortable with the idea of Government mandated censorship of this topic.

Either the freedom of speech applies to ALL forms of debate and discussion or it applies to none at all. This isn't like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. This isn't like telling people to go out and commit race based crimes. You can't tell someone that a topic is not open for discussion just because it doesn't agree with the consensus.But debate isn't closed!

Is this an emotional subject? Of course. Is is painful? Obviously. None of that justifies silencing the debate. None. What shall we outlaw as a topic next, with the guise of protecting somebody's feelings? Abortion? Slavery? Creationism? How about the death of Diana? September 11?It isn't silenced. Your point is moot.

No. this kind of censorship CAN become a slippery slope. I'd rather put up with the hate speech of some phony historian than live in a society where the Government has started deciding what is and what isn't an acceptable topic of discussion.This has been around since the end of the war. After 60 years, the slippery slope argument can be laid to rest.

My speech cannot harm you.

That very much depends on one's definition of "harm."

My speech cannot harm you.

The same could be said for Hitlers early comments.

My speech cannot harm you.Not me personally no, but there are people it can harm due to what was done to them and their families in concentration camps.

Could it be Germany doesn't want to make the same mistake it did with Hitler?

His views were known and people didn't give him much thought at the time.

You will probably find this laws gone when all those involved are dead and you really don't have the neo-nazis and the nazi wannabes around anymore.

The Nazis and wannabes may be gone, but there are always those who would take their place. Freedom of Speech is one of the things they hate. I don't want to be like them.

But debate isn't closed

It isn't silenced. Your point is moot.
!
It is where the laws restricts discussion of it.


This has been around since the end of the war. After 60 years, the slippery slope argument can be laid to rest.

So it's been 60 years. So what? I'm not sure what point this is supposed to make.

No. this kind of censorship CAN become a slippery slope. I'd rather put up with the hate speech of some phony historian than live in a society where the Government has started deciding what is and what isn't an acceptable topic of discussion.

Can be a slippery slope is not prima facie proof that it shall be. As for this not being the same as telling people to go out and commit race based crimes...really...because that is EXACTLY what some Holocaust deniers have been charged with.

I personally have no problem with asshattery like Holocaust denial being made illegal. I do not for a second believe that suddenly, every other uncomfortable topic will be banned. Also, it may interest you to know that in Canada, denying the Holocaust is actually NOT illegal. Zundel (who actually never had Canadian citizenship, my mistake) was charged under s.181 of the Criminal Code for publishing material "he knows is false and that is likely to cause mischief to the public interest in social and racial tolerance". That section of the Code was struck down as unconstitutional by the way, but we tossed his ass out for the Germans to deal with.

Not me personally no, but there are people it can harm due to what was done to them and their families in concentration camps.

The idea that mere discussion can cause harm can be used to justify censoring anything the government wants.

My speech cannot harm you.

Really? Because I can sue you for damages if your false speech harms my reputation. I can sue you if your speech is harassing or threatening, regardless of any actual harm being caused by it. You can be considered a co-accomplice if via your speech, you encourage someone to engage in a criminal act. Your speech, if of a sexual and explicit nature, can be considered harmful and constitute harassment, or even sexual assault (generally in relation to minors). If, in your speech, you threaten me, or my family, you have committed assault. And your speech, were it to incite other people to genocide, is definitely harmful.

Speech is recognised as harmful in certain circumstances, hence the FEW restrictions on it.

It is where the laws restricts discussion of it.Name some people who would have made credible contributions to the discussion that have been repressed.
So it's been 60 years. So what? I'm not sure what point this is supposed to make.Slippery slopes lead to a gradual abuse of powers that were meant to do good. In 60 years, neo-nazis are still able to run around freely, they've even managed to find a loophole for saying "The Holocaust never existed" in public without having to fear arrest.

Can be a slippery slope is not prima facie proof that it shall be. As for this not being the same as telling people to go out and commit race based crimes...really...because that is EXACTLY what some Holocaust deniers have been charged with.

I personally have no problem with asshattery like Holocaust denial being made illegal. I do not for a second believe that suddenly, every other uncomfortable topic will be banned. Also, it may interest you to know that in Canada, denying the Holocaust is actually NOT illegal. Zundel (who actually never had Canadian citizenship, my mistake) was charged under s.181 of the Criminal Code for publishing material "he knows is false and that is likely to cause mischief to the public interest in social and racial tolerance". That section of the Code was struck down as unconstitutional by the way, but we tossed his ass out for the Germans to deal with.

Well if someone wants to incite crime then that's the point at which the law ought to get involved. The problem is that in the countries discussed here, (if not Canada then there are still plenty of European countries) that isn't where the line is being drawn. Merely advancing the idea is enough to run afoul of the law.

That is a bad thing. People around here don't seem to like the 'slippery slope' argument. Is it a guarantee that further censorship is coming? No. But let me ask you this: Once the precedent has been set that the government can outlaw certain topics for the "public good," what guarantee do you have that they WON'T start outlawing other topics? None.

If free discussion is an absolute right then that's a much more secure state than one where that precedent has been set.

The idea that mere discussion can cause harm can be used to justify censoring anything the government wants.Hasn't in in over 60 years though.

Edit: I'm intrigued to know where you pull the misconception that mere discussion of the holocaust is illegal?

The idea that mere discussion can cause harm can be used to justify censoring anything the government wants.

Yes yes all nice...is Holocaust denial illegal in the US by the way?

If free discussion is an absolute right then that's a much more secure state than one where that precedent has been set.

There is no nation where free discussion is an absolute right. Not even yours. The precedent has been set...have things slid into outright censorship yet? Should I wait a bit?

Name some people who would have made credible contributions to the discussion that have been repressed.

I don't have to. Credibility is irrelevant. The Right toFree Speech, like any true right, is granted to all. Period.

It's like you're still trying to justify a Government mandated gag-order on the basis that it's okay because it agrees with accepted history. I'm trying to say that these people should have the right to discuss the topic freely if they choose to, no matter how idiotic the rest of us think they are.

There are those who think the Setpember 11, 2001 attacks on the United States were a U.S. Government conspiracy. I think that's idiotic, as do a great many people. What if tomorrow the U.S. Government outlaws debate on the subject? They could justify it using the same arguments as those used to justify stifling discussion of the Holocaust.


Slippery slopes lead to a gradual abuse of powers that were meant to do good. In 60 years, neo-nazis are still able to run around freely, they've even managed to find a loophole for saying "The Holocaust never existed" in public without having to fear arrest.

And what harm has it done? Has the Nazi party re-emerged to dominate Europe? No. Not even in the USA, where Freedom of Speech is absolute and sometimes the Nazis even manage to get candidates to legally run for public office.

is Holocaust denial illegal in the US by the way?

No.

And what harm has it done? Has the Nazi party re-emerged to dominate Europe? No. Not even in the USA, where Freedom of Speech is absolute and sometimes the Nazis even manage to get candidates to legally run for public office.

It seems to be doing remarkably well in the Middle East, where Mein Kampf is a best seller under the title, "Jihadi", and Iran's President is a Holocaust denier.

Yes yes all nice...is Holocaust denial illegal in the US by the way?

No. No laws restrict the discussion in the United States.


There is no nation where free discussion is an absolute right. Not even yours. The precedent has been set...have things slid into outright censorship yet? Should I wait a bit?

Freedom of Speech, in this country, is only restricted where the speech is directly intended to incite criminal activity.

The idea that mere discussion can cause harm can be used to justify censoring anything the government wants.

Yeah, so?

The idea that government should protect freedom, or promote the public good, or defend people's rights, and so on can also be used to justify a very broad range of policies.

The question is whether they actually meet the standard.

It seems to be doing remarkably well in the Middle East, where Mein Kampf is a best seller under the title, "Jihadi", and Iran's President is a Holocaust denier.

True. And what's the status of Freedom of Speech there?

I don't have to. Credibility is irrelevant. The Right toFree Speech, like any true right, is granted to all. Period. Oh for the love of...would you please state this with the caveat "SHOULD BE", as in, "THIS IS MY OPINION, NOT BACKED UP BY MY OWN CONSTITUTION"?

Because there exist limits to the freedom of speech in your nation...so clearly 'The Right to Free Speech' is not a 'true' right, not an absolute one.

True. And what's the status of Freedom of Speech there?

As long as you are hating on the ebil j00z, it's ok in Iran.

Yeah, so?

The idea that government should protect freedom, or promote the public good, or defend people's rights, and so on can also be used to justify a very broad range of policies.

The question is whether they actually meet the standard.

Frankly, I don't trust this Government or *any* Government to act purely in the interest of the people, and so I do not trust them to make this kind of jugement.

No. No laws restrict the discussion in the United States.

Freedom of Speech, in this country, is only restricted where the speech is directly intended to incite criminal activity. Actually, it is also restricted in all of the numerous other examples I've given you...which go beyond simply inciting criminal activity.

It might interest you (but you'll likely ignore it) that Holocaust Denial is not an actual offence in Germany. Inciting hatred against a racial minority of the population is...and that is the charge Zundel faced.

The idea that mere discussion can cause harm can be used to justify censoring anything the government wants.

It happens in times of war.

It happens if you work in AeroDefense......

Oh for the love of...would you please state this with the caveat "SHOULD BE", as in, "THIS IS MY OPINION, NOT BACKED UP BY MY OWN CONSTITUTION"?

Because there exist limits to the freedom of speech in your nation...so clearly 'The Right to Free Speech' is not a 'true' right, not an absolute one.

Those limits have already been mentioned... but at least I can discuss this topic without fear of prosecution.

.. many fought with distinction for the Kaiser.The Kaiser was leading Germany @ the Holocaust ???
You do realize this discussion is about the Holocaust (which happened in WWII).. dont you??
I dont know what you are smoking.. but your time-line is completely fucked-up.

Actually, it is also restricted in all of the numerous other examples I've given you...which go beyond simply inciting criminal activity.

What examples have you given me? I went looking at the posts and couldn't find them.

