NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9952040&postcount=1

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9952040&postcount=1

Since when has holocaust denial been against the rules here?

Since when has holocaust denial been against the rules here?

Don't know if it's against the rules here, but it's illegal in some EU nations. And I find it incredibly offensive. You might as well post violent porn.

Don't know if it's against the rules here, but it's illegal in some EU nations.

It is not illegal in the UK, where the Jolt servers are located.

It's probably c+p spam, or even plagiarism, in any case.

Holocaust denial threads are highly disrespectful against all the Jews who died in the gaschambers of Auswich and other deathcamps. Therefor it is trolling in its purest form. Also it is obvious that this kind of posts is not allowed, since even something as a simple Swastika is banned as national flag.

Holocaust denial threads are highly disrespectful against all the Jews who died in the gaschambers of Auswich and other deathcamps. Therefor it is trolling in its purest form.

If there is sufficient evidence to show that the Holocaust deniers are wrong, then there should be no need to fear their arguments. It seems ludicrous to stifle the debate on the basis of disrespecting the dead - established precedents have shown that it is legitimate to disrespect the dead on this site, provided that no gloating takes place.

Also it is obvious that this kind of posts is not allowed, since even something as a simple Swastika is banned as national flag.

Not strictly true.

']A swastika with little flowers and happy faces, on a nation called "The Friendly Nazis": fine

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438053

Whatever.

1: This is not a place for discussions.

2: That is why I called it a simple Swastika.

I don't fall in this trap. Holocaust debates don't belong here.

2: That is why I called it a simple Swastika.

If you are going to argue semantics, then it helps if you actually write coherent sentences in the first place:

"Also it is obvious that this kind of posts is not allowed, since even something as a simple Swastika is banned as national flag."

Edit: aside from which, posts on the forum, where they can be met with debate and counter-debate, are held to very different standards than national flags, where no debate is directly possible. Such has been the principle applied by the moderators in the past.

since even something as a simple Swastika is banned as national flag.

Following that logic I call for all hammer and sickle flags to be banned. *cough* gulags *cough*

Following that logic I call for all hammer and sickle flags to be banned. *cough* gulags *cough*


']The hammer and sickle: fine (Yes, I'm aware of the hundreds of millions of deaths. But when people look at the hammer and sickle, they think communism, not mass graves. If you can point me at a survey that shows otherwise, then we'll deem this one malicious, too. But until then, it's just a Soviet flag.)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438053

There's already a thread about swastikas and flags (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438053) in moderation. How 'bout we drop the posturing and spamming, keep on topic, and wait for a moderator decision on it.

*has a hammer and sickle flag*

I don't think the truth needs to be backed up by the force of law. In fact, it's counterproductive as a lot of people are going to think that if it's illegal or against the rules not to believe in the Holocaust (or any other atrocity, for that matter) then maybe the people who made the laws are hiding something. [/thoughtcrime]

*not a Holocaust denier*

Holocaust denial is not (in itself) prohibited in these forums. If you disagree with it, then prove him wrong. I wish that I could remember who said something like "Hatred cannot long withstand the harsh light of exposure." (Kudos and thanks to whoever can dredge up the original quote.)
Copy/pasting long documents such as he clearly has without attribution is copyright violation and is not permitted on these forums.
Flaming, such as several have done in response to his post, is not permitted in these forums.
This thread is locked due to a combination of copyright violations and degeneration into flaming.

Copy/pasting long documents such as he clearly has without attribution is copyright violation and is not permitted on these forums.


A quick search for the document elsewhere on the web provides these copyright notices:

"Commercial use and/or exploitation is expressly prohibited by copyright, held jointly by Samisdat Publishers and Barbara Kulaszka."

"Please note: Commercial use and/or exploitation is expressly prohibited by copyright."

Neither of these seem to prohibit the reposting on NS.

Having said that, the OP neither gave the correct title of the text or its author.

Holocaust denial threads are highly disrespectful against all the Jews who died in the gaschambers of Auswich and other deathcamps. Therefor it is trolling in its purest form. Also it is obvious that this kind of posts is not allowed, since even something as a simple Swastika is banned as national flag.
I agree. This thread should be deleated, or at the very least, locked. :(

I have heard the stories of uncles and aunts, who lost family members in nazi gascamps. Also I have learned not to engage in discussion with borderline trolls. Come with this story on my site, and I'll kick your nazi-butt straight out. Some may call this flaming, but I call this justice. No nazi propaganda on my forum. Do it on the NS forum if you must, but you are not welcome everywhere.

A quick search for the document elsewhere on the web provides these copyright notices:

"Commercial use and/or exploitation is expressly prohibited by copyright, held jointly by Samisdat Publishers and Barbara Kulaszka."

"Please note: Commercial use and/or exploitation is expressly prohibited by copyright."

Neither of these seem to prohibit the reposting on NS.

Having said that, the OP neither gave the correct title of the text or its author.
That's just part of copyright law, though. The reposting of the document is almost certainly prohibited under the copyright held on it, but they chose not to state that it is "expressly prohibited".

A quick search for the document elsewhere on the web provides these copyright notices:

"Commercial use and/or exploitation is expressly prohibited by copyright, held jointly by Samisdat Publishers and Barbara Kulaszka."

"Please note: Commercial use and/or exploitation is expressly prohibited by copyright."

Neither of these seem to prohibit the reposting on NS.

Having said that, the OP neither gave the correct title of the text or its author.
It wouldn't fall under fair use, so it is copyright violation. It's also plagerism.

He could at least have given proper credits to the original author.
It is still trolling in my opinion.

It wouldn't fall under fair use, so it is copyright violation. It's also plagerism.

Whether it is a copyright violation or not depends upon the exact nature of the copyright notice attached to the original text or a legitimate copyright notice attached to an original net publication. Different texts allow different things.

So what does the copyright notice on the Institute for Historical Research site actually say?

The copyright policy for materials on this Web site

Unless otherwise stated, the copyright holders (Greg Raven and/or the Institute for Historical Review) hereby grant to anyone the right to reproduce electronically or magnetically the BBS versions of these files. We do not grant reprint rights to any words-on-paper versions of these files except for extracts up to 500 words in book reviews or citations in other books. You are allowed to print out one copy of these files for your own personal use. You are not allowed to sell a print-out.

"All items from The Journal of Historical Review and the Institute for Historical Review reprinted by permission of The Journal of Historical Review, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, United States of America. Domestic subscription rate: $40 per year; foreign rate: $50 per year."

Should you wish to print copies for free distribution, please contact the IHR in writing at PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA, 92659 for permission.


http://www.codoh.com/info/infoihr/ihrcopyrt.html

Plagarism isn't an issue here - the OP never tried to pass off the text as his own.

They should have certainly credited the original author* and included some kind of note with regard to copyright, that I agree.


* either under his real name (Richard Verrall) or his pseudonym (Richard Harwood).

Credit was still not given. Wholesale copy/pasting of articles is not a valuable contribution to our forums. Intelligent conversation with links to references is a better use of them.