3 Years for denying Holocaust

dagmaraka wrote:

In any case, we do protect people from, say, skinheads marching through the town, handing out leaflets that say "Don't buy from the Jews" or "white Slovakia". And I am grateful for that. I have experienced, many times, attacks of these groups that often end up in bloodshed and at this point can only be curbed by effective prevention.

That's a different matter. In the United States, governments can constitutionally prohibit the kind of speech you just described: ''The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." (Schenck v. US (1919)) Judging by your description, the US Supreme Court would justify what your government is doing to Slovakian Neo-Nazis. But it would proscribe the prosecution of David Irving. While justice Holmes' opinion binds noone outside the USA, I believe he has found the reasonable test to apply.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

That's pretty much what I'm saying too. I don't agree with "your" way of doing things, but I accept that it works better for "you".

Thank you for putting the word "you" in quotes, FreeDuck. Among the European traditions Dagmaraka talks about, censorship and prosecution of heretics are especially time-honored ones. I disagree that they are entitled to equal respect as liberalism, their influence doesn't make our law work better for me, and I don't like it when people revoke my German citizenship for it. Wink

0 Replies

no, thomas. that is certainly not what i meant. i think you know that...?

0 Replies

Just trying to be polemic about normative arguments from tradition, which I mistrust. (BTW: I hope you've stopped your boxing lessons when you left Vienna. Chicago is dangerously close already, and we'll almost certainly get into an argument when we meet. Smile

)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Are you comparing some bad cartoons and the after-effects to that to the denying of the Holocaust?

I am comparing the after-effects of both, since MacTag had made the point that the after-effects of Holocaust denial justify making it illegal: "Holocaust denial, if it is not checked, could lead to very undesirable political consequences, potentially affecting many. " If the objective of criminalization is to prevent "very undesirable political consequences", the cartoons should be as criminal as the denial. After all, their political consequences were at least as undesirable as any proven consequences of holocaust denial.

For the record, I believe that the conclusion is false because the premise is false: curbing the freedom of speech is no legitimate remedy against undesireable political consequences. The cartoonists ought to go free -- as should holocaust deniers.

Well, Irving broke an Austrian law and was tried and convicted in Austria for that.
The cartoonists and their editors did not break any Danish law.

It's when we try to equate or compare the two that anomalies arise.

"Freedom of speech" according to the well-known saying, "does not allow anyone to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre", in other words, it should be used responsibly.
I think it is reasonable to assume that if the editors knew that people were going to die as a direct result of this action, they would probably have acted differently in this case- no matter how dearly they hold the rights of a free press.

I think we should not lose sight of the fact that it was a right-wing Danish paper that first ran the item, and its motives for doing that in my view are questionable. Other european editors then jumped on the "freedom of the press" theme and perhaps did not too closely consider that offence was bound to be taken in muslim circles at home and abroad. (or perhaps decided that offence taken by foreign readers was no concern of theirs)

In general I would sum up my opinions thus:

1. Irving is guilty as charged, and should serve his sentence
2. Cartoon publishers have broken no law, but acted insensitively
3. Muslim clerics deliberately stirred up trouble
4. The original Danish newspaper intended its actions to be offensive and inflammatory to some
5. Freedom of speech should be exercised sensibly, and does not allow anyone to break the law- or at least, punishment under the law should follow trangression

0 Replies

oh, and the post above. yup, u.s. would not prosecute irving, most likely. and i repeat that the sentence was in my view steep. i'm still just talking about the principles behind.

i think this is extremely interesting, that's why i keep coming back even though no new arguments emerge anymore. i see ebrown and o'bill agreeing fully. which only goes to show what firm foundations of thought america was built on and how it still is alive in people. i like to see that, finally one heart warming thing amidst of the usual squabbling between liberals and republicans.

not that i adhere to it, but again. i respect it.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

by the way, i think ACLU often IS ridiculous in its campaigns and actions. Not most of the times, of course, but often enough.

I think the ACLU IS ridiculous in its campaigns and actions MOST of the time. They go out of their way to seek out the very worst scum the earth has to offer in order to give them some of the very best legal counsel available. I despise a healthy percentage of the issues they defend and indeed would probably not care for the politics of the vast majority of their members.

