Jail for German Holocaust denier

[Sapphire Blue]

Jail for German Holocaust denier

A German Holocaust denier who regularly lavished praise on Adolf Hitler has been sentenced to five years in jail by a German court.

Ernst Zuendel was convicted of 14 counts of inciting racial hatred and for denying that the Nazis killed six million Jews during World War II.

He received the maximum sentence under German law which bans Holocaust denial.

Zuendel moved to Canada in 1958 but was judged a national security threat and deported back to Germany in 2005.

(snip)

During his trial in the western German city of Mannheim, he was accused of using "pseudo-scientific" methods to try to rewrite the accepted history of the Nazi Holocaust in 14 pieces of written work and internet publications.

(snip)

Germany hopes to make Holocaust denial a crime across the EU as part of a package of laws it wants to introduce during its presidency of the bloc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6364951.stm

[SteppingRazor]

1. Kinda torn.

On the one hand, the dude's obviously a dangerous nutcase.

On the other, the free-speech advocate in me is saying, "What'd he do wrong?"

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katherine Brengle]

19. I agree, but at the same time, we have laws against hate speech in this country...

so where's the line?

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Hate speech is protected in this country

Specifically advocating violence against a person or a certain group of people is not.

[mvd]

194. Hi, Hippo_Tron

I am big for free speech, but Germany still has a problem with neo-Nazis. You can't shout "fire" in the U.S. when there isn't one, and over there, denying the holocaust would be similar to shouting "fire."

[Warren DeMontague]

140. No we don't.

We have this pesky thing called the First Amendment.

[barb162]

55. Punishing hate speech doesn't hurt an economy or research

That's absurd! Nor does protecting bigotry show how great a country is.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. Freedom of speech is only as good as the freedom for the most unpopular, vile voices to be heard.

Freedom of speech- total, absolute, and WITHOUT APOLOGY- is the BEST defense against the sort of totalitarianism that the Nazis represented.

And I say that as someone with relatives who died in the camps.

[geek tragedy]

166. The Nazis took power by using free speech and democracy.

Don't you think it's reasonable to put safeguards in to prevent them from pulling that trick again?

[Leopolds Ghost]

182. Thus, let's limit free speech and democracy! I invoke Godwin's Law

Although it doesn't apply in a thread about neo-Nazis.

[geek tragedy]

192. It's called "militant democracy." It means that you aren't allowed

to use the tools and mechanisms of democracy to try to destroy it.

In other words, you must be committed to democracy in order to participate in it.

We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.

Joseph Goebbels.

[Leopolds Ghost]

198. Sounds like militant authoritarian leftism to me.

I'm a radical populist. Some on the authoritarian left would be prepared to ban any speech that is considered distasteful. Are you prepared to ban the sort of speech George W. Bush is using, since he's doing the same sort of thing Goebbels did, without the same intentions perhaps?

By the way, the "tools and mechanisms" of democracy were enacted in order to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and other rights the Nazis didn't have to worry about running up against in order to carry out their agenda, since they did not and still don't exist in Europe. Which is one of the reasons people fled Europe.

Pogroms, religious oppression, class warfare -- mostly directed downwards.

I say again, when will you "militant democracy" types push an amendment to the Constitution overturning the first and second amendment, if you believe so strongly that it is necessary to keep fascism from coming to the United States?

[geek tragedy]

201. What's necessary/good for Germany may not be good or

necessary for the United States.

Each nation has to account for its own history and culture when creating its political and legal system.

[Leopolds Ghost]

203. What is good for the future / What was good for the past ...

WONT LAST

Fugazi, "Smallpox Champion USA"

I guess that is where this is all headed, huh?

[JVS]

232. What was good for Germany 60 years ago while in the process of denazification isn't...

what is necessarily good for German society now. The continuing restriction of free speech in Germany because of this does not speak well for their confidence in having proven the truth.

[geek tragedy]

236. I'll let the Germans be the judge of that.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Warren DeMontague]

199. They DESTROYED free speech and democracy.

Using your logic, that makes free speech and democracy the enemy?

Do you think it's reasonable to emulate the Nazis in the interests of "protecting" people?

Who is going to be in charge of deciding which opinions are "acceptable" and which aren't?

[geek tragedy]

208. No, those who would destroy democracy are the enemy.

We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.

Joseph Goebbels.

It's a very simple and logical proposition: if you're going to enjoy the benefits of Democracy and free speech, you're not allowed to use those benefits to take them away from everyone else.

[Leopolds Ghost]

214. Only an Ideologue deals in absolutes. I will do what I must. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

253. Here's another simple and logical proposition:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[geek tragedy]

257. Did Germany ratify the US constitution?

Perhaps, just perhaps, what works for the US may not work for everyone else on the planet, and vice versa.

[Leopolds Ghost]

273. Then you are not a classic liberal or supporter of Carter/Jefferson universal human rights notion

Since the Declaration of Independence expressly states that the rights later enumerated in the Bill of Rights (and Jefferson expressly stated that this is why he insisted on the Bill of Rights) are universal.

The point of the Bill of Rights -- the legal foundation for jurisprudence IN AMERICA having to do with First Amendment rights -- is that the rights so enumerated are NATURAL rights, and are INALIENABLE, meaning no government has no moral, intellectual argument that could in any way deprive any human being of those rights.

Our government chooses to ACKNOWLEDGE that fact, and furthermore the Founding Fathers insisted that they would not entangle themselves in foreign occupations in an effort to FORCE other countries to do what the Founders deemed to be the UNIVERSALLY RIGHT AND PROPER course of action.

In other words, we would not invade Turkey and tell them to stop enslaving Christians and Pagans, and for the same reason we would not invade Germany and tell them to honor universal freedom of speech, although we know we have it.

The Founders were international revolutionaries pushing an international ideal, just like later revolutionary movements. That's why the Enlightenement thinkers were such a threat.

[MyNameGoesHere]

210. Not even close

they used fear and inherent defects of the mob to their advantage. It was not the free speech that gave them power but the morons that believed the message. Same as another country we know is now headed.

Free speech should never be curtailed, morons on the other hand.....

[geek tragedy]

211. There will always be morons, that you can count on.

"We made the Reich by propaganda."

Joseph Goebbels.

[Irreverend IX]

95. In many ways, laws like this make it easier for bigotry to spread.

In Germany, the racists and Holocaust deniers will never come out in the open with their ideas and never get a chance to debate the facts of history in public fora. Any attempts at such dialog will be squelched by the state. Instead, the neo-Nazis will spread their poisonous ideas in secret to friends and family members. In a country where real and revisionist history are never allowed to publicly confront each other, the latter will be able to spread like an infection hidden beneath the skin.

[geek tragedy]

169. The Nazis took power because they had free speech

rights and were able to participate in the political process.

[Leopolds Ghost]

216. SO which groups should be so deprived?

As Huey Long and Sinclair Lewis both said, when Fascism comes to America it will be called "100% Americanism"!

[lizerdbits]

5. Agreed

Even idiotic bigots should have free speech.

[dysfunctional press]

82. it's german law, not u.s....

so american free speech concepts don't apply.

[Leopolds Ghost]

150. Free speech is only a "concept" to liberal relativists. Tolerance is an "absolute" to the rest of us

IT is a quite cut and dried philosophical argument betweeen liberal relativists and liberal absolutists.

The liberal absolutists were the ones willing to get off their ass and be unreasonable, and that includes passing unreasonable laws in the protection of UNIVERSAL right to free speech -- a concept of universal rights and universal liberal ideas foriegn to the relativists.

The reason universalism works is because of tolerance.

We don't believe in forcing people to accept that they are wrong, even if we sincerely believe (in fact, know) that they are wrong about issues such as limiting free speech.

[geek tragedy]

170. There is no free speech protection for fraud. eom

[Leopolds Ghost]

175. Homeopathic medicine, as practiced by your local co-op, is commercial speech

Commercial speech can be classifiable as fraud, as in the example I just gave (which I bet you guys have yet to denounce). Non-commercial speech can't.

That's why commercial speech is historically less protected under Anglo-American jurisprudence.

[geek tragedy]

177. How about telling someone a liquid is medicine

when in fact it's rat poison?

Is that protected noncommercial free speech?

[Leopolds Ghost]

187. Essentially equivalent to what homeopathy does in your local co-op

Which I imagine you support.

I supported my local co-op too, despite their potentially harmful-to-health fraud, until I realized they -- and their homeopathic suppliers -- were greedy sons-of-bitches who were only in it to expand their little empire.

Even so, I'm not taking them to court for marketing homeopathics because they're the only local alternative to the chains.

Tell me again how giving someone rat poison has anything to do with "inciting a riot" (the most commonly cited limitation on free speech, and often used on liberals here in the US)

[geek tragedy]

189. How on earth is homoepathic medicine the same as

taking rat poison?

The point is that the harm from Nazi ideology and speech has already been established--it killed 12 million people.

The argument that such ideas will just go away if properly debated is demonstrably false.

[Leopolds Ghost]

195. So telling someone to take rat poison is a form of hate speech and will lead to the Holocaust? n/t

[geek tragedy]

202. The point is that, if the CONSEQUENCES of speech

can be shown to be extraordinarily dangerous and you can show that the speech can never, ever, ever, ever serve any positive purpose, then it can be regulated like any other act.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

112. I like the American way of handling these things better, BUT let's keep it in perspective.

There are countries that cut people's hands for stealing a loaf of bread.
There are countries that shoot people in the head for selling pot and bill the family for the bullet.
There are countries that put doctors in jail (for "murder") if they terminate a tubal pregnancy before the tube bursts.

Germany's law is hardly cause for indignation.

[cgrindley]

299. Well there are limits on free speech but

I really hate hate speech laws. They seem designed more to stifle debate and promote thought control more than anything else. Of course, we're talking about Holocaust Denial here, so I'm all in favor of locking this asshole away for the rest of his life.

[Ninja Jordan]

This just emboldens the hate-mongers.

[barb162]

56. How does getting jail time embolden hate mongers?

[Ninja Jordan]

117. By turning them into martyrs.

[noiretextatique]

185. not always

the southern poverty law center sued the KKK and the aryan nations...and won, effectively putting the bastards out of business.
of course the people the sued were just speaking hate...they were also killing people and inciting others to violence.