It happens in times of war.

It happens if you work in AeroDefense......

Who are the countries that ban Holocaust discussions at war with, and how is the war effort served by such censorship?

I don't have to. Credibility is irrelevant. The Right toFree Speech, like any true right, is granted to all. Period.Nice dodge. I take it that means you can't name anyone that didn't intend to slander in the first place that was prevented from contributing?
It's like you're still trying to justify a Government mandated gag-order on the basis that it's okay because it agrees with accepted history. I'm trying to say that these people should have the right to discuss the topic freely if they choose to, no matter how idiotic the rest of us think they are.

There are those who think the Setpember 11, 2001 attacks on the United States were a U.S. Government conspiracy. I think that's idiotic, as do a great many people. What if tomorrow the U.S. Government outlaws debate on the subject? They could justify it using the same arguments as those used to justify stifling discussion of the Holocaust.Strawman. I'm getting tired of pointing it out.
And what harm has it done? Has the Nazi party re-emerged to dominate Europe? No. Not even in the USA, where Freedom of Speech is absolute and sometimes the Nazis even manage to get candidates to legally run for public office.Holocaust denial being illegal is mainly out of respect for the victims. Whether there is a Nazi takeover in the US or elsewhere is rather irrelevant to the discussion on holocaust denial.

The Kaiser was leading Germany @ the Holocaust ???
You do realize this discussion is about WWII.. dont you??
I dont know what you are smoking.. but your time-line is completely fucked-up.

# # Let's look at his whole comment

Nah, "the Jews" were Germans at the time, and many fought with distinction for the Kaiser. The British and French jews wanted the Germans to lose, because they were British and French.

# # He is referring to the Jews who fought in WW1 ace!
# # Many that were rounded up didn't think it would happen to them simply
# # they were decorated in WW1 and thus showed themselves to be good
# # German citizens.

Frankly, I don't trust this Government or *any* Government to act purely in the interest of the people, and so I do not trust them to make this kind of jugement.

Do you trust them to make any kind of judgment?

Where do you draw the line?

Who are the countries that ban Holocaust discussions at war with, and how is the war effort served by such censorship?

Eh?

"The idea that mere discussion can cause harm can be used to justify censoring anything the government wants."

You were only talking about the Holocaust? I thought you were talking about everything in general.....

Those limits have already been mentioned... but at least I can discuss this topic without fear of prosecution.

You can discuss it in Germany too. You just don't get to claim that 'Jews are the enemy of the people' and incite hatred against them (that would be encouraging criminal activity, imagine that!).

The Kaiser was leading Germany @ the Holocaust ???
You do realize this discussion is about the Holocaust (which happened in WWII).. dont you??
I dont know what you are smoking.. but your time-line is completely fucked-up.On the contrary, it is your time-line that is completely fucked up. Hitler can hardly have blamed the Jews for making Germany lose World War 2 in "Mein Kampf", considering that that book was written well before he came to power, let alone before World War 2.

We're talking about the Dolchstoßlegende here, which stipulated that Germany lost World War I because the jews and communists stabbed the rest of the Germans in the back, as Germany could not have lost the war for any other reason. It was the cornerstone of the NSDAP's case against the jews.

What examples have you given me? I went looking at the posts and couldn't find them.

No prob, it was directed at another poster anyway, and you probably read it pre-edit:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12351757&postcount=330

Although my agreement is not with everything said, I can't believe I basically agree with Neo Bretonnia.
Amazingly, I agree too - especially with the quote you supplied. :)

Although my agreement is not with everything said, I can't believe I basically agree with Neo Bretonnia.

One of my favorite quotes is applicable here:

No more fatuous chimera has ever infested the brain than that you can control opinions by law or direct belief by statute, and no more pernicious sentiment ever tormented the heart than the barbarous desire to do so. The field of inquiry should remain open, and the right of debate must be regarded as a sacred right.
~Senator William E. Borah

(For those that expected the Holmes quote on the marketplace of ideas, I may still post it. :p )

Those limits have already been mentioned... but at least I can discuss this topic without fear of prosecution.No you can't. You can't troll or flame here. Doing so could invoke Moderator action.

Nice dodge. I take it that means you can't name anyone that didn't intend to slander in the first place that was prevented from contributing?

It's not a dodge at all. Of course I can't name one becauee they're all, in my opinion, boneheads.

Either you get what I'm saying or you don't. I can't make it any clearer. One last time: Just because they're stupid soesn't mean they don't have a right to speak their minds.


Strawman. I'm getting tired of pointing it out.

Is this your tactic? Tossing out various accusations of debate impropriety that don't even make sense? My point is, and has been from the beginning, simple. The Government should NOT ban any historical subject for open discussion. Period. I'm not talking about inciting crominal activity, I'm not talking about revealing security secrets. I'm talking about the madness of establishing a precedent of Government gag orders.

And referencing the hypothetical scenario where the US Government outlaws debate on teh nature of September 11 is not a strawman, it's an analogy.


Holocaust denial being illegal is mainly out of respect for the victims. Whether there is a Nazi takeover in the US or elsewhere is rather irrelevant to the discussion on holocaust denial.

See this right here is how I know you aren't really reading the substance of my posts at all. Either that or you've so ingrained yourself into attacking everythign I type that you're not able to read it for its substance.

For the benefit of those who can still read objectively:

My referencing the presence of the Nazi party in the USA is to illustrate that in all this time they've failed miserably to bring back their old ways despite the fact that we can discuss all those topics freely without fear of being punished by Government for doing so. We know they're idiots. We don't need the Government to tell us that.

I am well aware of the motivations behind the laws limiting Holocaust debate. My point is that a greater good is served by Government not mandating limitis on discussion.

Although my agreement is not with everything said, I can't believe I basically agree with Neo Bretonnia.

One of my favorite quotes is applicable here:

No more fatuous chimera has ever infested the brain than that you can control opinions by law or direct belief by statute, and no more pernicious sentiment ever tormented the heart than the barbarous desire to do so. The field of inquiry should remain open, and the right of debate must be regarded as a sacred right.
~Senator William E. Borah

(For those that expected the Holmes quote on the marketplace of ideas, I may still post it. :p )

The thing is Cat...it's not a crime in the US, or in most of the world. It IS somewhat restricted in nations that have an interest in resolving deep seated issues of racism that have caused intolerable events to unfold, and atrocities to be wreaked. The German and Austrian experience, for example, can hardly be compared to North America...and if they honestly believe they need to deal with their past via some restriction on speech that promotes hatred, who the fuck are we to say no?

Such restrictions here have been basically struck down as Charter violations. I'm not particularly worried that 'Holocaust Denial' is suddenly going to become a crime here.

# # He is referring to the Jews who fought in WW1 ace!.We are talking about the Holocaust.. We are talking about Jews wanting Germany to lose the War.. because of evictions.. the Deportations.. the Concentration Camps.. and all the genocide. We are talking about WWII.



*hint* >> read the Thread>>follow the little green arrows..

What legitimate purpose is served by letting Nazis spew their hatred... explicit or veiled?

No you can't. You can't troll or flame here. Doing so could invoke Moderator action.

What does trolling or flaming have to do with what I said? What possible point are you trying to make? I can discuss whatever I want in this country. What does a privatlty run forum board, which isn't even IN this country, have to do with that?

Although my agreement is not with everything said, I can't believe I basically agree with Neo Bretonnia.

One of my favorite quotes is applicable here:

No more fatuous chimera has ever infested the brain than that you can control opinions by law or direct belief by statute, and no more pernicious sentiment ever tormented the heart than the barbarous desire to do so. The field of inquiry should remain open, and the right of debate must be regarded as a sacred right.
~Senator William E. Borah

(For those that expected the Holmes quote on the marketplace of ideas, I may still post it. :p )That's not why holocaust denial is illegal in Germany though:
Article 1 [Human dignity]

(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.Linky (http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#1)
The dignity of the victims of the holocaust trumps the right to assault that dignity. German law would be unconstitutional if it did something else.

No you can't. You can't troll or flame here. Doing so could invoke Moderator action.We are talking about Free speech.
This forum is NOT a free speech zone. So that example is non existent.

No prob, it was directed at another poster anyway, and you probably read it pre-edit:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12351757&postcount=330

Thanks for the link.

Those are good examples, but none of them are examples of a simple debate on a historical, political or philosophical event.

What does trolling or flaming have to do with what I said? What possible point are you trying to make? I can discuss whatever I want in this country. What does a privatlty run forum board, which isn't even IN this country, have to do with that?

I'm going to hazard a guess that his point was that freedom of speech is limited in many, everyday ways, either via the government (legislation) or via private expectations. These restrictions do not mean that freedom of speech is lost. No, you actually can't discuss anything you want, at all times, with all people. You are used to the restrictions you face, and they are not overwhelming or unduly repressive.

Look, you can't encourage someone to commit a crime and walk away unscathed, right?

So why should you be allowed to promote hatred, and incite people to commit race-based crime?

on this subject.. the bottom line is..

the US does have Free speech, Germany does not.

Although my agreement is not with everything said, I can't believe I basically agree with Neo Bretonnia.

One of my favorite quotes is applicable here:

No more fatuous chimera has ever infested the brain than that you can control opinions by law or direct belief by statute, and no more pernicious sentiment ever tormented the heart than the barbarous desire to do so. The field of inquiry should remain open, and the right of debate must be regarded as a sacred right.
~Senator William E. Borah

(For those that expected the Holmes quote on the marketplace of ideas, I may still post it. :p )

Excellent quote!

The thing is Cat...it's not a crime in the US, or in most of the world. It IS somewhat restricted in nations that have an interest in resolving deep seated issues of racism that have caused intolerable events to unfold, and atrocities to be wreaked. The German and Austrian experience, for example, can hardly be compared to North America...and if they honestly believe they need to deal with their past via some restriction on speech that promotes hatred, who the fuck are we to say no?

I don't think basic freedoms should depend on territory. One can well argue that the unique history of Germany and Austria make it all the more important that they not censor discussion of that history. Nor are these laws limited to those countries.