However; they are engaged in tug-of-war so to speak and in order to keep the flag safely in the middle, someone has to tug on the end. I believe strongly that freedom of expression and the right to choose for myself what materials I will or will-not expose myself to are and should be an inalienable fundamental right. Larry Flynt's guaranteed right to publish disgusting smut is the reason rational adults can choose for themselves whether to pick up a copy of Playboy or the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition. The deplorable march of the KKK is the reason I know I can demonstrate against the policies of a President, at the steps of the Washington Monument, without fear of being mowed down like the students in Tinnemon Square. That the ACLU will fight for the terrorist's rights is the reason I know my right to Habeas Corpus is in no danger.

As unconstitutional laws are passed or side-stepped by this branch of government or that; I know that the tireless defense of the cretins of this world by the ACLU will keep my constitutional rights in balance. While I despise the vast majority of who the ACLU stands for; I'm almost tempted to contribute to their cause for what they stand for. It isn't lack of belief in their cause that prevents me but rather that I believe my finite quantity of resources for charity can be better spent elsewhere.

By respecting the rights of the man advocating at the top of his lunges that which I would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of mine; we Americans do a better job protecting our freedoms than any law silencing the dissenters ever could. The hate will always be there so I would never willingly trade in my fundamental right to free expression in a feeble attempt to suppress it.

OE, I got your point, but there is a time and a place for everything. I can yell fire at a bonfire or shooting range till my heart's content but not in a crowded theatre. Likewise, a President shouldn't be shouted down while trying to deliver his SOTU address. This I believe is non-partisan common sense and those in disagreement are displaying a lack of same.

0 Replies

<< ebrown wipes away a tear>>

Bravo O'Bill.... that was beautifully said.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

OE, I got your point, but there is a time and a place for everything. I can yell fire at a bonfire or shooting range till my heart's content but not in a crowded theatre. Likewise, a President shouldn't be shouted down while trying to deliver his SOTU address. This I believe is non-partisan common sense and those in disagreement are displaying a lack of same.

"should not" as in "it's unconstitutional" or "should not" as in "we don't deem it appropriate and thought making it illegal would be a good idea, nevermind the Constitution"?

0 Replies

that i have no problem agreeing with (o'bill's post on ACLU). we have Article 19 that does the same line of work (minus the seeking out of every last idiot to defend bit) and I value their contribution tremendously.

I share your utmost belief in freedom of speech, but I also utmostly believe in other freedoms and rights, and again, belief that none of them should stand above the rest. Wasn't it one of 'your' guys who said that my right to punch air ends where somebody's nose begins?

i don't think anyone should be jailed for offending someone. but again, i don't think we're only talking about offensiveness here. it's about prevention of violence and protecting vulerable groups for whom the fear is real. I believe Irving's sentence will change when he appeals and there is a strong chance that he will appeal all the way to the European Court for Human Rights, which does tend to lean more towards the freedom of speech. (see the Oberschlick v. Heider case above or on the other thread, i forget...).

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Taking into account the history, I still think this is basically stupid. I would prefer to have nutjobs up front and on the stage where their idiocies can be judged than locked away and hidden.

I wonder if you would feel that way if you lived in Germany now; were Jewish, had been in the concentration camps and suffered horribly, had witnessed your mother, father, brother, sister and friends brutalized and murdered, knew that many Nazis' were not rounded up and punished but went on to become successful businessmen in the new Germany, and knew that a potentially consequential neo Nazi's movement still existed in modern Germany and elsewhere?

I am not arguing the validity of free speech per se.

Can Germany be likened to an ill tempered dog that cannot be trusted to not bite the postman? Does the risk to the postman die with the dog or do the puppies carry on the traditions?

0 Replies

Irving wasn't German and the trial was in Austria ... says one of those puppies = these laws are no special laws only for Germans (that truely would not only be unconstutional but really stupid).

0 Replies

I was referring to dyslexia's views that he prefers "to have nutjobs up front and on the stage where their idiocies can be judged than locked away and hidden" and using the German / Nazi / Jew equation as counterpoint.

Also many other posters here have referred or inferred to this German / Nazi / Jew equation.

Perhaps most importantly I am honoring my birthday greeting to you

Chumly wrote:

It should be an increasing source of ongoing pleasure to talk about things not related to the topic at hand

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Can Germany be likened to an ill tempered dog that cannot be trusted to not bite the postman?