[Ian David]

2. Hopefully they won't forget to keep Zundel's passport

The Mannheim District Court "forgot" to hold onto Fred Leuchter's passport after he was convicted, and he simply boarded a plane and flew home. Oops.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. This isn't really true.

He's not actually going to prison.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. Prison is an appallingly stupid, not mention unjust, way to combat...

...hate speech. It's censorship in the extreme and risks conveying/lending credibility where none is deserved. Nut cases are best left ignored. If they somehow manage to draw enough interest (unlikely) to become a force, then they should be answered with counter arguments designed to expose them for what they are. Efforts to silence are ALWAYS suspect -- we should be above it.

[barb162]

58. Assume he knew the German law. He chose to defy the law

and is getting the penalty he deserves, the same if he broke into a store.

[Leopolds Ghost]

151. Inspector Javert, is that you?

It certainly ain't MLK...

[EFerrari]

239. LOl! And I was making that argument, so, laughing at me, too.

:rofl:

[treestar]

7. Austria has a law like this, too

It is interesting that they are the ones. They must be trying to make a point.

As for punishing these loons, it gives their opinions too much weight, and lets them claim martyrdom of a free speech type.

[barb162]

59. In every country, free speech has limits.

This man was up to no good.

[Selatius]

71. Their free speech is more limited than ours, and I would not want their version for us here.

If we legislate unpopular speech as illegal, what will stop certain groups in the US from banning material that is critical of the government?

[Leopolds Ghost]

153. 80% of americans would say YOU are up to no good, Selatius, especially with that star in your sig

Syndicalism would not be acceptable speech in America if it were true that free speech has limits here at home.

Keep that in mind when attempting to dialogue with Pasadena Progressives who believe that free speech has limits.

(No offense to Pasadena residents who are not part of the mainstream, doctrinaire progressivism of the sort that says "free speech has limits" and other doctrinaire post-1920s Progressive nostrums. Never mind that Hitler strictly regulated speech, and many Pasadena-style progressives pushed FDR to emulate the Nazis, because authoritarianism was "the wave of the future" and would save us from the Depression, as Al Franken pointed out on his last radio show the other day.)

[LostinVA]

8. This is Germany, not the United States

I don't believe we have a right to cry "free speech." Their history -- and their anti-Holocaust denial laws -- supersede our Bill of Rights. Europe was destroyed because of the Third Reich. TWELVE MILLION EUROPEAN JEWS AND GENTILES WERE MURDERED. Countries were destroyed, families torn apart. It was something we can't even imagine. We have no right to tell a neighbor to "get over" the murder of their family. And, I think we have no legal or moral right to criticize German people or courts in this matter.

And, free speech isn't absolute in this country, either.... even though people like to think it is. Slander and libel laws, for instance. This is an equivalent style law. It is about slandering and/or libeling a nation, a community, the dead, history. It's their right.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

9. Yep.

[Sapphire Blue]

10. It shouldn't, but it still amazes me when people defend hatred & bigotry w/cries of "free speech".

That they would utter cries of "free speech" to defend a Holocaust denier in another country, the very country where the Holocaust occured, is terribly sad & frightening.

Thank you so much for your comments; I appreciate them!

[LostinVA]

11. You're welcome

I grew up with a friend whose grandmother lived with them. She had survived Auschwitz-Birkenau. He whole family was murdered. HER WHOLE FAMILY -- HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. Not even a distant cousin remained alive.

She was German, until the Nazis said she no longer was.

NOTHING like that has ever happened here, and until it does and I survive it, I refuse to condemn their anti-Holocaust denial laws.

[Sapphire Blue]

12. I fully support their laws banning Holocaust denial. IMO, this Holocaust denier's sentence was...

... not severe enough. 6,000,000 hours would be a more just sentence.

Edited to add: Shame on anyone who defends his hateful bigotry w/cries of 'free speech'. This kind of 'speech' must not be defended under any circumstances; it must be condemned.

[Raskolnik]

25. "This kind of 'speech' must not be defended under any circumstances"

Does that mean you would support similar laws here?

[Sapphire Blue]

28. Yes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Not a big fan of the constitution, eh?

[barb162]

61. Are you in favor of not obeying the law in Germany?

[Leopolds Ghost]

163. Thomas Jefferson: "I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- he wasn't kidding.

Translation: If a law is morally wrong then yes, you have the inalienable right to flout it so long as you are prepared to suffer the consequences and condemnations heaped on you by others. Many, many "good Germans" allowed the Holocaust itself to happen for the simple reason that they were "modern, centrist" people who believed that you don't go up against the law for any reason. Many Americans would do the same thing in the event of a crusade whipped up against an enemy at home.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

173. I think that was Voltaire.

:shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

184. Easy to confuse, since they agreed on many things -- and would disagree w/ some on DU.

There were certainly enough atrocities going on in the 1600s and 1700s (anyone remember the 100 Years War? Colonization of the American Wilderness?) to "justify reasonable limitations" on inalienable human rights that hadn't been declared as such, in recent memory, yet.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

186. It's hard to say what Jefferson would agree to.

He was a very self-contradictory, hypocritical person.

[Leopolds Ghost]

218. Why are we arguing? That is self-contradictory. :-)

I think we're on the same side of this particular issue -- and it's frightening that it seems to no longer be a respectable position.

[Raskolnik]

30. What kind of speech would fall under these criminal penalties?

Would it be similarly limited to Holocaust denial, or would you expand their reach?

[Sapphire Blue]

33. Fred Phelps' kind of speech comes to mind.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. What else?

[Raskolnik]

35. That's awfully vague. What is "Fred Phelps' kind of speech"

Do you mean speech that denigrates homosexuals, speech that opposes government policy, religious intolerance?

[Sapphire Blue]

38. Is 'hate speech that incites violence & violates human rights' clear enough for you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Hmm.

Isn't free speech a human right?

[barb162]

63. Are libel and slander acceptable then under free speech?

We should get rid of our libel and slander laws?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

138. No.

Holocaust denial is neither libel, nor slander.

[Leopolds Ghost]

167. The only exceptions to free speech are those interpretable under British common law.

Which was the system of law created by Anglo-Saxon commoners beginning 1500 years ago.

That is the only standard you have to use: the one set down by 1500 years of jurisprudence by the common people and their elected or appointed district judges.

You don't get to make up stuff as you go along about what constitutes an exception to free speech, unless you are Pol Pot and want to inaugurate the year Zero.

Anyone less radical than Pol Pot either believes in retaining basic notions of human rights that were passed down to us thru the centuries and were the foundation for Jefferson's thinking,

Or they believe in the revolutionary (or if you prefer, reactionary) goals of Modernism, which in their end are about the total sovereignty of an all-powerful State. That way lies the Panopticon.

[geek tragedy]

179. Why should English common law be binding on people

in Germany?

[Leopolds Ghost]

191. It's not. They use the (mistaken) Continental system

Which Napoleon, the enemy of the French democratic experiment, and his Prussian successors, creators of the German war machine, instituted.

Under the Continental system, the state, and the judges appointed by the state, and the legislature are sovereign and can do whatever they want. That's why Hitler was able to come to power. There were no "irrational" constitutional checks on his authority to DEPRIVE other Germans of their free speech, etc.

[geek tragedy]

193. German militant democracy is based on the historical

legacy of Nazism, and how the Nazis used the tools of democracy--including voting and free speech--to completely destroy democracy.

They learned their lesson.

[Leopolds Ghost]

219. There is nothing militant about German politcs

Unless you mean the renewed rise of the German paelocons who punted Hitler into power in order to preserve their corrupt, state capitalist Prussian system. Which is why the German social safety net is now bankrupt and being gutted by these same self-satisfied paleocons, many of whom were Hitler Youth or the children of Hitler supporters.

Anyhow, the law against public anti-semitism can and probably has been quite easily extended to leftism in order to "prevent another Weimar republic" -- or, for that matter, against the German's old enemy, the Turks (who are a prominent local minority) as France recently did with their anti-veil law.

Ironically, all the law has done is hidden from the world the fact that France, Germany and Poland continue to be among the most anti-Semitic (both Jew and Muslim) places on Earth.

Don't believe me? Watch any of the recent documentaries about Holocaust survivors visiting their old communities and being "mistaken" for people that actually want to return to their old homes.

Try being a Muslim in Germany or France, countries where there is no concept of pluralism in the sense we understand it -- countries that, in their modern incarnations, are founded purely on false ethnic identities.

[fishwax]

281. that's not really a similar issue, since slander and libel aren't criminal issues

but rather civil issues under U.S. law. (Some states might have criminal sanctions for slander and libel, but they are holdovers from days gone by and are rarely--if ever--enforced.)

[Raskolnik]

41. There is existing law that already deals with speech inciting violence.

How does speech, even hate speech, violate someone's human rights? As far as I know, I have neither a Constitutional nor a human right to not be offended by others' speech.

Could you explain to me how speech such as Mr. Phelps' is violating anyone's human rights?

[barb162]

66. Can hate speech end up in getting people killed as it did under

the nazis? Getting killed because of hate speech certainly violates human rights.

[Raskolnik]

118. There are already laws that account for incitement to commit violence.

As someone has pointed out on this thread, waving a sign that says "Kill Fags" is a very different thing than waving a sign that says "God Hates Fags". Do you think the latter sign should also be criminalized?

[Leopolds Ghost]

180. Hate speech alone is not what enabled the Nazis to keep and retain power.

Ruthless and selective application of violence, and the use of violence to manipulate the political process, did.

Your standard would require us to ban speech of the sort George Bush gives about 9/11. Since that is the sort of rhetoric dictators and "men of the people" have always used to identify an enemy, and QUIETLY, after they have come to power, take steps to persecute and kill their chosen enemy -- and anyone who gets in their way.

[Leopolds Ghost]

171. Saphhire Blue, what you fail to acknowledge is that you are opening the floodgates.

A majority of Americans are not as tolerant as the French and Germans, chastened by a century of bloodshed, are assumed to be. Furthermore, as we have seen with recent anti-Muslim laws there, there is nothing preventing the sovereign Legislature of those countries (or their entirely undemocratic European Union overlords) from perverting and overturning the concepts on which the foundation of that tolerance rests.