Regardless, I think a maximum of 20 years for Holocaust denial is indefensible, even in Austria.

Thanks for the link.

Those are good examples, but none of them are examples of a simple debate on a historical, political or philosophical event.

No, but they ARE examples of limitation on the freedom of speech that do not necessarily have a criminal component to them...not all those examples encourage criminal activity, yet they are proscribed in one way or another. Speech does not exist unfettered, and what is considered a reasonable limitation in one set of societal circumstances is not necessarily a reasonable limitation in another set.

on this subject.. the bottom line is..

the US does have Free speech, Germany does not.

:rolleyes:
Right, the thought police getcha for saying that "I CAN believe it's not butter!"

It's not a dodge at all. Of course I can't name one becauee they're all, in my opinion, boneheads.

Either you get what I'm saying or you don't. I can't make it any clearer. One last time: Just because they're stupid soesn't mean they don't have a right to speak their minds. Course not. Because they violate the dignity of the victims of the Nazis is why they're not allowed to speak their minds.


Is this your tactic? Tossing out various accusations of debate impropriety that don't even make sense? Repitition seems to be yours.
My point is, and has been from the beginning, simple. The Government should NOT ban any historical subject for open discussion. Period. Discussion of the holocaust isn't anymore restricted than posting in a thread here. There's rules and people that violate them are punished if they are caught.
I'm not talking about inciting crominal activity, I'm not talking about revealing security secrets. I'm talking about the madness of establishing a precedent of Government gag orders.And those fears are groundless. In sixty years there's still bucketloads that neo-nazis can get away with. Recently, they can't even be prosecuted for stating "Den Holocaust hat es nie gegeben." (The holocaust has never existed)

And referencing the hypothetical scenario where the US Government outlaws debate on teh nature of September 11 is not a strawman, it's an analogy. You keep talking about a silencing of all discussion. That's bullshit.
See this right here is how I know you aren't really reading the substance of my posts at all. Either that or you've so ingrained yourself into attacking everythign I type that you're not able to read it for its substance.You haven't bothered with mine either. You have a primary point that you want to make and I keep telling you you're mistaken.

For the benefit of those who can still read objectively:

My referencing the presence of the Nazi party in the USA is to illustrate that in all this time they've failed miserably to bring back their old ways despite the fact that we can discuss all those topics freely without fear of being punished by Government for doing so. We know they're idiots. We don't need the Government to tell us that.You don't bother to read my stuff at all, do you? It isn't about keeping the Nazis weak, it's about respecting the victims.
I am well aware of the motivations behind the laws limiting Holocaust debate. My point is that a greater good is served by Government not mandating limitis on discussion.And? This debate is limited too, but I don't see you screaming bloody murder about that.

I'm going to hazard a guess that his point was that freedom of speech is limited in many, everyday ways, either via the government (legislation) or via private expectations. These restrictions do not mean that freedom of speech is lost. No, you actually can't discuss anything you want, at all times, with all people. You are used to the restrictions you face, and they are not overwhelming or unduly repressive.

Look, you can't encourage someone to commit a crime and walk away unscathed, right?

So why should you be allowed to promote hatred, and incite people to commit race-based crime?

I guess my bottom line is that I can't comfortably qualify a basic discussion on the historical fact of the Holocaust as being inherently racist or hateful. Can it beuse dthat way? Yeah. Has it been? Yeah, but those are times when the law can be properly used to respond as apropriate. I think if someone has legitimate reason to question it, then the topic should be open to him/her. If for no other reason it could give them the info they need to be assured of the truth of history.

I just can't justify taking that away. I think a greater good is served by preserving the right to talk about it. Will some people find it objectionable and painful? Yeah, but then again, nobody is forcing them to listen, are they?

That's not why holocaust denial is illegal in Germany though:
Linky (http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#1)
The dignity of the victims of the holocaust trumps the right to assault that dignity. German law would be unconstitutional if it did something else.

Facile argument.

Does the dignity of former Nazi's triumph the right to assault that dignity?

Does the dignity of former Nazi's triumph the right to assault that dignity?

How is their dignity being assaulted?

So what youa re in effect telling me, is that these camps appeared out of nowhere, and the Jews were rounded up and gassed in these camps, and the top officials of the DICTATORSHIP had no idea? These people, that were too scared to do anything without the OK of Hitler and his officials, did this totally spontaneously? And Hitler, the dictator of the country, had no idea that millions of his dollars were being spent on this program? What did the Gestapo and SS tell him it was spent on? You're telling me also, that the leader of the SS had no idea that his soldiers were manning these camps and rounding up the Jews? His soldiers just en masse, disobeyed orders, or moonlighted in this project, and Himmler just had no idea? Where did they get the money? What did they tell their leaders was happening?

While the Roma and Sinti gypsies per capita suffered far more losses than the Jews, the Jews were the main target of propaganda and the various laws restricting their rights. They also suffered the most brutally. Also, gypsies are still on the fringe of European society even today, and are viewed with suspicion and outright hatred by many, many people. So they are less sympathetic than the Jews.



I am not afraid of having my thesis scrutinised by people that use actual facts to refute my claims. Holocaust denial has no facts to support it's claims and in fact is fuelled only by hatred and anti-Semitism, no matter how you try to dress it up.

I never said that they had no idea. I was just trying to say that anyone who claims that there is lack of evidence is arrested in Europe for presenting their case. I also don't think that there was a formal policy for genocide. I do think that Hitler planned the concentration camps though. One important thing to remember is that most of the camps were OUTSIDE of Germany, meaning in hostile territory. This means that alot can go on without official sanction. Everyone knows that the SS who ran those camps were corrupt.

No, but they ARE examples of limitation on the freedom of speech that do not necessarily have a criminal component to them...not all those examples encourage criminal activity, yet they are proscribed in one way or another. Speech does not exist unfettered, and what is considered a reasonable limitation in one set of societal circumstances is not necessarily a reasonable limitation in another set.

Arguing whether free speech is recognized as an absolute right is rather silly -- of course it isn't.

That isn't the same as saying that it shouldn't be as full and robust a right as possible. Limiting on the grounds of political content should be impermissible.

I don't think basic freedoms should depend on territory. One can well argue that the unique history of Germany and Austria make it all the more important that they not censor discussion of that history. Nor are these laws limited to those countries.

Regardless, I think a maximum of 20 years for Holocaust denial is indefensible, even in Austria.

It's a max of 5 in Germany, is it not? Austria and Lithuania seem to be the most extreme in terms of sentencing, but the sentence, as ridiculous as it is, does not in my mind invalidate the law itself.

I haven't looked at the case law to see how broadly the law is applied either. From the wording of some of the laws, it seems to apply to actually approving of or encouraging genocide...not simply disputing the veracity of the death count etc.

We are talking about Free speech.
This forum is NOT a free speech zone. So that example is non existent.Indeed. This forum has limitations on free speech to keep the speech meaningful. I don't consider the restrictions on trolling or flaming bad. Holocaust denial isn't much different.

It's a max of 5 in Germany, is it not? Austria and Lithuania seem to be the most extreme in terms of sentencing, but the sentence, as ridiculous as it is, does not in my mind invalidate the law itself.

I haven't looked at the case law to see how broadly the law is applied either. From the wording of some of the laws, it seems to apply to actually approving of or encouraging genocide...not simply disputing the veracity of the death count etc.

As in the case of Ahmadinejad, usually people who question the veracity of the Holocaust are those who would most like to see it happen again.

I guess my bottom line is that I can't comfortably qualify a basic discussion on the historical fact of the Holocaust as being inherently racist or hateful. Can it beuse dthat way? Yeah. Has it been? Yeah, but those are times when the law can be properly used to respond as apropriate. I think if someone has legitimate reason to question it, then the topic should be open to him/her. If for no other reason it could give them the info they need to be assured of the truth of history.

I just can't justify taking that away. I think a greater good is served by preserving the right to talk about it. Will some people find it objectionable and painful? Yeah, but then again, nobody is forcing them to listen, are they?


Here I disagree with you. Almost all (if not all) Holocaust denial is inherently racist or hateful, but that doesn't concede the point that it ought to be legal.

I don't think one has to have a "legitimate reason" for one's speech in order for that speech to be free -- at least not when the subject is a historical and political one.

Arguing whether free speech is recognized as an absolute right is rather silly -- of course it isn't.

That isn't the same as saying that it shouldn't be as full and robust a right as possible. Limiting on the grounds of political content should be impermissible.
The issue of inciting hatred is definately ground I am unsure on. I haven't fully made a decision either way. But encouraging genocide? That's not just political content, just like telling a crowd to beat up some asshole for wearing an Calgary Flames in Edmonton jersey isn't 'political content'. Should it be a crime to talk about an evil jew conspiracy? No. But it should be illegal to encourage people to take up arms against 'an enemy of the people'. If for nothing else as an extension of assault.

Course not. Because they violate the dignity of the victims of the Nazis is why they're not allowed to speak their minds.


I would think the greater indignity is to live subject to a government that's starting to pick up habits that Hitler would have approved of.


Repitition seems to be yours.

You're right. I have been repeating myself. It's because my point is simple, and only so much can be said about it. I won't repeat myself again.


Discussion of the holocaust isn't anymore restricted than posting in a thread here. There's rules and people that violate them are punished if they are caught.
And those fears are groundless. In sixty years there's still bucketloads that neo-nazis can get away with. Recently, they can't even be prosecuted for stating "Den Holocaust hat es nie gegeben." (The holocaust has never existed)
So what?


You keep talking about a silencing of all discussion. That's bullshit.

If silencing one is ookay then yuo can rationalize silencing others. Where does it end?


You haven't bothered with mine either. You have a primary point that you want to make and I keep telling you you're mistaken.

So your logic is "You disagree with me, therefore you must not be listening."

Know how I can tell you're not paying attention? Because you respond with counter points that don't deal with what I said.


You don't bother to read my stuff at all, do you? It isn't about keeping the Nazis weak, it's about respecting the victims.
Which I responded to on my next sentence...


