Yes, Walter. I know the difference between banned and challenged books. I perused through those sources before. Schiff's book was banned on the basis of illegal activity. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Quite contrary. My only point is that I don't see that as a more serious crime than that of Nazi propaganda, especially when it gets personal - against Jews, African Americans, whichever other group. I am a staunch human rights supporter, but as such I have to realize that human rights often collide - we are talking about such collision: the right to free speech vs. the right to be protected from defamation, or the freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, language, etc... a number of rights. U.S. usually upholds the free speech. Many other countries don't. I believe that it should be decided on a case by case basis - elevating free speech above all other rights can cause violation of other rights in return, and harm to groups of people. When it comes to racist, anti-semitic, and similar propagandas, I don't see the benefits of upholding the right to free speech and would prefer their banning. As is the case in Germany and many other countries.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Wed 7 Jul, 2004 12:29 pm
I completely agree, dagmaraka: human rights often collide and than you have to balance the different rights.
I can't refind that source, but until some months, the first legal advice given US-soldiers here in Germany (and Europe), was to pay attention that personal offence is prosecuted as a criminal act.
0 Replies
Thomas
1
Reply
Wed 7 Jul, 2004 12:54 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
I am a staunch human rights supporter, but as such I have to realize that human rights often collide - we are talking about such collision: the right to free speech vs. the right to be protected from defamation, or the freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, language, etc... a number of rights.
Call me pig-headed if you want, but I don't see a collision of human rights here. Here is a link to the UN declaration of human rights. Could you please tell me which specific rights in the declaration are being violated, in your judgment, by a neo-nazi who claims that Auschwitz never happened. You and I agree that the neo-nazi would be telling a lie -- but lies by themselves are not human rights violations.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Wed 7 Jul, 2004 03:53 pm
au1929 wrote:
dlowan
I may have misunderstood. Were you for or against the law? I assumed you were against, was I wrong?
Yes, I knew many people who were survivors of the holocaust. I believe that the law is just simply because if you tell a lie often enough and for a long enough period it will become the truth. We should never forget.
I was against German's laws - extremely reluctantly.
I very well understand why they are there.
0 Replies
dagmaraka
1
Reply
Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:04 pm
Thomas, you have surely noticed I was not talking directly about the denial of Holocaust in the past few posts. I have mentioned that I view it as harmful - emotionally, to the survivors. I then proceeded to talk about banning Nazi propaganda, and other racist propaganda in general. Does the right of neo-nazis to express their opinions clash with other rights? I certainly think so. Article 7 of UDHR, for starters: Protection from incitement to discrimination. But if you'd like to take up the case of Holocaust denial, there is a clash, too. With article 12:" No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." You could certainly claim denial of Holocaust violates the right to be protected against attacks upon survivors honour and reputation. It's also been done. The survivors are proclaimed by the neo-nazis for bloody fools, after they endured the terror of Aushwitz. If that's not crime, what is? Anyway, that is my point of view, I am sure German legislators had theirs for having such laws put in place.
Although it would be more useful if you linked to the German Constitution rather than to the Universal Declaration, which is a declaration - not a treaty. Although many constitutions do reference to it and thus make it binding for their countries. Slovakia did so, not sure about Germany. Most every constitution has its own list of rights that are legally binding - that's what the lawyers work with. I am not one, I merely teach human rights.
0 Replies
Craven de Kere
1
Reply
Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:12 pm
IMHO "honor and reputation" there means stuff like Abu Graib and not Holocaust denial.
<butts back out to listen and learn>
0 Replies
dagmaraka
1
Reply
Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:16 pm
Well, lawyers in the highest of courts cannot agree on which rights have priorities. It seems to be dependent a lot on person's own moral values and even feelings. I don't think we will resolve it here, we can only agree to disagree. I believe it does apply to Holocaust deniers.