Removal or limitation of free speech, here in the US, would be construed by MOST Americans as allowing us to ban, e.g. images of Noam Chomsky from sites where children might be present.

You think I am joking? I am not so naive. Should we all get to vote on which rights we can deprive of our neighbors, or are certain rights absolute?

[Warren DeMontague]

197. I think people who argue that consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to look at porn, smoke pot, or

meke their own medical decisions are, after a fashion, violating certain human rights.

Should it be against the law to express an opinion contrary to mine on these matters? Tempting as that may be, I'd have to say "no". It's kind of a slippery slope when you get into speech as a "violation of human rights".

[Hippo_Tron]

69. It's too hard to determine what should be allowed and what shouldn't

Fred Phelps probably doesn't consider what he is saying to be hate speech. The Republicans claim that many of the things we say is basically hate speech against America, we don't see it that way.

You can't start making exceptions for free speech because then anything becomes fair game.

[Sapphire Blue]

31. Not a fan of praising Hitler, inciting racial hatred or denying that the Nazis killed six million...

... Jews during World War II.

Never again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Neither am I.

But I don't see that as a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In fact, it seems to me that disregarding the Constitution would be a step down the path to Again.

[barb162]

60. 6, 000,000 days, as a sentence seems more appropriate.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

18. Please identify any rhetoric anywhere in this...

...thread where someone is defending hatred and bigotry. That's an utterly ridiculous claim and I think you know it full well, but you can't think up a compelling argument for imprisoning someone for what they would dare speak aloud in public, no matter how vile it may be, so you simply make the transparently bogus claim that anyone standing up to challenge their imprisonment is defending hatred and bigotry.

Your non-argument is very much the same thing as when Neocons make the bogus claim that those who question the legitimacy of our invasion and occupation of Iraq are supporting the terrorists, and it has absolutely no merit whatsoever. BS claims such as this are almost always the rhetoric of those who know they're in the wrong and have no argument.

[Sapphire Blue]

22. I was agreeing w/LostinVA; why are you so defensive?

My goodness, one would think you have reason to be.

Justice is not wrong; hatred & bigotry, and defense of it, are wrong.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. Again, where has anyone on this thread...

...put forth a defense of hatred and bigotry? You're promoting the idea that it's OK to imprison someone for nothing more than speaking words in public if you should find those words sufficiently objectionable. Let's hear your argument for that, if you have one. Who decides what's sufficiently objectionable? You? Or maybe a committee headed by you -- call it The Not So Free Speech Committee.

[Sapphire Blue]

24. Not playing your silly game. Try somewhere else.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. It is rather difficult to assert a compelling argument/defense...

... for an indefensible position. Your retreat is as predictable as your position is wrongheaded.

[Sapphire Blue]

36. ..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. ...

You know, it's not either, or...

[Raskolnik]

43. I believe that's referred to as "Checkmate" n/t

[Sapphire Blue]

46. Denying the Holocaust is not a game. It is shameful that you treat it as such.

You make light of 6,000,000 people killed by Nazis. Shame on you.

[Raskolnik]

48. You posted a graphic picture in a (rather cheap) attempt to win an argument

and you had that tactic bite you in the ass. Shame on you for resorting to such methods.

Who the hell is making light of the Holocaust? The issue is not, despite your best efforts, whether or not one sufficiently disapproves of Holocaust. The issue is whether speech regulation of the type at issue is wise and/or effective. Thus far you have provided little in the way of compelling argument to suggest that these regulations are either wise or effective.

[Sapphire Blue]

50. There is nothing cheap about the deaths of 6,000,000 people, nor the torture of so many more.

You are playing games. I am not. Bye.

[Raskolnik]

54. Get over yourself. Calling bullshit on *you* is not the same thing as dismissing the Holocaust

You have yet to make a serious argument that speech codes of this kind are workable or effective in the U.S.

[cali]

105. It wasn't 6 million. It was closer to 12 million.

The Romas, the gays, the communists and many others.

[Guaranteed]

110. Well, you know what? There's "nothing cheap" about burning books, either.

THAT is a serious fucking issue.

[geek tragedy]

168. Joseph Goebbels agrees with you.

"We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come."

There are those who would use the tools and mechanisms of democracy to destroy it. That's exactly what happened in post-WWI Germany.

[Guaranteed]

234. You're suggesting that we do exactly what he did.

Mandate certain beliefs under the threat of imprisonment (or worse?).

If you don't believe in authoritarian governments and laws, stand up against them.

[geek tragedy]

237. No, I'm suggesting that Germany learned the appropriate

lesson from the fall of the Weimar Republic.

It's very simple: If you want to destroy democracy, you aren't entitled to attack the democratic system from within.

The fox will not be allowed inside the henhouse.

[Guaranteed]

244. That is what this is.

1st Amendment principles are the bedrock of democracy. You are attacking those principles.

[geek tragedy]

248. Yep, those Yoo-Row-Pee-Uns have really become

totalitarians, since they don't have the First Amendment.

Seriously, it's a very tiny and limited and targeted exception to freedom of speech--it's designed to prevent the freaking Nazis from ever playing a part in deciding German policy.

[JVS]

125. you disgrace their memory by using their deaths to justify censorship

shame on you

[Sapphire Blue]

129. Oh, I see. I should support Holocaust denial to honor their memories.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:


God forbid that I should say that a Holocaust denier should be condemned. How outrageous of me!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:


I should fight for a Holocaust denier's 'right' to deny the genocide committed by the Nazis. Damn, I should have gone to Skokie to support the Nazis there! How in the world could I have been against their right to free speech in Skokie? How in the world could I have been against the Nazis marching in a town of Holocaust survivors??? My God, Nazis have the right to free speech!!! Damn the Holocaust survivors living in Skokie who might be traumatized by their actions.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:


I do not have the hate in my heart to defend a Holocaust denier. I do not have the hate in my heart that would allow me to fight for a Holocaust denier's right to deny the genocide of 6,000,000 Jews. I do not have the hate in my heart to equate a Holocaust denier's denial of the genocide of 6,000,000 Jews to "censorship". His "speech" is vile, the most vile of speech, and I will not defend such speech.

Say what you will, call me what you will. I believe that this man, and others who act as he does, deserve condemnation.

I condemn Ernst Zuendel.

[JVS]

134. You should show enough respect for their memory that you don't pull out a picture of them as if...

it were some kind of trump card for you to play in favor of restricting speech. You should honor their deaths by not being willing to stoop to the tactics of their murdereds, who were more than happy to censor books and imprison those who wrote things with which they disagreed.

[Sapphire Blue]

148. The Holocaust denier has a right to free speech, but God forbid that I should use my voice...

... to condemn him!

You would call photographic evidence of genocide a "trump card"?

You would esentially call me a Nazi for condemning a Holocaust denier?

I should be silent while a Holocaust denier spews his venom?


I will not be silent.


I condemn Ernst Zuendel.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raskolnik]

217. Who is asking you to be silent? Speak up for jeebus' sake!

Can you point to *anyone* on this thread that suggests this German moron is deserving of anything other than condemnation?

You *should* not be silent.

[JVS]

228. See post 48

I'm not going to waste time talking to you

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

44. I've seen and posted this picture more than once on DU...

... and it does NOT argue for imprisonment of those who would dare to publicly speak words that Sapphire Blue, or anyone else, deem unacceptable. It does, in fact, argue for just the opposite -- for us to resist moving toward the Police State where imprisonment of any citizen for even the smallest transgression, such as speaking freely, is commonplace. This IS the path we're currently on and your picture sadly illustrates one of the many horrors it lead to in Nazi Germany. Pull your head out of the sand, Sapphire Blue -- before it's too late:

[Sapphire Blue]

47. Unlike you, my head is not in the sand. I understand that hate speech incites horrible atrocities.

If you had any empathy at all toward the targets of hate speech, or, ir you, yourself were a target of hate speech, perhaps you might not defend hate speech so readily.

You seem to get off on defending hate speech under the guise of protecting free speech, though.

[Raskolnik]

49. Hate speech can indeed incite horrible atrocities.

As does the suppression of views that the dominant political force finds unpleasant.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

51. While someone who would deny the Holocaust...

...is surely engaged in a most vile form of revisionist history, you have yet to construct a compelling case for the contention that this constitutes the crime of incitement:

Here's the definition:
Incitement - In English criminal law, incitement is an anticipatory common law offence and is the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement

Once again, I invite your argument, if you have one.

[Sapphire Blue]

52. You seem determined to defend him: perhaps you should take it up w/the judge, among others...

Holocaust Denial
Zundel deported from Canada, charged in Germany

(excerpt)

Zundel's firm eventually grew into one of the largest international distributors of Nazi memorabilia and Holocaust-denial propaganda, including texts authored by Zundel like Did Six Million Really Die? and The Hitler We Loved and Why.

Zundel also turned his home, in the words of a Canadian federal court, into "a revolving door for leaders of white supremacist groups with histories of violence."

On March 1, culminating years of conflict with the government, Canada finally gave Zundel the boot, deporting him back to Germany. German officials promptly arrested him for past incitement of racial hatred by disseminating banned materials to Germany via the mails and the Internet from Canada.

Zundel had lived in Canada for nearly five decades, but authorities there never granted his repeated citizenship applications. Frustrated, he moved to the United States in 2000 hoping to obtain U.S. citizenship, but failed there as well. He was arrested in 2003 in Tennessee for overstaying his visa and returned to Canada. There, he was immediately jailed under an anti-terrorism law passed during his absence.

Zundel spent the next two years in solitary confinement fighting a legal battle to avoid deportation to his native country. In late February, Canadian Federal Court Justice Pierre Blais ruled that Zundel could reasonably be deemed a threat to national security, thereby making him subject to immediate deportation.

In his blistering 63-page decision, Justice Blais called Zundel a racist hypocrite who claimed to be a pacifist while actually working to support groups abroad that seek "the destruction of governments and multicultural societies."