And? This debate is limited too, but I don't see you screaming bloody murder about that.

Limited how? By mods who don't represent the government anyway? What does that have to do with it?

As in the case of Ahmadinejad, usually people who question the veracity of the Holocaust are those who would most like to see it happen again.

Yeah, but if you want to be a smart little Holocaust denier, then just don't suggest ways to 'try again'.

Arguing whether free speech is recognized as an absolute right is rather silly -- of course it isn't.Yeah, but not everyone seems to realise that.

I would think the greater indignity is to live subject to a government that's starting to pick up habits that Hitler would have approved of.

Hitler would have approved of restricting anti-Semitic speech?

:rolleyes:

Here I disagree with you. Almost all (if not all) Holocaust denial is inherently racist or hateful, but that doesn't concede the point that it ought to be legal.

I don't think one has to have a "legitimate reason" for one's speech in order for that speech to be free -- at least not when the subject is a historical and political one.

I'm prepared to agree to disagree with that first part, and in the second part you expressed the substance of it better than I could.

Hitler would have approved of restricting anti-Semitic speech?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's exactly my point.

/sarcasm

Yeah, that's exactly my point.

No, you undoubtedly meant some mindlessly vague nonsense about Hitler supporting restricting free speech... but as I pointed out, to make that point is to ignore the difference in character between Hitler's restrictions and the restrictions on Holocaust denial.

No, you undoubtedly meant some mindlessly vague nonsense about Hitler supporting restricting free speech... but as I pointed out, to make that point is to ignore the difference in character between Hitler's restrictions and the restrictions on Holocaust denial.

Of course. My apologies. I had the obviously mistaken notion that history can repeat itself.

//sarcasm

It's a max of 5 in Germany, is it not? Austria and Lithuania seem to be the most extreme in terms of sentencing, but the sentence, as ridiculous as it is, does not in my mind invalidate the law itself.

I haven't looked at the case law to see how broadly the law is applied either. From the wording of some of the laws, it seems to apply to actually approving of or encouraging genocide...not simply disputing the veracity of the death count etc.

I'll be honest: I know next to nothing about the individual laws in question. I object to the laws in principle.

You are right that the punishment does not invalidate the law. It does put some perspective on what we are talking about, however. Just how serious a damper on free speech is intended. A 5-year max is a pretty big silencer.

I think that Deborah Lipstadt has the right idea. You don't try to silence a denier, you expose them for the liars they are.

I'll be honest: I know next to nothing about the individual laws in question. I object to the laws in principle.

You are right that the punishment does not invalidate the law. It does put some perspective on what we are talking about, however. Just how serious a damper on free speech is intended. A 5-year max is a pretty big silencer.

I think that Deborah Lipstadt has the right idea. You don't try to silence a denier, you expose them for the liars they are.

Granted...though the sentences in most countries range from a fine to a MAX of a year in prison. I'm just skimming some of the English translations of various laws, and most really do seem to be an extension of assault, 'creating fear of imminent physical harm' type stuff. Can't find a translation of the Austrian or Lithuanian laws though.

I don't support a wholesale censorship of discussion.

I do support restriction on inciting others to violence, or making statements intended to cause certain people to fear for their actual safety.

Seems to me, the laws in question are grossly misrepresentated by people who don't actually know that much about them.

I think that Deborah Lipstadt has the right idea. You don't try to silence a denier, you expose them for the liars they are.

That, right there is the wisest thing said on this entire thread.

Of course. My apologies. I had the obviously mistaken notion that history can repeat itself.

//sarcasm

Yeah, because obviously there's a direct and incontestable connection between restricting anti-Semitic speech and sending millions of people to the gas chambers.

And is it not better to be able to identify and prove wrong such people?

Is it better to have them whisper their lies under cover of darkness or to expose those lies to light of reason and truth?

Oh, I'd rather know who they are.

As in the case of Ahmadinejad, usually people who question the veracity of the Holocaust are those who would most like to see it happen again.

And is it not better to be able to identify and prove wrong such people?

Is it better to have them whisper their lies under cover of darkness or to expose those lies to light of reason and truth?

Yeah, because obviously there's a direct and incontestable connection between restricting anti-Semitic speech and sending millions of people to the gas chambers.

Once you let the government start telling you what you can and can't talk about, it's a natural progression to greater restrictions on your freedom. If you're okay with that, then I don't know what to tell you.

And is it not better to be able to identify and prove wrong such people?

To be blunt: no.

If they responded to overwhelming evidence, they would not believe what they do. To treat Holocaust denial as a serious conclusion worthy of a serious rebuttal is to treat it as something more than worthless crap made up and propagated by bigoted scum.

I never said that they had no idea. I was just trying to say that anyone who claims that there is lack of evidence is arrested in Europe for presenting their case. Name someone that actually had a case.
I also don't think that there was a formal policy for genocide. I do think that Hitler planned the concentration camps though. One important thing to remember is that most of the camps were OUTSIDE of Germany, meaning in hostile territory. This means that alot can go on without official sanction. Everyone knows that the SS who ran those camps were corrupt.
That is absolute bullshit:

http://www.mahnung-gegen-rechts.de/pics/Deutschland-KZ-Karte-1943-1944.gif
Translations:
KZ Großdeutschland - Concentration camps Greater Germany* (*this was the name the Nazis gave Germany after they managed the Anschluss)
Staatsgrenzen 1937 - National borders 1937
Grenze der UdSSR am 22.6.1941 - Borders of the USSR on June 22. 1941
"Großdeutsches Reich" 1943 - "Greater German Empire" 1943 (it was better known as the 3rd Reich)
KZ-Hauptlager - Concentration Camp-Main Camp
KZ-Nebenlager - Concentration Camp-Secondary Camps
Vernichtungslager - Extermination Camp
Zuchthaus - Jail/Penitentiary
Zuchthaus und Hinrichtungsslot(?) - Jail with execution installment
Groß-Ghetto (ab 1942 liquidiert) - Greater Ghetto (liquidated as of 1942)

Granted...though the sentences in most countries range from a fine to a MAX of a year in prison. I'm just skimming some of the English translations of various laws, and most really do seem to be an extension of assault, 'creating fear of imminent physical harm' type stuff. Can't find a translation of the Austrian or Lithuanian laws though.

I don't support a wholesale censorship of discussion.

I do support restriction on inciting others to violence, or making statements intended to cause certain people to fear for their actual safety.

Seems to me, the laws in question are grossly misrepresentated by people who don't actually know that much about them.

I'm afraid I'm going by what I can Google on the subject, primarily Wikipedia. That does make me worry that my premises may be faulty.

As I understand it, however, there are countries with laws that make mere denial or "gross minimization" of the Holocaust a crime.

When we are talking about speech that creates an imminent danger of violence or criminal activity, that is a whole different topic. I don't see the line between the two as that narrow.

I'm afraid I'm going by what I can Google on the subject, primarily Wikipedia. That does make me worry that my premises may be faulty.

As I understand it, however, there are countries with laws that make mere denial or "gross minimization" of the Holocaust a crime.

When we are talking about speech that creates an imminent danger of violence or criminal activity, that is a whole different topic. I don't see the line between the two as that narrow.

Well, I'm done. Just denial alone shouldn't be a crime. Inciting hatred shouldn't be read up to include denial alone. Speech inciting violence or criminal activity should be restricted, within reason. Other than that, I've got nothing more to add...off to study now:)

Once you let the government start telling you what you can and can't talk about, it's a natural progression to greater restrictions on your freedom. If you're okay with that, then I don't know what to tell you.There's a marvelous counter example for that: Holocaust denial in Germany. There has been no natural progression in restriction of freedoms in 60 years.

it's a natural progression to greater restrictions on your freedom.

Don't just make such vague assertions. Explain clearly why restricting anti-Semitic speech leads to government-sponsored mass murder.

And is it not better to be able to identify and prove wrong such people?

Is it better to have them whisper their lies under cover of darkness or to expose those lies to light of reason and truth?Hitler became truly dangerous when he stepped away from the whole "overthrow the government by force" idea and pretended to be a regular politician. It isn't the loudmouths that are the most dangerous, it's the quiet ones.

Facile argument.

Does the dignity of former Nazi's triumph the right to assault that dignity?The constitution only mentions the dignity of human beings, not of triumphs.

To be blunt: no.

If they responded to overwhelming evidence, they would not believe what they do. To treat Holocaust denial as a serious conclusion worthy of a serious rebuttal is to treat it as something more than worthless crap made up and propagated by bigoted scum.

Now we've come full circle. You appear to be laboring under the "fatuous chimera" that making a belief illegal will change the belief.

Now I'll have to go with the Holmes' quote -- I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

As I said, we should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree by government force. The principals of democracy, free expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are strengths not weaknesses.

Hitler became truly dangerous when he stepped away from the whole "overthrow the government by force" idea and pretended to be a regular politician. It isn't the loudmouths that are the most dangerous, it's the quiet ones.

So you'll just lock up everyone whose thinking might be "wrong"?

There's a marvelous counter example for that: Holocaust denial in Germany. There has been no natural progression in restriction of freedoms in 60 years.

Whatever you say.

Because it was already proved to have happened. You are an idiot if you think anything else.

The constitution only mentions the dignity of human beings, not of triumphs.

You make no sense. You are the one that said the dignity of some human beings "triumphs" over "the right to assault that dignity"?

I think it rather silly to seriously contend no one can insult anyone else's "dignity." That make for a fine sentiment, but a ridiculous law.

Don't just make such vague assertions. Explain clearly why restricting anti-Semitic speech leads to government-sponsored mass murder.

First of all, that isn't what I said. Second of all, I'm not falling for your trap. WHo would decide if my answer was clear enough? You?

Now that's just funny.

Now we've come full circle. You appear to be laboring under the "fatuous chimera" that making a belief illegal will change the belief.

No, I don't labor under that "fatuous chimera" at all.