It can be trusted more than its neighbors -- support of Neonazi parties is consistently lower in Germany than in neighboring countries. And that isn't because we impose extra legal restrictions on Neonazi parties. It's because an overwhelming majority of Germans, having considered their ideology, decided they want nothing to do with it. This, and not some legally imposed censorship, is our real protection against history repeating itself. The censorship in our penal code, which impedes public debate of Nazi ideas, will more likely erode than strengthen our main protection against Nazis.

0 Replies

Dag, I've seen Craven use that analogy and didn't know it wasn't original. It would appear our only disagreement is where the proverbial nose begins and it doesn't look like that's reconcilable. <shrugs>

old europe wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
OE, I got your point, but there is a time and a place for everything. I can yell fire at a bonfire or shooting range till my heart's content but not in a crowded theatre. Likewise, a President shouldn't be shouted down while trying to deliver his SOTU address. This I believe is non-partisan common sense and those in disagreement are displaying a lack of same.

"should not" as in "it's unconstitutional" or "should not" as in "we don't deem it appropriate and thought making it illegal would be a good idea, never mind the Constitution"?

"Should not" as in I don't believe the SC interpretations of the Constitution guarantee the right to your free-speech anytime-anyplace. Even the MC at the KKK rally has a right to be heard above the overwhelming dissention, which is kept at bay by the boys in blue.

While the inconceivably retched views of members of MAMBLA have an absolute right to be voiced; they do not have the right to rally at a grammar-school graduation ceremony. They do however; have a right to organize near by. Whether or not they get the recognition or attention they seek is a matter of public interest; not constitutionality.

0 Replies

Quote:

It would appear our only disagreement is where the proverbial nose begins and it doesn't look like that's reconcilable. <shrugs>

exactly, o'bill. see? we agree again!

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

"Should not" as in I don't believe the SC interpretations of the Constitution guarantee the right to your free-speech anytime-anyplace. Even the MC at the KKK rally has a right to be heard above the overwhelming dissention, which is kept at bay by the boys in blue.

While the inconceivably retched views of members of MAMBLA have an absolute right to be voiced; they do not have the right to rally at a grammar-school graduation ceremony. They do however; have a right to organize near by. Whether or not they get the recognition or attention they seek is a matter of public interest; not constitutionality.

So basically what you are saying is: as long as the protesters are allowed to have a demonstration, their right of freedom of speech is guaranteed. If they are sent away to a "Free Speech Zone", outside the reach of those they are protesting, it still is freedom of speech, because they are allowed to voice their opinion.

Well, I disagree. That would mean that for all we could care, the protesters could hold their demonstration in a submarine at the bottom of the sea - and it would still be constitutional, because they are not imprisoned or charged with a crime. Unless they are protesting somewhere else than inside the submarine (read: Free Speech Zone).

Nah. That totally undermines your argument that the right of free speech is a total one.

0 Replies

OE, you're being deliberately obtuse. Your objection was understood and answered. By your interpretation of my beliefs; the American Dairy association should be entitled to equal speaking time at a vegan convention, NAMBLA at a "Victims of Child Molestation" Fundraiser or the KKK at the annual NAACP convention. While each of these dissenting groups has an absolute right to be heard; these are not appropriate nor legally guaranteed settings for their soapboxes. Set aside your politics and realize the error in your application. Your submarine example is perhaps the most obvious Strawman you could have erected.

0 Replies

No, OB. Those are two separate issue. The one thing is demonstrations being held in public. The other thing is adressing a ("confined") audience.

Let's start with the second one - or your example of the American Dairy speaking at a vegan convention: Here I would agree with you that this is not a legally guaranteed setting for somebody's soapbox.

What I was talking about was the first one - the right to voice your opinion in public, and basically in sight of those you want to protest. And here I think the protester's rights are seriously being curtailed by sending them away to a remote place (submarine, Free Speech Zone) well out of sight of those they want to protest. Because, after all, you would take away the shared public space and hand it over to just one party (in order to voice their opinion) while restricting the other party (the protesters) to make use of the same public space in order to voice a dissenting opinion.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

OE, you're being deliberately obtuse.

btw, I'm trying not to. I guess I'm just a sore loser in getting my point across....

0 Replies

3 Years for denying Holocaust

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know