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=535

Again,, this is not a game. Goodbye.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

53. I'm not determined to defend the individual...

...I do feel justified in asking you to defend your position that any individual has committed a crime worthy of prison if they dare to engage in revisionist history hate speech -- specifically Holocaust denial. To cling to such a position and at the same time refuse to construct any kind of case for it does not persuade.

Perhaps it would help if we were to leave the subject of Holocaust denial and consider another case. I wonder if I could trouble you to review this brief item which involves an incitement case related to the horrible '94 genocide that took place in Rwanda, and share your thoughts regarding the incitement this individual is accused of. Does it rise to the level of incitement? If so, why? Should someone who denies the Rwanda genocide of '94 be imprisoned?

http://iwpr.net/?p=acr&s=f&o=325218&apc_state=henpacr

[The Magistrate]

152. Since, Mr. Jefferson

The man is actively working to build the Neo-Nazi movement, and hopes to put it in a position to carry out policies of extermination again, he is fairly denounced as inciting to murder, and working to achieve it on a mass scale.

It is important to remember that there is no real sincerity in the deniers: denial is but a tool for re-habilitating a political movement, to reduce opposition to it, and position it to gain power with which to enforce their hate once more. Press one of these types hard enough, and invariably he will blurt out that the problem is that Hitler did not finish the job.

Free-speech absolutism is all very well, but as a practical matter ideals and absolutes of all sorts make a poor fit with the squishy mess of human affairs as they actually proceed....

"I want you to know, boys and girls, that there are people in this world who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that!"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

154. "Free speech absolutism is all very well, but..."

There's always got to be that big "but."

[The Magistrate]

157. You Will Find Me Attaching That, Sir To Just About Any Absolute Ideal

Ideals are crystaline, full of straight lines and sharp angles: living matter is soft and curved and never stays quite still. The former is not a good guide for the business of the latter; it makes a very poor fit....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

161. "just about any"

but?

[The Magistrate]

174. You May Have Heard The Saying, Sir

"All generalizations have exceptions, including this one."

The phrase "just about any" falls short of an absolute statement by a decent measure.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

178. Yeah, I know.

"You Will Find Me Attaching That, Sir To Just About Any Absolute Idea," but...?

If you're going to be wishy washy on the first amendment, what are you going to be "crystaline" about?

[The Magistrate]

200. Nothing, Sir

Once the Sage wrote: "At birth a man is soft and supple; at death, he is rigid and hard. Therefore it is the flexible who is the disciple of life, and the unyielding who is the disciple of death."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

205. So you're inflexible on that flexibility thing?

I thought you just said you weren't.

[The Magistrate]

213. Pretty Much, Sir

Life is a funny old thing....

[Leopolds Ghost]

221. So ideals and absolutes are no longer necessary?

I guess we can dispense with revolutionary classical liberalism of the Founding Fathers, then.

[The Magistrate]

254. No Longer Necessary, Sir? They Never Were Necessary

Not to my view and understanding of matters.

There is a tendency to treat the term "idealist" as if its meaning were "good and admirable person", but there is no reason at all it should be taken so. Hitler was as much an idealist as Ghandi.

[Guaranteed]

235. Ideals and absolutes are necessary when you are dealing in the creation and

maintenance of ideals themselves.

It is not the government's job to regulate what people believe. Period.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

266. I don't maintain that there are...

...no instances of hate speech that cross the line between what should be protected under free speech and what amounts to incitement. But when you talk about sending someone away for hate speech which rises to the level of incitement, there should be a clear and direct link between the words written or spoken, and a specific criminal act being encouraged.

I do not accept that Holocaust denial, in and of itself, rises to this level simply by virtue of the fact that it's Holocaust denial. I do, however, accept that some kinds of Holocaust denial related speech very well could amount to incitement. If, in a public speech, a Holocaust denier addressing a large group of Skinheads specifically encourages them to destroy property, or do violence to Jews, or anyone else, this would be incitement, but NOT because of Holocaust denial.

The specific alleged incitement language in any given instance should be weighed and tested independent of any general purpose, cause, or political aim of an overall speech. A Holocaust denial speech, Rwanda genocide denial speech, or a denial of 200 years of slavery in the U.S. speech -- all despicable as they may be, are, and should be, protected under free speech with the exception of clear, identifiable, specific language that satisfies a stringent test for incitement.

A slippery slope to be sure -- any two people who might agree with my rhetoric above would likely run into disagreement in weighing the many various specific cases of alleged incitement. No easy answers -- no black and white here. Such is life.

[Leopolds Ghost]

223. Clinton and Albright denied the Rwandan holocaust while it was proceeding.

Can there be a worse crime, produced by mere words?

Are you aware that people here on DU, this very website, deny that the Rwandan holocaust was an organized extermination campaign by the government of Rwanda, aided by the French, against a tiny "privileged" minority characterized mostly by means of identification cards imposed by the Belgians for purposes of "eugenics" during the Nazi period?

How much prison time should those DUers get?

How about the "defenders of Islamic terrorism", many of whom are despicable people who think that the occupants of the Trade Towers "had it coming" because they were "aiding and abetting the Western capitalist system"?

What should be their prison sentence -- or is rendition satisfactory?

[Leopolds Ghost]

212. So "defending terrorism is not a game" either, right? Since that's what he was deported on

The Canadian version of the Patriot Act.

I love this meme, we hear it from right wingers all the time: "It's not just leftists and Islamofascists who are going to run up afoul of this law, we'll use it to catch actual fascists, too! So don't be so alarmed!"

[Guaranteed]

103. Sorry. He's right. You're wrong. nt

[EFerrari]

64. What about, they broke the law of the land?

[Sydnie]

74. I was thinking the same thing

We can't apply our laws to them, certainly not when we are talking Nazi's and Germany. I think they should have the last say in how this law applies to what they have classified as a hate crime. Just appears that they have taken the hard stance of not allowing this seed to be sown.

[EFerrari]

83. And it's not just any law. It's a law that's very specific with regard

to a specific, human life changing atrocity that is hard to even take in, as I try to say down thread.

[Guaranteed]

109. Well, that would preclude these type of laws from being enacted in the U.S.

The 1st Amendment.

Gonna stick with that argument?

[EFerrari]

121. You are pointing to a non contradiction. You bet. :-)

[piedmont]

156. The law of that land also once made it illegal to hide Jews from the government.

Was it right that people who broke that law were tried, convicted and punished?

[EFerrari]

238. Good point and very true. Laws can be unjust.

[piedmont]

249. Yeah, sometimes we need to remember that laws are the products of an imperfect system

My problem with this law in particular is not that it's unjust, per se, but that it encourages the kind of acceptance of authoritarian rule that allowed the Nazis to come to power in the first place.

[EFerrari]

251. It's a negotiation that requires a lot of care, there's no question about that. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

142. I guess you just don't get it.

Saying that someone has the right to state their opinion is NOT THE SAME THING as "defending" the opinion itself. I understand why the Nazis had the right to march in Skokie back in the 70s. Does that mean I'm a Nazi? No- as a matter of fact, I come from a Jewish family that had people die in the camps.

And I understand that one of the BEST ways to prevent against that kind of totalitarianism is to protect the freedoms of everyone- even if that's the freedom to express a thoroughly repulsive opinion.

[Spinoza]

145. I am the son of two concentration camp

survivors. (Dachau and Treblinka) Until their death I saw the tattoos on my parents wrists every day.
And yet, I am absolutely against the criminalization of ANY speech. Period. I despise Holocaust Deniers. But my contempt for them does not give me the right to forbid them from speaking or writing what may be their sincere opinion.

No state has the moral right to forbid the expression of opinions. Any opinions. even in Germany.

[Spinoza]

146. Sorry, duplicate.

[geek tragedy]

164. The Holocaust denial is not an opinion. It is FRAUD.

We criminalize FRAUD to prevent people from getting swindled.

It is also acceptable to criminalize FRAUD to prevent genocide and fascism.

[Spinoza]

226. Nonsense.

You are misusing the word. Look up any definition of 'fraud' and you will find that fraud, obviously must include the knowing attempt to deceive. Usually for personal gain. A Holocaust Denier, who sincerely believes his or her bullshit, is NOT committing fraud by any normal or legal usage of the word. And there is not NECESSARILY a "swindle" of any kind. The definition of swindle is: "intransitive verb : to obtain money or property by fraud or deceit
transitive verb : to take money or property from by fraud or deceit"
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/swindle

And of course the Holocaust Denier is expressing an opinion. Granted a totally false opinion, perhaps an evil opinion, but still an opinion. If some idiots (and there are some) sincerely believe the earth is flat, the fact that they are totally wrong doesn't mean they are not expressing their personal OPINIONS. In exactly the same sense the fact that a Holocaust Denier is, without question, denying a historical reality, doesn't mean that the denial is not an expression of OPINION.

As the son of father who survived Treblinka and a mother who survived Dachau, I repeat criminalizing opinions is always morally abhorrent. Even when those opinions are the Anti-Semitic bullshit of Holocaust Deniers.

[geek tragedy]

231. Opinions are neither true nor false. What Holocaust deniers

offer is lies that contradict the single most well-documented fact in the history of mankind.

Holocaust denial is NOT an opinion. It is a lie.

The purpose behind Holocaust denial is to rehabilitate the political and historical legacy of Nazism and fascism.

These people want another bite at the apple.

[Spinoza]

283. I would submit that

the fact that earth is round, not flat, is also 'the most well documented fact in the history of mankind'. Yet thousands of people believe in a flat earth. They see pictures of the earth from space and still believe in a flat earth. (They believe the pictures are faked.)See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html 'Documenting The Existence of the Flat Earth Society.'

All through history people have believed, sincerely, the most preposterous, outlandish things. The documentation on this is endless. NOONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CRIMINALIZE OPINIONS, EXPRESSED IN SPEECH FILM OR WRITING. NOONE HAS THE RIGHT TO THROW ANYONE, INCLUDING HOLOCAUST DENIERS, BEHIND BARS BECAUSE OF WORDS UTTERED OR A BELIEF OR OPINION EXPRESSED IN WRITING.

This callous disregard and contempt for the most important of our First Amendment rights, for the most important of all rights, freedom of speech, is shocking.