Indeed, if I thought the objective was to force a change in belief by law, I would oppose it; that would be a violation of human dignity.

Only it's not. The objective is to marginalize the believers... not to make them change their minds.

As I said, we should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree by government force.

Whether or not they agree with me is irrelevant.

The principals of democracy, free expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are strengths not weaknesses.

Which is why we should not grant full free speech rights to those who undermine them by promoting hatred and intolerance.

First of all, that isn't what I said.

Um, yes, it is.

I had the obviously mistaken notion that history can repeat itself.

This regarding your earlier reference to Hitler.

Second of all, I'm not falling for your trap. WHo would decide if my answer was clear enough? You?

Yes... me, and whoever is reading this discussion.

That's how forums work.

I would think the greater indignity is to live subject to a government that's starting to pick up habits that Hitler would have approved of.

You're right. I have been repeating myself. It's because my point is simple, and only so much can be said about it. I won't repeat myself again.

So what?

If silencing one is ookay then yuo can rationalize silencing others. Where does it end?

So your logic is "You disagree with me, therefore you must not be listening."

Know how I can tell you're not paying attention? Because you respond with counter points that don't deal with what I said.

Which I responded to on my next sentence...

Limited how? By mods who don't represent the government anyway? What does that have to do with it?Let me try and sum it up in one small paragraph:

You have a simple point. I keep telling you that you are wrong, debate hasn't been silenced by holocaust denial being illegal. Holocaust denial is technically a worse form of slander and libel, which is why it is illegal. The people being punished aren't and weren't contributing to finding any truth. In fact, they detract from the real issue at hand: Finding out how much the Soviets and their puppets exaggerated. You claim I don't read what you have to say, and you're wrong, I do. Apparently you don't, or if you do, you don't realize what it is I'm saying.

You make the assertion that the holocaust denial laws silence debate. Prove that first.

You make no sense. You are the one that said the dignity of some human beings "triumphs" over "the right to assault that dignity"?

I think it rather silly to seriously contend no one can insult anyone else's "dignity." That make for a fine sentiment, but a ridiculous law.Um, actually, you were the one that brought the "triumph" into it. I said "trump". If you have a problem with it, I'm sure you'll find plenty of documentation on the 1st article of the Grundgesetz in German legal history if you're interested, but quite frankly, it's not my field of expertise. I'm not about to defend it against a lawyer :p (I'll let other lawyers and judges do that for me).
You might also note that it doesn't say "insult", but "may not be violated". There's a difference there.

This is so much controversial that even people that have nothing to do with the holocaust must bear the consequence of denying (merely not knowing European history/WW II) the holocaust, like the Middle Easterners. How can the Arabs openly accept what happened to the Jews when Palestinians are being humiliated left and right (especially when Israel was created by holocaust survivors-They were the victims of Europe and came to the Middle East to victimize the Palestinians). I was laughing when Western leaders made a roar about Ahmadinejad’s speech about the holocaust, Ahmadinejad is acting like a jerk because truly in the end, it’s not him who bears the responsibility for the deaths of 6-7 million Jews, his forefathers are not the ones who were behind it, it was the Europeans and their damn world wars. In fact, while the Jews were being massacred, most of the Middle East was colonized by Europeans. While Palestine was in Britain’s control, the holocaust surviving Jews were given a territory to call home without the consent of the inhabitants there and that was the end of Europe's Jewish problems (that's probably their intention anyways). Denying the past, are you kidding me, Middle Easterners don’t need to ponder about the past, history is being made as it is, right now (Iraq war, potential Iran war, Israeli & Palestinian issue, Sunni Vs Shia, Islam Vs West, secular Muslims Vs Extremist, dictatorship Vs Democracy, they don’t have the luxury to reflect about the past my friends.)

So you'll just lock up everyone whose thinking might be "wrong"?No, that would be wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Ranting about the holocaust isn't the best way of identifying who is dangerous, so the benefit of identifying "such people" on that alone is minimal.

Um, yes, it is.



This regarding your earlier reference to Hitler.

Hitler did a lot of evil apart from the Holocaust.


Yes... me, and whoever is reading this discussion.

That's how forums work.

Except that you seemed to be th eonly one making that particular demand.

I'm tired of quibbling. Make a point with substance.

No, that would be wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Ranting about the holocaust isn't the best way of identifying who is dangerous, so the benefit of identifying "such people" on that alone is minimal.

Correction: According to your reasoning, everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.

Hitler did a lot of evil apart from the Holocaust.

Only Hitler's particular evil concerns government mass murder.

So if you didn't mean to imply government mass murder, why mention Hitler at all? It is, after all, what most people think of immediately upon hearing the name.

Perhaps because you wished to condemn by a loose and nonsensical association?

Except that you seemed to be th eonly one making that particular demand.

That you actually explain how restrictions on bigoted speech lead to tyranny? No, I think Laerod challenged you to do it, too. And explaining what you say is a general rule of thumb.

I'm tired of quibbling. Make a point with substance.

I do, when I'm responding to points with substance.

Correction: According to your reasoning, everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.Oh, no, you are mistaken. Neo-Nazis can believe all they want and discuss it among themselves. Taking it into public is another matter.

But yes, add "putting words in my mouth" to your repertoire of debate tactics.

Let me try and sum it up in one small paragraph:

You have a simple point. I keep telling you that you are wrong, debate hasn't been silenced by holocaust denial being illegal. Holocaust denial is technically a worse form of slander and libel, which is why it is illegal. The people being punished aren't and weren't contributing to finding any truth. In fact, they detract from the real issue at hand: Finding out how much the Soviets and their puppets exaggerated. You claim I don't read what you have to say, and you're wrong, I do. Apparently you don't, or if you do, you don't realize what it is I'm saying.

You make the assertion that the holocaust denial laws silence debate. Prove that first.

:confused: Isn't that the purpose of the law? To silence the voice of opposition? You use doublespeak, my friend.

Stop assuming I don't understand you. I understand you fine. I just DISAGREE with you. Can you accept th epossibility that I know what you're saying and simply do not agree with your reasoning?

When I said you weren't reading what I said, it was because you continued to assert things that had nothing to do with what I was posting about. Not the same thing there, friend.

:confused: Isn't that the purpose of the law? To silence the voice of opposition? You use doublespeak, my friend.Nope.

Stop assuming I don't understand you. I understand you fine. See above.
I just DISAGREE with you. Can you accept th epossibility that I know what you're saying and simply do not agree with your reasoning?You can disagree all you want for the reasoning behind the law, but it won't make it any truer.

Oh, no, you are mistaken. Neo-Nazis can believe all they want and discuss it among themselves. Taking it into public is another matter.

But yes, add "putting words in my mouth" to your repertoire of debate tactics.

Not putting words in your mouth. You were being unclear. Now, are you suggesting that all of those that question the h istorical veracity of the Holocaust are Neo-Nazis? I'm asking because I wouldn't want you to think I was putting words in your mouth.:rolleyes:

Not putting words in your mouth. You were being unclear. So you elaborated for me, knowing of course better than anyone else what my opinion is. Why thank you :)
Now, are you suggesting that all of those that question the h istorical veracity of the Holocaust are Neo-Nazis? I'm asking because I wouldn't want you to think I was putting words in your mouth.:rolleyes:Cat-Tribe summed it up rather well a bunch of posts back.

Only Hitler's particular evil concerns government mass murder.

So if you didn't mean to imply government mass murder, why mention Hitler at all? It is, after all, what most people think of immediately upon hearing the name.

Hitler did a lot more than simple mass murder.

WWII History 101:
Treaty Violations
Invasion of soverign nations
Cancellation of civil rights to include gun ownership, free press, free speech, due process etc
etc etc etc


Perhaps because you wished to condemn by a loose and nonsensical association?

Yes that must be it. :rolleyes:


That you actually explain how restrictions on bigoted speech lead to tyranny? No, I think Laerod challenged you to do it, too. And explaining what you say is a general rule of thumb.

If your biggest ally is Laerod, that speaks volumes. :D



I do, when I'm responding to points with substance.
The "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument. How can I possibly stand against that?

So you elaborated for me, knowing of course better than anyone else what my opinion is. Why thank you :)

So rather than answer the question, you go for the cynical answer. Cool.


Cat-Tribe summed it up rather well a bunch of posts back.

Yeah go re-read it.

I'm done quibbling. Pissing matches bore me.

Cancellation of civil rights to include gun ownership, free press, free speech, due process etc
etc etc etcYou know, the gun ownership rights got restricted in response to a certain group trying to overthrow the Weimar Republic by force of arms. Three guesses as to who was leading the storm troopers...

Hitler did a lot more than simple mass murder.

Nevertheless, references to Hitler evoke images of genocide... and you undoubtedly knew that when you wrote what you did.

You could have just said that it was characteristic of repressive regimes, but instead you singled out a particular repressive regime known for particular atrocities. I have too much respect for your intelligence to suppose that you did not know what you were doing.

So rather than answer the question, you go for the cynical answer. Cool.You didn't post a question in the part that specific thing was answering to.

Yeah go re-read it.Why? Did he go and rewrite the post about how he disagreed with you?

That, right there is the wisest thing said on this entire thread.when the Cat speaks.. ;)

BTW.. long time no see The Cat..
always interesting to read your well written posts.

The idea that mere discussion can cause harm can be used to justify censoring anything the government wants.Lying is not discussing, and keeping someone from lying is not censorship.

Lying is not discussing, and keeping someone from lying is not censorship.

Yes, yes it is.

Freedom of speech protects speech whether or not we think it is correct.

Otherwise the government could lock you up everytime you disagreed with it.

No, that would be wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.But willfully distorting facts in public is no expression of opinion.
E.g. whether or not the US invaded Iraq is no matter of opinion, it is an undeniable fact. And so is the occurrence of the holocaust.

Yes, yes it is.

Freedom of speech protects speech whether or not we think it is correct.

Otherwise the government could lock you up everytime you disagreed with it.
Denying the holocaust is not equal to disagree with any government. It's plain lying. The occurrence of the holocaust is no matter of opinion or agreement.