0 Replies
dagmaraka
1
Reply
Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:25 pm
There was another fascinating case that dealt with the clash of right to free speech with the right to be protected from defamation: the case of the notorious neo-Nazi and chancellor of one of Austrian federal states (forget which) Jorg Haider vs. a journalist by the name of Oberschlick. Oberschlick wrote in his own paper, Forum a critique of Haider's speech. Haider said in that speech that only Austrian soldiers that fought in the WWII alongside the German army have full right to freedom and liberty, because they fought for it.... something in that vein. Oberschlick wrote: "I will not say that Haider is a neo-nazi, I will, however, say that he is an idiot". He went on to justify that statement that according to Haider's logic, neither he, nor the vast majority of Austrians are entitled to freedom for they did not have the 'honor' to fight in the Nazi army... Oberschlick was sued by Haider on the basis of defamation. Haider won. Issues of Forum were ceased and Oberschlick was to pay heavy fines. He appealed to a higher court. He lost again although the penalties were lessened. He appealed all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (which, you may or may not know is the enforcing mechanism of the European Covenant on human rights and fundamental freedoms of 1951 - the covenant within the Council of Europe). The Court's decision is binding and overrides the domestic decisions. Oberschlick won on the basis of the freedom of speech. I applaud that decision - for his intent was not malicious, he explained himself well if you actually read the whole article. The freedom of speech did have a priority in this case. But to make it a rule for all cases would be, in my honest opinion, extremely dangerous, as it can be misused as a cloak for all sorts of crimes or malicious acts.
0 Replies
Wildflower63
1
Reply
Thu 8 Jul, 2004 01:23 am
Opinion is just that, an opinion, not anything written in stone, as fact. All of us should have a sense of right and wrong, no matter where we happen to be born.
Hitler is worshiped in the US. I watched an HBO documentary, which allowed Skinheads to speak their minds, without the usual slant of ABC, NBC, CBS, or any other censored broadcast, to please the public opinion. We are told they are insane. They are far from it. They believe in something different that most people do.
Right or wrong, we all have the right to opinion. You can point and counter point all you wish. All people of the globe should be able to express their personal views. All people should have a sense of right and wrong to guide them. Many do not. Many are followers that go with the pack, of popular opinion.
Since when was the US exempt from that idea, of flocking with popular opinion and being followers? I don't see it! Who are we to judge? As long as these people are not a threat to others, leave them to their own beliefs. This is what Americans call freedom.
Do what you think is right. Fight what is ethically wrong. Don't judge others for an opinion that doesn't happen to agree with yours.
If you feel it is just and right, fight it!!
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Thu 8 Jul, 2004 01:59 am
Thank you Dagmaraka - fascinating posts!
0 Replies
dagmaraka
1
Reply
Thu 8 Jul, 2004 07:55 am
Right, wildflower. Until they start hurting others or instigating against others. Then it becomes dangerous.
What bothers me is certain hypocricy in American society. Obscene or indecent exposure- nonono, our children cannot see that, that would be disastrous for their moral formation. But come violence, come hate speech, defamation, drug ads, alcohol ads, all sorts of stuff - bring em on, we have a freedom of speech here! i don't get it.
0 Replies
Thomas
1
Reply
Thu 8 Jul, 2004 09:51 am
dagmaraka wrote:
Thomas, you have surely noticed I was not talking directly about the denial of Holocaust in the past few posts.
I thought you did, and that's my mistake. Thanks for the clarification.
Quote:
But if you'd like to take up the case of Holocaust denial, there is a clash, too. With article 12:" No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." You could certainly claim denial of Holocaust violates the right to be protected against attacks upon survivors honour and reputation. It's also been done. The survivors are proclaimed by the neo-nazis for bloody fools, after they endured the terror of Aushwitz. If that's not crime, what is?
We disagree then. If neo-nazi X proclaims holocaust survivor Y a bloody fool for claiming that the Holocaust happened, that's slander, and Y has a right to sue Y. But I don't think ther UN declaration of human rights protects something as broad as the collective offense dealt to the Jews by Holocaust survivors. I'm not denying this offense is real, and I'm not denying that the neonazis are violating common standards of honesty and decency. I only disagree that this is a violation of human rights.
Dagmaraka wrote:
Although it would be more useful if you linked to the German Constitution rather than to the Universal Declaration, which is a declaration - not a treaty.