My father, who saw the gas chambers in operation at Treblinka, did not believe Holocaust Deniers should be jailed or legally penalized. If he could stand it, so can you.

[geek tragedy]

288. The decision of the people of Germany is that Nazi

sympathizers will never get the right to make their views part of the political process in Germany.

Part of that means preventing them from making egregiously false statements about the consequences of Nazism and fascism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. This is true.

However, I believe that freedom of speech is an inalienable human right, not just an american right.

That said, it doesn't apply here, since Germany isn't really sending him to jail.

[BuyingThyme]

14. You don' t go to jail for slander.

And the "free speech" argument you're using is silly. Question the state, suffer its wrath?

Forget it.

[barb162]

67. You can go to jail for yelling fire in a crowded theater

esoecially when a lot of people die as the result.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. That's because you can outlaw yelling fire...

Without trying to come up with a definition of hate speech. Speech isn't protected if it leads to the physical harm of others, something that I'm fine with.

But again, it's impossible to come up with a definition of hate speech that everyone would agree with.

[barb162]

81. Speech isn't protected if it leads to monetary or social harm

to others in the US. You can't go around saying your neighbor is stealing, or having an affair , etc.,and destroying his reputation. He can sue you under slander laws.
I haven't read the German law as it applies to this topic but they have come up with a definition of hate speech as it applies for them and what happened to their country in the 30s and 40s.

[Hippo_Tron]

88. Again, that's Germany's call not mine

If Germany is comfortable outlawing hate speech then that's their prerogative. Personally I'm not comfortable with creating a definition of hate speech and outlawing it in the United States.

[barb162]

93. I understand

How do defamation laws hit you? Personally I like them. Slander "stuff" I like to see nipped in the bud especially in employment situations where bosses try to destroy a person's career. There are a lot of situations where I think free speech shouldn't be so free. I have seen people destroyed by vicious bosses who lie through their teeth about employees, refuse to give honest references, etc. I actually know of a case where a friend of mine was denied Work Comp because his boss said his injury wasn't work-related, when it was 100% work-related . The friend of mine has incurred a few hundred thousand in bills, can't work anymore and is bankrupt.

[Hippo_Tron]

96. I think that slander and hate speech are two totally different things

Thus I have no problem with our laws regarding slander. Also I think it's important to note that slander is generally dealt with in civil court and not in criminal court, thus people aren't prosecuted criminally for their slander. They are just get sued for the damages done as a result of their speech.

IMO the first amendment is there to protect people from being put in jail by the government for what they say, not to protect people from being sued by other citizens for what they say.

[dysfunctional press]

84. what if there really is a fire? is it o.k. then?

:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

116. Should Germany legalize the Nazi party, which is currently banned?

Or would you agree that measures intended to stop Nazis and people who think like them from ever taking power again are appropriate for that nation?

[BuyingThyme]

139. Nazi is but a word. It's pretty much the same as Republican or

Fundamentalist. But let's not equivocate.

[geek tragedy]

160. Not sure what your point is. Party's espousing Nazi

beliefs and ideology are explicitly banned under German law.

My question was whether those who oppose bans on Holocaust denial also think that Germany should lift the ban on white supremacist fascist parties.

[BuyingThyme]

215. Yes, of course.

Freedom ain't complicated.

[geek tragedy]

222. The consequences of freedom are.

Germany was 100% right to ban the Nazi party and anyone who shares its goals from participating in the government.

[bobbolink]

37. You're so very right! They lived through a hell they don't want to repeat.

And there are plenty who would engineer a repeat at the drop of a hat!

[XemaSab]

57. What about southern apologists?

People who say slavery was not so bad?

Should they be given jail time? :shrug:

[barb162]

68. No just make them a slave for a few weeks and they can tell us how they

enjoyed themselves.

[JVS]

126. Lincoln was way too kind to the South

The South should have become an occupied territory and all who couldn't prove loyalty to the Union should have been deported or shot

[geek tragedy]

165. They should have after the civil war. Maybe then blacks

wouldn't have had to wait another 100 years to get their civil rights.

[Leopolds Ghost]

276. Yes, drive them underground like the Germans did, and scrap future justifications used by MLK

To argue for additional civil rights which your Northern relatives DID NOT agree to at the time of the Civil War.

[Leopolds Ghost]

155. It's not OUR problem that Germans, provided the freedom that is the birthright of all men, are prone

To xenophobia, racism, and genocide,

and would likely start another agressive war -- like we recently did.

(Time to start limiting speech at home?)

At least, that is the Argument of Americans who say "Germany is a special case."

The argument that Euro-liberals make is much simpler and easier to defend: "there's no such thing as free speech or freedom of religion."

"We believe in STATE regulated speech and STATE regulated religion."

(Which is why organized religion does so poorly in Europe, it is tightly regulated -- like trying to start a small business here in the States -- "good luck, you're gonna need it")

Interestingly, they are NOT as concerned about limiting the right of free ASSEMBLY as American motorists, trapped in their cars.

Who fight to keep protestors and homeless people off the streets.

Perhaps because assembly is a common-law right that predates the American Constitution, and is thus more respected in its place of origin, Europe. But give them time.

Did you know many scholars of the Shoah believe that it is an endemic phenomenon to human nature? Human societies throughout history have been prone to kill every last man, woman and child of their enemies that look "different" from them. In fact, Humans are prone to violence in general.

Does that mean free speech is not the birthright of all men?

[geek tragedy]

172. Speech, like any other act, may be regulated and in

certain cases criminalized.

I have no right to offer money for someone's death.

I have no right to lie in order to get someone to give me money.

In Germany, I have no right to commit FRAUD and LIE in order to advance the cause of genocide and fascism.

[Leopolds Ghost]

275. Fraud doesn't meet the definition you put on it.

To quote Inigo Montoya: "These words, I do not think they mean what you want them to mean."

By your definition every health food co-op manager and alternative medicine practitioner in the US should be jailed. But that is not the standard for determining fraud, or they would not be able to market homeopathics, potentially poisonous herbs in small doeses, and the like.

I suppose you think movement can be regulated and in some cases criminalized, since it is covered under the exact same amendment in the exact same wording.

The reality is that the only exceptions to the First Amendment are those in common-law jurisprudence that predate the First Amendment.

And that is only because the Supreme Court explicitly ruled, very early on, that interpretation of the Constitution would be rooted in Anglo-Saxon common law.

Post-facto justifications don't count.

[Leopolds Ghost]

158. With all the Indians and African Americans we killed, how come it's OK to talk about that?

If another mass killing incident or rise of fascism, -- subject of a recent book "It CAN happen here", in reply to Sinclair Lewis --

Then it's OK to scrap the bill of rights because most liberals nowadays are "relativists" who believe that universal rights is a catchy turn of phrase but the reality is either more "nuanced" ("universal rights are not always universal") or more simple ("I don't believe in abstractions, only what can be scientifically proven")

[Leopolds Ghost]

159. What about all the killing that happened on this continent? Is it not OK to talk about that?

If another mass killing incident or rise of fascism, -- subject of a recent book "It CAN happen here", in reply to Sinclair Lewis --

Then it's OK to scrap the bill of rights in order to "rectify our own bloodlust"?

because most folks nowadays are "relativists" who believe that universal rights is a catchy turn of phrase but the reality is either more "nuanced" ("universal rights are not always universal") or more simple ("I don't believe in abstractions, only what can be scientifically proven")

[GreenTea]

15. Maybe they'll put me in jail for being a Bush denier ...He's really not Jesus, you fools!

You say "Germany" who is Germany? Who represents this opinion in Germany?

If fascism in this country continues will I go to jail for denying that Bush isn't the "second coming" that he is an evil wicked human being, that he despises the working class and that Bush loves killing & torturing people?

Facts are facts!

[barb162]

75. German citizens are Germany and they represent German

opinion. These laws have been on the books a while in Germany. Nothing new there. One can understand why they're on the books since that country and its people, Germans and Jews alike, suffered greatly because of the nazis. As to your question about Bush, if you haven't gone to jail yet, I doubt you will. Now if you start threatening people's lives, like the prez, expect a call from the Secret Service. If you threaten the lives of your senators, your neighbors, black people, expect a call from the police and to be charged and possibly go to jail. They don't like that sort of thing. I am sure you understand this. When hate speech starts threatening people's lives, it tends to be a criminal matter.

[manic expression]

16. Society should not tolerate intolerance

that includes denial of genocide. It is hard to find anything wrong with this.

[Raskolnik]

26. Would you support a criminal penalty for espousing wildly unpopular ideas?

Like, oh, I don't know...a criminal penalty for advocating Communism, for example?

[Selatius]

62. I agree. The 1st Amendment is useless if it does not defend unpopular speech

The 1st Amendment defends unpopular speech, but it does not defend incitement to violence. Denying the Holocaust happened, while disgusting as it may be, does not amount of incitement to violence or the advocation of breaking the law.

As a libertarian socialist, I understand full well what the 1st Amendment is and what would happen if it were weakened.

[barb162]

80. Under the First Amendent, you don't have the right to claim you

have a cure for cancer with sugar pills. You don't have the right to advertise and say your competitor is a crook when he isn't. There are all kinds of bona fide limits on free speech.

[Selatius]

86. I said "1st Amendment," not "unrestricted free speech"

First, read. Then, comprehend.

[barb162]

94. OOKKAAYYY.

Mea culpa. But please carefully read your second sentence in the body of your previous post which seems to be missing something. I have read it about five times and am not quite sure what you were intending there.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Uh, you DO have the right to claim you have a cure for cancer with sugar pills.

You don't have the right to SELL it as such, however.

[geek tragedy]

176. Holocaust denial is an attempt to get people

to reconsider Nazi ideology as acceptable.

It is a fraud and a dangerous one.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

183. What about people who deny the Armenian holocaust?

Should they get jail time?

How about people who deny the 650,000 dead Iraqis?

[geek tragedy]

188. The Armenian Holocaust did not take place in Germany.

You'll have to ask the Turks, who have yet to come to grips with their historical record.

The 650,000 dead figure is based on one study, and is not anywhere nearly as firmly and overwhelmingly proven as a matter of fact.

[Leopolds Ghost]

277. "And Don't forget Poland!"

German exceptionalism, I'll call your argument.