Yes, yes it is.

Freedom of speech protects speech whether or not we think it is correct.

Otherwise the government could lock you up everytime you disagreed with it.

Ok. Then where does libel fit?

Denying the holocaust is not equal to disagree with any government. It's plain lying. The occurrence of the holocaust is no matter of opinion or agreement.

"It's plain lying" could be said about any opinion on a question of fact that the government didn't like.

Obviously the occurrence of the Holocaust is something upon which people have different opinions -- otherwise the question of a law against Holocaust denial would be moot.

Ok. Then where does libel fit?

Libel is not simply lying.

In New York Times v. Sullivan (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254), 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Court explained:

Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth - whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials - and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 -526. The constitutional protection does not turn upon "the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered." N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 . As Madison said, "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 , the Court declared:

"In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy."

(For those who will object that SCOTUS opinions aren't relevant because we aren't talking US law, I will point to the reasoning behind the decision as persuasive.)

"It's plain lying" could be said about any opinion on a question of fact that the government didn't like.
Obviously the occurrence of the Holocaust is something upon which people have different opinions -- otherwise the question of a law against Holocaust denial would be moot.Folks who are denying the holocaust are not doing so because they don't know any better but because the want to advance an agenda. Saying that the holocaust did not happen is not the expression of an opinion, it is deliberate lying. And this has not necessarily anything to do with any government's position on it. Even if you said to me in private that the holocaust did not happen, you are a liar, no matter what my or your or any government may say. That's why it's called denial and not opinion.

Folks who are denying the holocaust are not doing so because they don't know any better but because the want to advance an agenda. Saying that the holocaust did not happen is not the expression of an opinion, it is deliberate lying. And this has not necessarily anything to do with any government's position on it. Even if you said to me in private that the holocaust did not happen, you are a liar, no matter what my or your or any government may say. That's why it's called denial and not opinion.

You just aren't getting it.

"The Conferacy and Civil War were not about slavery."

"A fetus is a person."

Both of these can be considered assertions of fact. Both are patently false. People making the above statements would have an agenda they are trying to advance.

Although I would passionately dispute these statements, I wouldn't suggest that their makers be punished by government force.

The point is there is no clear line between permissible "opinions" and impermissible "lies." However pernicious an assertion may seem, we should depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.

One important thing to remember is that most of the camps were OUTSIDE of Germany, meaning in hostile territory. This means that alot can go on without official sanction. Everyone knows that the SS who ran those camps were corrupt.
On the contrary, they needed the most reliable and fanatic supporters of Nazi ideology to run them.

It's not a coincidence that one of the most elite Waffen-SS divisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Totenkopf_Division) was formed from concentration camp guards.

You just aren't getting it.

"The Conferacy and Civil War were not about slavery."

"A fetus is a person."

Both of these can be considered assertions of fact. Both are patently false. People making the above statements would have an agenda they are trying to advance.

Although I would passionately dispute these statements, I wouldn't suggest that their makers be punished by government force.

The point is there is no clear line between permissible "opinions" and impermissible "lies." However pernicious an assertion may seem, we should depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.

There can be no competition of ideas when it comes to the holocaust as a historical fact.

"A fetus is a person" has not the same quality as "fetuses do not exist", has it?

And "The Civil War was not about slavery" is not the same as "The Civil War never happened", is it?

You just aren't getting it.

You may say the holocaust is this and that, and argue about reasons and impacts, but you just cannot claim it was made up altogether.

Ask some random guy on the street who Hitler killed, come back and tell me what he said.

He said: "Himself and Eva Braun"

He said: "Himself and Eva Braun"And Blondi.

on this subject.. the bottom line is..

the US does have Free speech...

LOL

Germany does not.

Really?

You seem to be unable to understand that what is forbidden is to say that no planned genocide (of jews, gypsies, poles, czechs, ukrainians, russians...) ever happened.

That is holocaust denial!

You are still allowed to discuss wether Hitler or Goering or Hess or whoever knew/allowed/mandated for those crimes as you can discuss, within reason, about the gross number of victims.

... I was just trying to say that anyone who claims that there is lack of evidence is arrested in Europe for presenting their case...

:eek: Since when? And, you know, where exactly in Europe?

Or were you just making a misinformed statement?

There can be no competition of ideas when it comes to the holocaust as a historical fact.

"A fetus is a person" has not the same quality as "fetuses do not exist", has it?

And "The Civil War was not about slavery" is not the same as "The Civil War never happened", is it?

You just aren't getting it.

You may say the holocaust is this and that, and argue about reasons and impacts, but you just cannot claim it was made up altogether.

You should be allowed to say the moon controls peoples bowles, and that worms are secretly running an elite earth administration influencing all the national leaders, wether or not it is complete bullshit. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

I would think the greater indignity is to live subject to a government that's starting to pick up habits that Hitler would have approved of.

Yeah, he would have loved the Patriot act...



Oh, wait, you were talking about Germany...

You should be allowed to say the moon controls peoples bowles, and that worms are secretly running an elite earth administration influencing all the national leaders, wether or not it is complete bullshit. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.As long as that freedom is not abused.

:eek: Since when? And, you know, where exactly in Europe?

Or were you just making a misinformed statement?

Germany and Austria mainly.

Germany and Austria mainly.Name someone that actually had a case.

You seem to be unable to understand that what is forbidden is to say that no planned genocide (of jews, gypsies, poles, czechs, ukrainians, russians...) ever happened.

That is holocaust denial!

You are still allowed to discuss wether Hitler or Goering or Hess or whoever knew/allowed/mandated for those crimes as you can discuss, within reason, about the gross number of victims.what number of victims?
1million?
5 million?
10 million?
50 million?

It seems that everyone is getting too caught up in the details of the Holocaust, which by the way, I do believe happened. The whole point of this post is about censorship. Saying that you have a bomb in an airport, yelling fire in a movie theater, threatening the life of another person, or perjury are all destructive excercises of free speech, but discussing the Holocaust is not destructive. Discussing it doesn't create anti-Semitism, rather restricting the discussion of it creates more anti-Semitism. For one moment, forget that this thread is about the Holocaust. Pretend instead that there was a law that made it a crime to say that AIDS is disproportionately common among blacks and gays, which may cause resentment towards those groups. Or say it was illegal to state that the world is flat. Saying that is flat doesn't harm anyone, so those flat-earthers should be allowed to express their opinion. When Hitler took office, he quickly restricted free speech and censored the press. Why does today's Germany insist on copying his example?

Name someone that actually had a case.

David Irwing.

David Irwing.He did not. He's just a nazi friendly loudmouth.

Why does today's Germany insist on copying his example?IMO most Germans do not understand the principle of free speech.
I feel most NSG Germans do not get it.

IMO most Germans do not understand the principle of free speech.
I feel most NSG Germans do not get it.What a bullshit. Germans exactly understand what freedom of speech is. And they also understand, where this freedom must have its limits: at the point where freedom of speech is abused for sedition. Unchecked freedom of speech is what led to the Nazi regime's success in the first place. As I said before: denying the holocaust is not done in a context of historical research, its sole purpose is to advance an agenda and deliberately spreading misinformation. The occurrence of the holocaust is not a matter of opinion, even if its circumstances in details may be. Germany is perfectly right to set up laws that make denying the holocaust a crime. If you want unlimited and unchecked freedom of speech then speak of something else or speak elsewhere. BTW, iirr a law against holocaust denial is now in effect for the entire EU.

Germany is perfectly right to set up laws that make denying the holocaust a crime.Germany is perfectly right to set up laws that make jaywalking a crime.
US laws are up to US.. German Laws are up to the Germans.. Austrian laws are up to Austrians.

BTW, iirr a law against holocaust denial is now in effect for the entire EU.really?

What a bullshit. Germans exactly understand what freedom of speech is. Are you German?

freedom of speech is what led to the Nazi regime's success in the first place.the Nazi Party was against Free speech..

Let's move this debate back to reason, shall we? Of course Germans understand freedom of speech. It's just that in German the word generally used is "Meinungsfreiheit", meaning "freedom of opinion".

Is Holocaust denial an opinion? No, obviously not. It's a misstatement of a known fact, which is different.

The German wiki article for example says the following (translated by me):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaustleugnung#Strafverfolgung
Germany

The criminal prosecution of Holocaust denial in Germany is based on the following law:

Public Agitation (§ 130 StGB);
Defamation of the memory of the dead (§ 189 StGB);
Libel/Slander (§ 185 in connection with § 194 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StGB).

Even when there is no charge and adjudication, German courts can seize media which denies the Holocaust. Furthermore the relevant department can put such media on the index, such that children under the age of 18 can no longer access it.

On the 13th of April 1994 (!) the Supreme Court decided that denying the Holocaust does not fall under the basic right of freedom of opinion according to Article 5 of the Basic Law. Rather the court considered it

an assertion of fact which according to countless eye witness reports, documents, the findings of numerous court proceedings as well as the insights gained by historians, is patently untrue. Taken in and for itself, the assertion of this content therefore is not covered under the freedom of opinion.

The court pointed to its previous and consolidated judicature, according to which knowingly made false assertions of fact are not even covered by the most basic right of freedom of opinion. Even the question whether Holocaust denial even constitutes an opinion which could be protected is answered in the negative.

This very clear refusal has however its critics. Holocaust denial usually doesn't just cover basic assertions of fact, but are also connected to value judgements. These are however covered according to previous judgements of the Supreme Court by the protection of the Basic Law, as long as it doesn't consist of utter horseshit or attacks on another person's honour. These are only excluded from the protection on the Basic Law on the level of its limitations.

But even the critics of this judgement generally come to the conclusion that Holocaust denial is not covered by the Basic Law. They see the threat of punishment as an attack on civil liberties, but usually consider it justified because this use of legal punishment clearly serves the protection of the higher values embodied in the Basic Law and serves as an expression of virtually constitutional values to the very conception of the Federal government*.