I linked to the UN declaration because I almost every country has signed on to it, so it seemed like the appropriate reference for a discussion between a Slovak and a German. Also, the UN declaration tends to err on the side of defining human rights too broadly, and I didn't want to get into a debate about why I strategically chose a reference that left out just the right that matters to you most.
dagmaraka wrote:
What bothers me is certain hypocricy in American society. Obscene or indecent exposure- nonono, our children cannot see that, that would be disastrous for their moral formation. But come violence, come hate speech, defamation, drug ads, alcohol ads, all sorts of stuff - bring em on, we have a freedom of speech here!
Agreed. Americans see so many killings of Americans on TV, they have to see how to make new ones too.
0 Replies
Wildflower63
1
Reply
Thu 8 Jul, 2004 10:39 pm
When were, us mere mortals, able to judge opinion from fact? We are talking a gray area that cannot be proved or dismissed.
You want to talk race hatred? Where do these stereotypes come from? I have a clue, truth. There are tons of white people that are complete rednecks, but get offended if called that. There are many black people who act like niggers, but will sue, if called that. Jews do have a reputation for being unethical, in business. This is exactly why people do not like them.
Stereotypes came about for a reason, there is truth in it, like it or not. I am the only one in my family that will admit to being a degree of redneck.
There are various shades of gray, right?
0 Replies
au1929
1
Reply
Fri 9 Jul, 2004 06:55 am
Void
0 Replies
Sofia
1
Reply
Fri 9 Jul, 2004 05:10 pm
Oh hell.
0 Replies
Craven de Kere
1
Reply
Fri 9 Jul, 2004 05:35 pm
Wildflower63,
What the hell does "act like niggers" mean? Nevermind, don't answer that I'm not sure I even want to waste time reading what drek you can come up with to answer it.
This is a discussion about certain laws, I hope it doesn't get sidetracked into discussing your brainfarts.
0 Replies
Sofia
1
Reply
Fri 9 Jul, 2004 05:38 pm
Anyway, I'm pretty sure porno is bad for little ones, and if Europe doesn't mind their kids watching it--that's their business.
I DO mind, and I think its proven porno isn't age-appropriate for children and pre-teens. I don't think this issue (porno) is the collective 'etiquette' choice in the US, but meant to protect safety and innocence of children. Also, many banned books are How Tos on making bombs, wrecking peace and generally fomenting chaos. I think it is a good thing to ban books that are put together for the purpose of causing pain and destruction. I'll have to look for other books we've kyboshed that may not fall into that category.
Anybody-- Is NAMBLA still able to operate? (Just wondering.)
Dag's quote of the law in question:
:" No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
This is the craziest law I've ever read--well, except for some about where we can park our horse, and such...
Telemarketers arbitrarily interfere with my privacy--gossip would keep the courts clogged until the end of time.
MY OWN MOTHER HAS INTERFERED WITH MY PRIVACY.
I could have had a cage dropped over my office--nasty, viscious gossip--by all, about all.
Does gossip get handled in your courts? If it is personally defamatory?
Saying the Holocaust didn't happen is much like any other cruel lie or gossip. People hear it every day. I think that law is far too vague, and could lend itself to thousands of interpretations.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Fri 9 Jul, 2004 11:27 pm
Sofia wrote:
Anyway, I'm pretty sure porno is bad for little ones, and if Europe doesn't mind their kids watching it--that's their business.
Did I miss something? Where in Europe are kids allowed to watch porno?
0 Replies
Sofia
1
Reply
Sat 10 Jul, 2004 09:33 pm
Guten Abend--
Dag said America is hypocritical because we ban porno and indecent exposure, but we allow speech that is considered by her standards as violent, hate speech, drug ads,... (Probably my standards, too.)
Porno pops up on my child's computer,...even though I pay for blocks... I wish we could make it illegal, in that venue.
But, Walter, I was under the impression that sexual activity and nudity is shown on regular TV shows in European countries. Is that not true? (I mean, I've been told by people who've visited and been stationed there.)
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:14 am
That's kind of right, Sifia, if you talke about the nightly programs.
Porno, however, still can't be seen regular tv.
Those people might have paid for those "special programs" in hotels, I suppose.
Or, those people belong to those American sensibilities which put the Brazilian bathing suits in x-rated categories.