The massacre of millions of Native Americans in the US ALSO did not take place in Germany, nor did the death of tens of millions of African slaves en route to the Southern U.S.

[Warren DeMontague]

196. I agree it's a fraud, and a dangerous fraud.

But censoring unpopular speech is also the road to totalitarianism.

I'm not even saying this law necessarily isn't legitimate in Germany; given the historical context, maybe it is. But it certainly wouldn't be legitimate in the U.S. And as a basic philosophical axiom, I believe ALL points of view -no matter how fraudulent, idiotic, bigoted or dangerous- are entitled to free speech.

That's what free speech is; free speech isn't just about the voices one likes or agrees with being able to be heard.

[geek tragedy]

206. It wouldn't be legit here because the Nazis didn't take

power here.

Speech is like any other act--the consequences have to be considered.

Counterpoint for you: Which state is closer to totalitarianism--Germany or the United States?

"We made the Reich by propaganda."

Joseph Goebbels

[Warren DeMontague]

252. "Speech is like any other act--the consequences have to be considered."

Okay. So let's cut to the chase: what kinds of political and/or other speech do you think need to be banned?

[geek tragedy]

258. Here, none.

In Germany, they've decided that they can't take the chance of the Nazis making a political comeback, and I support their right to reach that conclusion.

[Warren DeMontague]

268. We agree, actually.

I said somewhere else in this thread- I'm too tired to find it, now- that given the historical context in Germany, it's understandable why they would have this law.

Even if I happen to personally believe that sunshine is the best antidote to even the most noxious views; "banning" something only tends to give it the lure of the "forbidden". But I wouldn't begrudge the Germans the right to come to a different conclusion on this specific matter.

[barb162]

78. Why? It's a different economic system, like mercantalism

Hate speech is a whole different ballgame. That threatens people.

[Leopolds Ghost]

229. There was a law against Communism for years on the books.

The people who defended that law made the same arguments "It's a unique situation, etc."

[manic expression]

261. self-delete

I responded to the wrong post. My apologies.

[manic expression]

262. Intolerant ideas

yes. Why? Because they're intolerant and they have no place in society.

People have gotten criminal penalties for advocating communism. It's what a capitalist system does. If you get the chance, check out what happened to leftists during WWI (Emma Goldman, etc...) and the Black Panthers (ever hear of Fred Hampton?), among MANY other groups which were crushed.

[Raskolnik]

269. How do you define an "intolerant idea"?

That seems to be rather open-ended, no?

[manic expression]

284. Denying a genocide

that undoubtedly happened (in order to cast a better light on the Nazi regime, no less), for starters.

[Raskolnik]

286. That is quite interesting.

I can assume, therefore, that you would support criminalizing any speech minimizing the Soviet Union's culpability in the deaths of tens of millions of its own citizens (in order to cast a better light on Communism)?

[manic expression]

287. Was that a genocide?

No, not even close. Was it directly (or even indirectly) caused by the Soviet Union? No.

Is your point at all valid in any way? No.

[Raskolnik]

289. Why should the law only apply to one specific type of mass murder?

Why is it acceptable to dispute (as you do) the culpability of an ideology for the killings of tens of millions of people, but you would criminalize the same acts if they questioned the Holocaust. Your views are certainly at odds with the historical record, but you seem to think the same logic should not apply to your defense of Communism. Why?

[manic expression]

290. It wasn't mass murder

but EVEN IF you say it was (which it wasn't), one was racially driven (that's while they call it "genocide", in case you had no idea what you're talking about) while the other was not.

The cities in Ukraine were not affected by the famine, and the Soviet authorities ensured that the cities had enough food. That, alone, disqualifies it from being genocide.

One was genocide, the other was a famine. Is that really so hard to understand?

[Raskolnik]

291. You are missing the point entirely.

The issue is not whether you are correct in your defense of Communism as an ideology, the issue is whether or not you have the right to even dispute the matter. I care not one whit about your opinion regarding the actions of the Soviet Union, but I would not seek to criminalize it simply because I believe you are woefully mistaken in your views.

You have yet to offer any rational argument as to why speech questioning genocides should be criminalized, but speech questioning equally monstrous acts with equally monstrous consequences should not.

[manic expression]

292. So you're trying to tell me

that the Holocaust is as debatable as the famine in Ukraine?

The point here is that the Ukraine famine was not a genocide. Therefore, the example is completely inapplicable and invalid.

I have given many reasons. Go read them instead of blabbling about the USSR.

[Raskolnik]

293. The point (that you are still missing) is not whether something is or is not a genocide

but why genocides are unique among human misdeeds. Why should you be allowed to debate and question the historical record when your views conflict so directly with the bulk of historical opinion, but others should be silenced through criminal penalties?

Once again, I care not at all whether you consider the Soviet Union's actions to be justified. The example is meant to demonstrate your inconsistent logic.

You (still) have yet to offer any sort of rational argument as to why criminalizing genocides is appropriate, while questioning other events that also led to the deaths of tens of millions should be allowed. Why are you making a distinction?

[manic expression]

294. The point

Before you can compare the argument between the famine and the Holocaust, you have to demonstrate that they are, in fact, valid comparisons. It is an undeniable fact that the famine in the Ukraine was not a genocide. Therefore, there is no reason to outlaw speech which doubts what is obviously untrue. The Ukraine famine is not considered a genocide by anyone who knows what they're talking about.

"Other events" are not the subject, genocides are. Stay on topic.

[Raskolnik]

295. Ok, I'm going to try and explain this as clearly as I can

I understand that you do not consider the Ukranian famine to be a genocide, and I understand that you consider the Soviet government's actions during that famine to be justified. I am not arguing that you should change your position on either stance, because your position on those issues is utterly irrelevant. Are we clear on that? I don't care.

What we are discussing here is the type of "intolerant" speech that you feel could/should be criminalized. You maintain that any speech "denying a genocide that undoubtedly happened" should be prohibited, yet you have offered no argument why that categorization should be made. Why should genocides be unique, when you are willing, even eager, to question the historical record of events that also claimed tens of millions of lives?

[manic expression]

296. Let me try

The difference lies in history. Please bear with me. The fact is that the USSR didn't try to kill Ukrainians, and even if you think they did, the Soviets ensured that the cities had enough food, and so it cannot be considered a genocide.

On the other hand, the Holocaust was the deliberate and blatant mass murder of people because of who they were and nothing more.

Would you agree that the two events are radically different? Would you agree that denying one, in the face of insurmountable evidence, is different than a famine?

[Raskolnik]

297. I'm sorry, ME, but you still are missing the real issue.

As much as you would like this to be a debate about whether the Soviet actions in the Ukraine were justified, I just don't care about your opinion. I really, really don't care about your rationalizations or your reasoning. It makes absolutely no difference to me, or to this discussion, what you think about the causes of the Ukranian famine.

There are two events, X and Y. Both X and Y resulted in the deaths of millions of people. The vast majority of historians would agree that both X and Y were caused at least in part by intentional acts performed by the state. In X, the state was motivated by ideas of racial purity. In Y, the state was motivated by economic policy. The majority of the public would agree that both events "undoubtedly happened".

Would you seek to criminalize speech questioning the historical record of X, but not Y?

[manic expression]

298. The difference

is that one was not a genocide, and the other was. There is a distinct difference in that one was genocide and the other was not.

"Racial policy" means racism and active liquidation of entire peoples; "economic policy" basically means that a famine happened (in part because of Kulak sabotage).

[Raskolnik]

300. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you really not understand the issue here?

Why is it appropriate to criminalize speech questioning a genocide, but not speech questioning other historical events that led to the deaths of millions?

[manic expression]

301. Because one was a genocide

the other wasn't.

That's the important difference.

[Raskolnik]

302. Why does that distinction make any difference whatsoever?

Because you say so? I understand the difference in the acts, but why do you think the speech is inherently different?

When the question is why you are making a distinction between X and Y, simply repeating that one is X and the other Y does not actually advance your argument.

[manic expression]

304. Why?

because one was the attempted liquidation of entire peoples. The other was a FAMINE.

If you can't tell the difference between the two, and if you can't respect the meaning that entails, then you are completely clueless.

If you wish, go ahead and have the last word, they're for people who haven't said enough already.

[Raskolnik]

305. I honestly can't tell if you're being obtuse or if you honestly don't understand

For the last time: we all understand that the two events are distinguishable. No one is seeking to persuade you of anything regarding the actions of the Soviet Union. I really, really don't care what you think about who was responsible for what in the Ukranian Famine.

I've double-checked your posts in this thread, and you haven't even attempted to explain why speech discussing genocides should be subject to regulation, but not speech discussing other events that claimed millions of lives. Are you capable of addressing why the distinction between events is meaningful when the issue we're discussing is the regulation of *speech*?

As the person who wants to significantly limit the speech of others, the burden is on you to demonstrate why you are making distinctions between topics.

[barb162]

76. Bravo there!

[ComerPerro]

77. and people who are intolerant of Bush and refuse to see his greatness should go to prison too

[barb162]

85. No, but people who threaten his life should go to jail

[manic expression]

263. I can see your logic

because not loving Bush is EXACTLY the same as denying the Holocaust.

Right? Anyone? Bueller?

:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

278. Let's not forget there are already times in US history when a majority wanted to make that illegal

Criticism of the US president, criticism of the economic system etc.

Anyone remember the Alien and Sedition acts?

The Red Scare of the 1920s, when Americans were deported for advocating communism?

The Gag Rule of the 1850s, when mail was checked in the South and suspected Abolitionists were rounded up and arrested for "mail fraud"?

The liberals and conservatives who said that FDR should emulate Hitler and create a "total economy" and a "total state" or be replaced by someone who would? To emulate the German Economic Miracle (as touted by Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh)?

Their first step was to dispense with New York lefties in the Administration, (many of whom were Jewish!), who convinced FDR NOT to dispense with Bill of Rights, and prevented pro-Nazi WASP politicians from destroying the Constitution to save the US Economy. Read "The Conquerors" by Michael Beschloss to learn how New Deal, ACLU type Liberals in the FDR administration tried to prevent the Holocaust and prevented the Administration from emulating Hitler's tactics of limiting free speech and dissent. They were rebuffed by Anti-Semites who saw the Bill of Rights as outdated -- the precursors of the John Birch Society.