The first of these values usually named is human dignity (Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG) of the victims of national socialism and their relatives, furthermore the universal commitment of the Basic Law to peace and justice in the world (Präambel, Art. 1 Abs. 2 GG, Art. 9 Abs. 2 GG, Art. 26 Abs. 1 GG and much more).

Also a good website (unfortunately also in German): http://www.recht-gegen-rechts.de/gesetze/gesetze1.htm

*Sorry, that one was the mother of all sentences. I hope it makes sense.

It seems that everyone is getting too caught up in the details of the Holocaust, which by the way, I do believe happened. The whole point of this post is about censorship. Saying that you have a bomb in an airport, yelling fire in a movie theater, threatening the life of another person, or perjury are all destructive excercises of free speech, but discussing the Holocaust is not destructive. Discussing it doesn't create anti-Semitism, rather restricting the discussion of it creates more anti-Semitism.

What you either don't understand, or are willfully ignoring, is that denying the holocaust occured has no purpose what so ever other than to spread anti-semitism.

There is no serious debate, no valid scholarship to be done. There is simply no reasonable and rational reason to question whether nazi germany engaged in attempted genocide which resulted in the deaths of multiple millions of jews. It is an undisputable fact, and the only reason to attempt to contradict that fct is to promote an anti-semitic agenda.

Is Holocaust denial an opinion? No, obviously not. It's a misstatement of a known fact, which is different.

There seems to be some confusion over terms going on.

Holocaust is a historic event.
Millions of Jews and other unwanted people having died due to Nazi cleansings is a fact.
Believing in the Holocaust is an opinion.
Holocaust denial is an opinion.

See the difference? Looking at the facts, it is clear that believing in the Holocaust is the logical opinion to have.

If someone does not believe in the facts that support the Holocaust, or believes to have found evidence that doesn't, doesn't he have the right to believe what he wants? Even though the Holocaust has been studied thoroughly, there is no reason to keep people from studying some more if they feel the need for it. Forbidding such research is in itself pretty strong evidence against the Holocaust, and you'd think that the legislators are smart enough to know that. If I was the conspiracy nut kind of person, I could come up with all kinds of crazy shit about some people wanting to keep the masses doubting. Lucky for you, I'm not.

Then there's the whole anti-semitic -argument. After all, I'm sure that the following is a very common conversation throughout Germany and other European locations:

Hans: I'm bored. What sould we do?
Fritz: I know! Let's exterminate the Jews!
Hans: That's a great idea! Oh wait... we already tried, and it didn't work out.
Fritz: Oh, right. *sigh* Never mind then. Let's go drink beer and eat kebab instead.

I mean, do people really think that the only reason why we're not killing Jews right now is that the governments keep telling us that it's been tried before and therefore is not worth doing? Or that telling otherwise would somehow make us all hate Jews?

Sure, many Holocaust deniers are anti-semitic. Other people don't usually come across their material, because you actually have to go to the right places to find it. Most, if not all, Holocaust deniers I have met, honestly believe their stuff, and therefore I don't make a difference between it and any other kind of scepticism.

Holocaust is a historic event.
Millions of Jews and other unwanted people having died due to Nazi cleansings is a fact.
Believing in the Holocaust is an opinion.
Holocaust denial is an opinion.
It's not an opinion in any normal sense of the word. Believing in the sun isn't an opinion, and nor is denying its existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified.

In economics, philosophy, or other social sciences, analysis based on opinions is referred to as normative analysis (what ought to be), as opposed to positive analysis, which is based on scientific observation (what materially is). In mathematics and logic there can be no opinions about some claims, equations, and arguments, because often these kinds of statements are either valid or invalid, and true or false, and not open to contradicting opinions.

Historically, the distinction of proven knowledge and opinion was articulated by some Ancient Greek philosophers. Plato's divided line is a useful distinction between knowledge and opinions that is explained through the character of Socrates.

It's not an opinion in any normal sense of the word. Believing in the sun isn't an opinion, and nor is denying its existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

Interesting.

I suppose that according to that, believing in the Holocaust is not an opinion. Not believing in it, however, is.

An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified.

Comparing this to the existence of the Sun is not entirely valid, because if the evidence that proves the Holocaust were as crushing and indisputable as claimed, there would be no Holocaust deniers. As I said earlier, they do believe their stuff.

Who cares what is factual when it comes to freedom of speech? The nation north of South Korea is North Korea, but if I want to say that Australia is north of South Korea, then I should be allowed to do so. Freedom of speech should not apply only to that which is factual. If that were so, then anyone who has any sort of unproven belief system would have to be arrested. You don't have to agree with what a person says, but as long as it causes no harm to others, then we must respect their right to say it.

Who cares what is factual when it comes to freedom of speech? The nation north of South Korea is North Korea, but if I want to say that Australia is north of South Korea, then I should be allowed to do so. Freedom of speech should not apply only to that which is factual. If that were so, then anyone who has any sort of unproven belief system would have to be arrested. You don't have to agree with what a person says, but as long as it causes no harm to others, then we must respect their right to say it.

because that's just it and YET AGAIN you ignore it.

There is no justification for holocaust denial other than to stir up anti-semitic sentiment. That's it. It is hate speech.

because that's just it and YET AGAIN you ignore it.

There is no justification for holocaust denial other than to stir up anti-semitic sentiment. That's it. It is hate speech.

As long as you aren't advocating violence towards Jews, it is not hate speech.

As long as you aren't advocating violence towards Jews, it is not hate speech.

I think you misunderstand the word "hate" doncha? Hate speech is speech designed to spread hate against a group of people. Violence, while it often accompanies it, is not necessary to make somethig hate speech.

Anti-semitism is hate against jes for being jews. Denying the holocaust serves no other purpose than to promote anti-semitism.

Hence, holocaust denial is hate speech. Nothing more.

Is Holocaust denial an opinion? No, obviously not. It's a misstatement of a known fact, which is different.
Creationism/ID are both misstatements of known facts - would they be liable for punishment too?

Creationism/ID are both misstatements of known facts - would they be liable for punishment too?

denial of evolution doe not amount of de facto hate speech however.

denial of evolution doe not amount of de facto hate speech however.
And how does mere denial of the Holocaust count as hate speech then?

And how does mere denial of the Holocaust count as hate speech then?

I answered that already:

What you either don't understand, or are willfully ignoring, is that denying the holocaust occured has no purpose what so ever other than to spread anti-semitism.

There is no serious debate, no valid scholarship to be done. There is simply no reasonable and rational reason to question whether nazi germany engaged in attempted genocide which resulted in the deaths of multiple millions of jews. It is an undisputable fact, and the only reason to attempt to contradict that fct is to promote an anti-semitic agenda.

deial of the holocaust is promotion of anti-semitism, because denial of the holocaust has no other purpose BUT to do so.

I might change my mind if I see any actual, legitimate attempt at questioning that holocaust that was not done for the purposes of blatant anti semitism.

I haven't yet.

deial of the holocaust is promotion of anti-semitism, because denial of the holocaust has no other purpose BUT to do so.
Unless a holocaust denier specifically incites hatred towards Jews, it is not.

I might change my mind if I see any actual, legitimate attempt at questioning that holocaust that was not done for the purposes of blatant anti semitism.
The problem here is not Holocaust denial then - it is the fact that the people involved are spreading hatred. Denying the Holocaust in and of itself is not hate-provoking though - leading people to certain conclusions about what this entails could be.

Like I said, if we were to categorise all denials of arguably known facts as liable for punishment, we'd reach absurd conclusions. If the fact is indeed publicly known to be true, anyone arguing against it will have a hard time proving their case (like Creationists often do).

Who cares what is factual when it comes to freedom of speech?
Freedom of opinion, not freedom of speech. The Basic Law says:

Article 5 [Freedom of expression]

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.

(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

Note the bolded part.

If that were so, then anyone who has any sort of unproven belief system would have to be arrested.
No, because an unproven belief system would in fact be an opinion.

Creationism/ID are both misstatements of known facts - would they be liable for punishment too?
Not necessarily. All I'm saying is that they wouldn't be covered under freedom of opinion.

Not necessarily. All I'm saying is that they wouldn't be covered under freedom of opinion.
Peculiar, but fair enough.

Freedom of opinion, not freedom of speech. The Basic Law says:

Article 5 [Freedom of expression]

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.

(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

Note the bolded part.


No, because an unproven belief system would in fact be an opinion.


Not necessarily. All I'm saying is that they wouldn't be covered under freedom of opinion.


I find this fact/opinion dichotomy troublesome, but interesting.

Obviously, this is a difference in cultures as US freedom of speech applies to both fact and opinion.

I'll go read that case you cited but I am concerned with the idea that the government can say a certain point is "fact" and therefore cannot be debated. This seems at odds with the whole purpose of having freedom of expression.

(I also find Clause 2 of Article 5 to be alarming: "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor." Doesn't this open the door for sweeping limits on personal expression?)

What a bullshit. Germans exactly understand what freedom of speech is. And they also understand, where this freedom must have its limits: at the point where freedom of speech is abused for sedition. Unchecked freedom of speech is what led to the Nazi regime's success in the first place. As I said before: denying the holocaust is not done in a context of historical research, its sole purpose is to advance an agenda and deliberately spreading misinformation. The occurrence of the holocaust is not a matter of opinion, even if its circumstances in details may be. Germany is perfectly right to set up laws that make denying the holocaust a crime. If you want unlimited and unchecked freedom of speech then speak of something else or speak elsewhere. BTW, iirr a law against holocaust denial is now in effect for the entire EU.

Did you just compare questioning the Holocaust with an act of sedition? That is rather a stretch.

Free speech caused the Nazi regime? You must be kidding me.

Why should Germans have less freedom of expression than those in other countries?

One more quote, this time from West Virginia State Bd. of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html), 319 U.S. 624 (1943):

[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If the are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

(Again, I realize this is a US quote. Part of the difference in approach here is a cultural one, but I nontheless think the quote is appropriate.)