[manic expression]

285. I certainly don't forget

but the fact is that any capitalist society will almost always clamp down on leftists whenever they get too powerful. That's just something we need to overcome.

Secondly, comparing the two is completely ridiculous, and I trust you can tell the difference.

[Clark2008]

17. Isn't this the guy who lived outside of Pigeon Forge, TN.

I was a reporter in Sevier County TN where he lived for many years.

However, I don't think he deserves jail time for this - I agree that folks should have the freedom to think stupid thoughts.

[knight_of_the_star]

20. I think the laws on this should be re-worded

You have loons in this country who question if historic events of equal veracity and not as great in scale, like landing on the moon happened. I think that it should be worded to say something along the lines of libelling or slandering the holocaust survivors or their descendants instead of just plain denial. There is a difference between punishing libelous or slanderous speech and attempting to stifle free speech and free thought, I think the holocaust denial laws straddle the line there. I do think anyone who tries to deny the holocaust is a nut and a bigot, but I don't think that putting them in prison is the way to deal with them. It hurts free speech AND makes them a martyr.

[MrSlayer]

21. It's stupid to put someone in jail for this.

It reeks of something a Nazi might do.

[barb162]

87. "Inciting racial hatred" is a criminal offense there

and it is not stupid this jerk is being jailed. He broke the laws.

[piedmont]

241. Just because it's the law doesn't make it RIGHT.

I can't believe anyone is using this "but it's the LAW!" argument. It's the same acceptance-of-authoritarian-rule mentality that allows the rise of fascism in the first place!

[cali]

107. I do not believe that someone denying the Holocaust should

be imprisoned for speech to that effect. That said, I'm not German and I recognize that their perception of the gravity of such speech, and the appropriate measures to be taken against it, is, for obvious reasons, different from mine. But comparing that to Nazi tactics? That really reeks, and displays a grotesque ignorance or ugly bias.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

42. I don't think jail is appropriate ...

... but then again, I'm not German and don't know German law. It appears that Germany may not have any equivalent to our first amendment, and maybe not the fourth or fifth. Anyone know?

Here, what he did wouldn't be criminal, just extra-special lunacy. I assume in Germany, he knew he was breaking a law, knew the consequences, and now it's playing out. In or out of jail, this nut is not going to have any real impact on history. He's not going to make the holocaust "un-happen".

It's curious that he was in Canada for 45 years, then deported for being a threat to national security. Canada's national security. I don't see how one moron threatens Canada. It seems pretty stable, at least outside of Quebec :). The story didn't go into detail on why Canada deported him, a pretty unusual step for Canada.

[JackRiddler]

45. At the behest of Germany...

Canada deported the motherfucker after years of lobbying by the Germans.

I have mixed feelings about this since Zundel's comeuppance is so satisfying, and falsification around the Nazi holocaust inspires me to quite violent feelings myself. But in the end I cannot support any laws restricting speech, short of speech that explicitly threatens or incites physical violence, and I do mean literally so ("Kill Fags" would qualify as such a threat; "God Hates Fags," evil as it is, would not).

Governments have always characterized unwanted speech in negative terms (hateful, incitement, etc.) There's no doubt about how the sub-debate above between bornaginhooligan and SapphireBlue went. Checkmate, indeed.

The fact is that the treatment of Zundel is a cause celebre to his moron followers, a confirmation to them that they are courageous heretics, etc. etc.

[barb162]

90. But when you really think about it there are many laws in the USA

that restrict free speech, from copyright to advertising to what the FDA allows on a pill bottle to the regular old slander laws. I am sure you will agree that if you wrote a book you wouldn't want an unauthorized publisher printing it and you weren't getting full or any value for your intellectual property rights when you slaved over the book for 5 yrs. and had a contract with another publisher. Also if you took a pill and if there were no FDA regs spelling out what pharma must warn for in regard to side effects which may result in your serious or fatal illness. What about defamation laws? These are also valuable laws especially if someone may defame you or your family resulting in social or financial harm. There really are a lot of limits on free speech in the US.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

98. Ok, I got it backwards ... thanks

The way I read the link in the OP, it looked like Canada wanted to evict him, not that Germany wanted him.

I agree with your separation of free speech. If he was threatening individuals, or organizing/conspiring to commit crimes, then jail is appropriate. If he's just denying the fact of the holocaust, he's just doing what good Nazis do, stupid but not quite criminal. They took the "denial" ploy from Turkey's example of denying the Armenian genocide. Deny it often enough, it'll go away. We don't jail people for offensive theories, usually.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. I'm fine with this because it's in Germany but wouldn't be if it were in the US

Germany gets to make its own laws about hate speech and not being a German citizen it's not my place to tell them what their hate speech laws should be.

Also is it possible that there's more to this story. Why was he deemed a "national security threat" in Canada? Something leaves me to believe that denying the holocaust wasn't his only crime.

[EFerrari]

79. As I understand it, the debate on this thread is between posters

who believe this POS belongs in jail and those that believe he had a right to free speech and so, doesn't.

I suppose to my mind, he belongs in jail because he broke the law and not just any law. He broke the law that says you can't deny that millions of people were murdered while the world watched and did next to nothing.

And that last part is important to me. It seems to me more important than that point at which "free speech" becomes a career of malicious disinformation. I'm a writer. Don't have anything without free speech. Free speech is how I put food on the table.

But it is that part "while the world did little or nothing" that seems important to me. Not the letter of the law or even how we impose our own cultural lenses on other peoples because that's an annoying American habit or worse.

This law that imposes concrete penalties on Holocaust deniers does something very specific. It reminds people that they didn't do enough once and it warns them about not doing enough in the future. Does it restrict free speech? Sure it does. But it would be hard or sickening to argue that this ISN'T a special case that has to be somehow processed and handled by that community.

A jail term for this kind of behavior is exactly right. Words matter. And no appeal to free speech can really encompass this POS's unspeakable disrespect for human life and culture.

[barb162]

91. Now this is a great post.

This is real writing and thinking.
Thank you

[EFerrari]

92. I've yet to see Sapphire Blue be on the wrong side of anything.

It could happen, lol, but when she takes a position, I need to give my utmost consideration. :)

[Guaranteed]

101. Well, you may have just seen it.

You can't criminalize ideas. It's not even possible, nor is it just or healthy. Germany's history supports a strong case for these types of laws, but even at its extremes- especially at its extremes- the free speech rule holds. The counter to irrational thought is rational thought. Reason is the only thing that can destroy bad ideas- strong arm tactics absolutely will not work, and, in fact, will likely have the opposite effect. Throwing this guy in jail instead of simply disproving what he was saying- as if it even really needed disproving (in which case, why throw him in jail?)- will steel the resolve of those who might have previously been merely sympathetic to the man's opinion. And it doesn't address the issue. It doesn't strengthen the correct side of the argument. It's a social solution to an intellectual issue.

Take religions, which in many ways flourished in countries that banned them. Or books that have been banned here in the U.S.- the first thing people do when a book is banned is go out and buy it. "Geez, this guy believed what he was saying enough to get thrown in jail for it. I wonder what he knew?"

Where belief is certain, the proof should be there to make it perfectly so to the world. There is no need for strong-arm tactics. Where belief is not so certain, it is only less justified to shut-down debate. Germany's history is tragic, but the way to counter disbelief in it is with proof demonstrating the truth.

I won't address the countless other problems with such an approach.

[Hippo_Tron]

104. I agree but I also take into consideration that we're talking about very recent history

The holocaust isn't something that happened hundreds of years ago, there are still people alive who have experienced it. It's understandable why Germany hasn't come to grips with it and why they have all of these measures in place (I believe their Supreme Court is allowed to outlaw extreme political parties as well). I think that Germany is going to need several generations to heal and once they have I think that some of these laws will be repealed. Although some would caution me that if the laws are repealed healing will turn into forgetting. But I don't forsee Germany forgetting about the holocaust in the future.

[Guaranteed]

108. Absolutely, I can understand why they have the law, in any case.

It will only work for so long, though. Such laws cause stagnation in ideas and ultimately cause rebellion against them. When the German people feel that they can address what happened directly, they will have to do so.

[EFerrari]

136. The object of the criminal charges here is not an idea but a behavior.

So, your first premise is inaccurate and we're arguing at cross purposes here. :)

[Guaranteed]

233. It's an expression of an idea, and you're trying to ban

the idea by banning the expression. Your attempt at a distinction here is futile.

[EFerrari]

240. No, it's not. You can't totallize BEHAVIOR into ideas. lol

[Guaranteed]

243. Oh, shit! Well, damn. I guess the government can just

ban any damn verbal expression they want to, can't they?

I guess they could just come along and ban people from saying "I'm against the Iraq War." It's just a behavior! Not an expression of an idea.

Dang. You sure nailed me, didn't ya!

There's about a BILLION other examples where that one came from.

[EFerrari]

245. Non sequitur. You were arguing about banning ideas

when I was pointing out that it's criminal BEHAVIOR that is at issue here.

You don't have a BILLION other examples of criminal behavior where that one came from. :)


Have a good weekend, BGL.

[Guaranteed]

246. LOL ;)

You too.

[geek tragedy]

181. Would you favor the legalization of the currently illegal

Nazi and other fascist parties in Germany?

Should they be allowed to run for office and control votes in Parliament?

[rman]

99. I think it is idiotic that denial of a historic fact is a punishable offense,

as much as i think that "unspeakable disrespect for human life and culture" should be a punishable offense.

Sure there's a law about it - but law isn't necessarily just. Just look at some of the laws enacted under the Nazis, or under Bush for that matter.

What's next, denying the battle of Waterloo as a punishable offense?

I think public debate of such issues as the holocaust and denial of it is much more productive than imprisoning those who deny it.

[geek tragedy]

115. "Debating" the Holocaust helps the Nazi cause, which

is why it's illegal in Germany.

[Irreverend IX]

137. No, debating the Holocaust hurts the Nazi cause...

Because whenever a debate happens the Nazis are shown to the world for the idiots they are. When debate is forbidden, the deniers spread their ideas under cover of darkness without getting shot down in public.