(I also find Clause 2 of Article 5 to be alarming: "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor." Doesn't this open the door for sweeping limits on personal expression?)
Ultimately it's still a continental system. The Basic Law wasn't written by Americans, it was written by Germans who had lived through a ... troubled few decades.

It's always going to reflect that fact, and so it probably should. Suffice to say that the idea of social order played a big role in their minds. That's become a lot less these days (for example, the FRG was banning parties like there was no tomorrow in the fifties, today they can't bring themselves to ban the NPD, which is probably as justified as it's ever going to get), but you're never going to find much support for changing what is in essence the constitution (and which many people credit with allowing the country to become what it is today).

What I don't like about the Holocaust denial laws is that they were greatly extended and took their current form not in the post-war years, when there might actually have been a point to them - but in 1994. And I think it's just basic populism, because whether you believe it or not, normal Germans are just plain disgusted by Nazis. During Zündel's trial there were cases of people leaving the courtroom because of nausea because of the crap that was being spewed from the defense team.

It's a bit funny, but ultimately it's comforting not to have to listen to people say these things. I know it makes me extremely uncomfortable to hear any sort of doubt. It's not exactly rational or scientific, but for example I can't look at the Stormfront website because I get that upset. And since there are many more people like me (including politicians and judges), they might have just taken the easy way out.

Well, I didn't read all these pages, but as German, I think it's good that the denial of the holocaust is outlawed.

The reason for this is that the right wing parties in Germany used this lie to spread antisemitism, and to relative the terror of the third Reich. In fact, they were the only ones who denied the holocaust - no sane person would do that in Germany...

Now they have lost this tool, and stopped telling these lies. Of course, they start other ridiculus things like comparing the holocaust with the "Bomb Holocaust" (The bombarding of German cities and civilans) Not that I don't think that this was a war crime - but you can't compare it with the holocaust, and who started this tactic in Guernica?

Of course, many people argue that democracy must allow these lunatics. But I don't think we should allow people catching votes with a mounsterous lie, hurting the feelings of the survivors of the worst genocide in history.

Did you just compare questioning the Holocaust with an act of sedition? That is rather a stretch.That is what Germany, but also Austria and France, considers holocaust denial.

Free speech caused the Nazi regime? You must be kidding me.That's what's called propaganda. The abuse of free speech to indoctrinate the masses for political ends.

Why should Germans have less freedom of expression than those in other countries?I see no reason why spreading every kind of crap should be allowed. After all, a state also has an obligation to properly educate its people.
Btw, it should be obvious to you why Germany has laws to punish holocaust denial.

There is no serious debate, no valid scholarship to be done.

Then you clearly do not understand the nature of historiography then, I have been a history university student for some time and know that even the source material we use as the basis of our knowledge for those periods of time should always be questioned and examined for bias. History is an ongoing process, and if one day it comes out that the Holocaust was worst, or was totally exaggerated, historians will always look at this for information.

To attempt to suppress all opposition to the Holocaust is not only anti-historical, it is anti-democratic, and only seeks to subvert the democratic nature of modern history. Many things throughout history were thought to be unquestionably facts until more information came along to disprove it.

No historian should ever be afraid to say that the holocaust was fake if that is his historical opinion, because different historians draw different conclusions. And if you want to debate his points because you disagree with them, do so, don't make anti-democratic laws to suppress those that disagree with your point of view.

That is what Germany, but also Austria and France, considers holocaust denial.

Those countries make holocaust denial illegal. That is not the same as considering it an act of sedition.

According to Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), Sedition is "communication or agreement which has as its objective the stirring up of treason ... or the defammation of the government. Sedition is advocating ... overthrow or reformation of the existing form of government by violence or unlawful means. ..."

Perhaps you shouldn't use terms you don't really understand.

That's what's called propaganda. The abuse of free speech to indoctrinate the masses for political ends.

Government propaganda is nigh the antithesis of free speech. Laws outlawing denial of the Holocaust are dangerous precisely because the government should not be allowed to monopolize expression regarding a subject.

I see no reason why spreading every kind of crap should be allowed. After all, a state also has an obligation to properly educate its people.

*sigh*

First you argue that Germany is a special case where such bans should be allowed. Then when asked to justify it, you say it is the content of the speech and not the location that is important. when you make up your mind what your point is, get back to us.

In the meantime, please re-read the quotes from Borah, Holmes, and the U.S. Supreme Court. All carry a consistent theme: it is highly tempting to censor unpopular opinions, but it is more dangerous to censor them than it is to simply rebuke them. Truth cannot be decided by the fiat of government authority, but only by a free and open debate.

Btw, it should be obvious to you why Germany has laws to punish holocaust denial.

It is obvious why some would want such laws in Germany. It is always popular to censor ideas that a society finds offensive or disagreeable. That does not make it right.

Neu Leonstein has provided some persuasive arguments in defense of the holocaust denial laws. You, however, push the discussion backwards.

Those countries make holocaust denial illegal. That is not the same as considering it an act of sedition.

According to Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), Sedition is "communication or agreement which has as its objective the stirring up of treason ... or the defammation of the government. Sedition is advocating ... overthrow or reformation of the existing form of government by violence or unlawful means. ..."

Perhaps you shouldn't use terms you don't really understand.



Government propaganda is nigh the antithesis of free speech. Laws outlawing denial of the Holocaust are dangerous precisely because the government should not be allowed to monopolize expression regarding a subject.



*sigh*

First you argue that Germany is a special case where such bans should be allowed. Then when asked to justify it, you say it is the content of the speech and not the location that is important. when you make up your mind what your point is, get back to us.

In the meantime, please re-read the quotes from Borah, Holmes, and the U.S. Supreme Court. All carry a consistent theme: it is highly tempting to censor unpopular opinions, but it is more dangerous to censor them than it is to simply rebuke them. Truth cannot be decided by the fiat of government authority, but only by a free and open debate.



It is obvious why some would want such laws in Germany. It is always popular to censor ideas that a society finds offensive or disagreeable. That does not make it right.

Neu Leonstein has provided some persuasive arguments in defense of the holocaust denial laws. You, however, push the discussion backwards.

A law against holocaust denial is not a censorship of ideas that a society finds offensive or disagreeable. It is a law against bullshit. And that's fine by all standards. The holocaust is a FACT. There is nothing to have an idea or even debate about it. It is not fact because the government says so, but because the holocaust did in fact happen. It is NOT a matter of opinion. :rolleyes:

btw, dict.leo.org (http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&search=volksverhetzung&relink=on) renders the german term "Volksverhetzung" as "incitement of the people" and "sedition", which is how holocaust denial is understood there

btw, dict.leo.org (http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&search=volksverhetzung&relink=on) renders the german term "Volksverhetzung" as "incitement of the people" and "sedition", which is how holocaust denial is understood thereSedition and incitement to racial hatred are synomyms with Volksverhetzung, not with eachother.

No historian should ever be afraid to say that the holocaust was fake if that is his historical opinion, because different historians draw different conclusions. And if you want to debate his points because you disagree with them, do so, don't make anti-democratic laws to suppress those that disagree with your point of view.

Any historan who makes that claim shold be stripped of his degree due to demonstrated incompetance in his profession.

It has n legitimate belief. Someone who believes so is incapable of studying history since the proper study of history could never lead to this conclusion.

Beleving the holocaust didn't occur is the historical equivalent of believing last tuesday didn't occur.

Government propaganda is nigh the antithesis of free speech. Laws outlawing denial of the Holocaust are dangerous precisely because the government should not be allowed to monopolize expression regarding a subject.The scientific field has established that the holocaust has happened and that its denial is pseudoscience. The government isn't the source of that conclusion, but it enforces it due to the fact that holocaust denial is almost exclusively racist in nature and aims at slandering an ethnic group that suffered more than any other at the time.
In the meantime, please re-read the quotes from Borah, Holmes, and the U.S. Supreme Court. All carry a consistent theme: it is highly tempting to censor unpopular opinions, but it is more dangerous to censor them than it is to simply rebuke them. Truth cannot be decided by the fiat of government authority, but only by a free and open debate.Illegalizing holocaust denial isn't a form of deciding what is true and what is not. Debate isn't open regardless of whether holocaust denial is made illegal or not: Reputable historians don't engage in "open-ended" debate.

If I'm not much mistaken, the holocaust (specifically the gassing of jews in Auschwitz) is also considered legally indisputable in California.
It is obvious why some would want such laws in Germany. It is always popular to censor ideas that a society finds offensive or disagreeable. That does not make it right.It isn't censored because it is disagreeable or offensive, it is censored because it stems from racist motivation and aims to defame the victims of the holocaust.

I feel the need to post a holocaust jew with a pancake on his head.


YOU SEE WHAT I DID THAR?

I feel the need to post a holocaust jew with a pancake on his head.
dont.

the Worst genocide in History?
why is this genocide THE worst?
Hollywood ?

Can you name another that took 9 million lives over the space of a few years?

Illegalizing holocaust denial isn't a form of deciding what is true and what is not.so it may be 100% true (as told by hollywood.. 6 million and all).. or.. may not be as told by the people writing your History books..

yet you (Germans) are going shut down the door on any possible debate on the issue.. by making it illegal.

Can you name another that took 9 million lives over the space of a few years?9 million?
it was 11 yesterday.. did we lose 2 million overnight?

so it may be 100% true (as told by hollywood.. 6 million and all).. or.. may not be as told by the people writing your History books..

yet you (Germans) are going shut down the door on any possible debate on the issue.. by making it illegal.

Uh, I'm sorry - my history books say the same thing as "hollywood".

..the worst genocide in history.the Worst genocide in History?
why is this genocide THE worst?
Hollywood ?

9 million?
it was 11 yesterday.. did we lose 2 million overnight?

If you want to play silly buggers with sematics then my assertation of 9 million is still correct as it would have hit 9 at some point before getting to 11.

I notice you didn't bother to answer the question either.

Can you name another that took 9 million lives over the space of a few years?9 million??
meh.. it was 11 yesterday.. did we lose 2 million overnight?