[geek tragedy]

162. No, because debating implies there's something actually

in dispute. In Germany, they're not going to allow people to even raise that possibility.

The purpose behind Holocaust denial is to rehabilitate the historical legacy of Nazi Germany.

[rman]

119. on second thought

I think the problem is that in case of the holocaust, denial of that historic fact is equated to hate speech. Which i think is taking it to far.

By that logic denying the battle of Waterloo would be hate speech targeting the French and/or the British.

If the someone is both instigating hatred based on race -and- denying the holocaust, then he can be prosecuted for hate speech - but should in my opinion not be prosecuted for denying a historic fact.

[EFerrari]

120. The thing is, it's not just denying any historical fact.

It is a denial which replicates the original near GLOBAL complicity in the murder of millions of people.

And that, in my view, it why this specific denial is so repugnant. While I agree that some laws are unjust and that public airing out of concerns or differences is producutive <grin>, all debates are not equal. Denying the Battle of Waterloo doesn't similarly replicate the original crime against humanity.

[rman]

127. How do you mean "replicates the original crime"?

In my view it does not replicate anything.

[EFerrari]

133. The original crime had more than one part to it and required

a great deal of cooperation from most of humanity. If we understand cooperation to mean active participation in the murders -----> "denial", yes, then holocaust deniers do replicate the original crime against humanity.

Or, that's how it seems to me, rman.

[Taxloss]

130. It has been debated. The debate is over.

Serious historical research is still done around the Holocaust - it's not off-limits. Conferences are held, debate takes place there, deciding what still needs to be decided. What is off-limits in some countries is to contradict the body of research that already exists. That existin body of research has established:

1. The extermination of the Jews was Nazi policy, a policy decided at the very top of the regime.

2. It was conducted in a deliberate and systematic fashion, using in its later stages gas.

3. More than six million Jews died.

Those are the three areas that there is no debate about - they're unassailable fact. An in some countries it is sadly necessary to bulwark those facts with law.

[Leopolds Ghost]

225. This thread is not about Holocaust deniers -- it is about hate-speech laws.

Do you endorse a law preventing 9-11 deniers or 9-11 conspiracy theories from posting their theories on the Internet? Same concept. Don't weasel out on me, now.

"Some countries" implies that we don't hold free speech to be a universal, inalienable right, which we, as Americans, in fact, do.

(One reason Americans have traditionally looked down on "The old country" is because we were a country that was founded on notions of freedom that are, sadly, foreign to the people we left behind. Some people think that the fact that so many of us fled to America is what caused the reactionary extreme politics of the people left behind in Europe, by creating an extreme class situation there.)

[Taxloss]

230. You don't see one legal code does not fit all countries?

What on earth is "9/11 denial"? How is it the same as Holocaust denial?

[Leopolds Ghost]

274. Islamists in Britain and the US who preach from the pulpit that there was no plane

Many of whom are nasty, racist types who think that regardless of who did it (the Israelis, in their opinion, are usually the culprit) they "had it coming".

Pick the ones in the US. How much time should they get?

Or is rendition satisfactory, as in the case of Emma Goldman, a person who for a time had misguided notions about the Soviet system leading to a pure communist form of government and supported the Soviet actions abroad, and was deported to the Soviet Union for her beliefs / misguided advocacy of what Stalin was doing? What about Paul Robeson, a Stalinist who was deported and/or fled to the Soviet Union? Is rendition satisfactory?

[Taxloss]

279. This is the thing.

Understanding the Holocaust - how it came about, how it was allowed to happen, what its consequences were - is a central plank to making sure that the parties of the extreme right never return to serious power. The truth about the Holocaust is the single most effective weapon against modern Nazism. Modern Nazis know that, which is why they strive to undermine the truth about the Holocaust. By sidelining the Holocaust, they can re-legitimise their own political position. That is why countries with good reason to fear Nazi resurgence - Germany and Austria - have instituted laws rendering Holocaust Denial off-limits. That's their choice, and I can understand the national sentiments behind it. Here in Britain, and in the USA, there are no such laws, and folk can deny the Holocaust if they want but should not act surprised if they are vilified for doing so. As a Briton, I do not feel that laws against Holocaust denial are necessary in this country.

As for the "9/11 deniers", if they're preaching hatred against the Jews they're covered by the "incitement to racial hatred" provisions of the Public Order Act 1986. That legislation covers anti-semitic hatred, with a judicial penalty.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. Some would argue that the world did what it could

IMO, that claim is just as fictitious as holocaust denial itself, but it is not nearly as dubious.

My point is, would you have someone jailed for the claim that "the world did what it could"?

Your argument does encompass the logic behind this law, but on a smaller scale. The reason that Germany has these laws is because they are still trying to cope with the fact that they allowed the holocaust to happen in their own backyard. At least that's the conclusion I agreed with after taking a class on the holocaust.

[EFerrari]

122. Denial now replicates denial then. It's complicity. n/t

[EFerrari]

209. The world didn't do what it could.

:)

[Spazito]

144. Well said!! n/t

[noiretextatique]

204. i agree with you

all of this reminds me of the african americans who were denied justice in the amerikkkan criminal court system for centuries because all-white juries refused to convict guilty, but white, defendants.
the federal government had to step in to try some of the guily folks for civil rights violations...that's how they got the bastards who killed the three civil rights workers, including the local law officers. finally, the sourthern povery law center and others started suing the aryan nations and the KKK...and winning...effectively bankrupting some chapters of those organizations.
free hate speech...yeah it's great...unless you are the target of haters. i hope this jerk rots in jail.

[EFerrari]

207. Sapphire Blue really helped me clarify for myself what this means to me.

As I try to say, downthread, with more or less success.

[Leopolds Ghost]

224. What about 9-11 deniers on the Internet? Just asking. n/t

[EFerrari]

247. Well, my honest answer would be, how much did 9/11 deniers enable

9/11?

That's a completely different context and the context matters, imho.

[Leopolds Ghost]

280. 9/11 deniers in the Muslim community are specifically aiding and abetting future terrorism

That is the current US government's argument.

The Gonzales position on free speech (which has been specifically denounced many times on DU) was already law in Canada, Britain and Europe before 9/11 happened, because they applied the anti-Nazi concept of "there is no such thing as free speech" to terrorists as well.

In fact, the "Patriot Act" style anti-terrorism law denounced repeatedly here on DU is precisely the one the Canadians used to deport this guy,

and for the exact same reasons they deport people for saying "we don't
know who did it, but the Christians in the Twin Towers and the Western
capitalists had it coming" and making statements of that sort.

The threat of a new 9/11 is far more significant in these people's minds than the possibility of Nazisim being the next example of fascism to come to power in the world

(what do YOU think is the next example of a fascist or genocidal state
to actually attain power, and is advocacy of their beliefs be banned in
the state where they are most likely to attain power?)

You may argue that the number of people Hitler killed creates some kind of cooling-off period, like, 10 years for every 10,000 people they killed, or 10 years for every percentage of the group they were able to wipe out... because somehow they are more likely to have that power again due to the number of people they were able to kill the last time.

However, this argument is applicable to what we did, or what other people did. Ever seen the National Geographic's chart of "Genocide through the Ages" broken down by number of people killed?

I do not argue that the destruction of the Native Americans or Armenians is comparable to what Hitler did, but in terms of that argument, it is.

And besides which, as we see in Turkey AND in Europe, with respect to treatment of Muslims, a government with the power to silence discussion of a genocide has the power to create a false consensus about what happened, or stifle debate about future ongoing, campaigns of opression.

Lastly, the whole notion of making the legitimate historical consensus that the Holocaust DID in fact occur, binding on pain of imprisonment, runs counter to the historical method and the ideals of liberal arts education (where liberalism comes from).

[JackRiddler]

259. Are you sure you're not breaking the law?

Well, if breaking the law regardless of whether the law is right is reason enough for a jail term, maybe we can get you under a provision of the PATRIOT Act. We're all probably breaking it some way or another.

Fact: In Turkey, it's the law that you can't NOT deny the genocide of Armenians.

Also: Turkey is a democracy. So I guess it's the law, so I guess it's good, so those who break this law in Turkey should go to jail.

Do you see where this ends up? Who decides what's speech? The state decides what you can and cannot say. And fascism wins.

I'm willing to make an exception for Germany and the holocaust since basic rights are otherwise far better protected there than they are in the US.

Also, it's a law restricting speech that denies a German crime. Important distinction. You probably won't find that in another speech restriction in the world (where it's always designed to protect that country's heroic self-image).

Would you like to see the same law applied in other countries?

[EFerrari]

260. But this isn't about other countries except insofar as it's about

a nearly global complicity.

I'm not sure I'm not breaking the law, at all. :)

See my arguments about the specificity of this law and its context and consequences downthread.

[Vidar]

89. Entirely appropriate--for Germany.

[Decruiter]

97. Sapphire Blue, kudos to you for bringing this up. I am surprised though,

97 responses, 0 reccs, 1200+ views and you haven't been banished yet into the depths of the other forum.

:applause:

I did hit the rec link. I hope others will as well.

[Solly Mack]

100. He yelled "Fire" in a crowded building

He used words that HAVE...not might...not could...but HAVE murdered millions of people.

He didn't just deny the Holocaust. He denied every lie, every distortion, every bit of hate, ignorance ,and meanness that lead to the deaths of over 13 million people. When you deny the holocaust, you deny every single thing the Nazis did...you deny the everything Nazis were about.

Before Nazis started gassing so-called "undesirables", "threats to the nation", "the racially impure", "the rats", it was the words(those exact words) - the speeches, the propaganda, the rationalizations - that made the gassing easier.

Words helped to keep the German population in check while people were being murdered.

Germans recognize the power of words to bring people to action. To shape belief systems - dangerous belief systems...that can..and HAVE...killed millions of people.


The Holocaust started with words of hate - it ended in genocide.

Rwanda started with words of hate - it ended in genocide

I live in Germany and I can say anything I want to say - what I can't do is promote hate or deny history.

Gee...I can't promote hate and lie about history...I am so deprived.

Americans, of which I am one, are just so accepting of people who promote hate and those who deny history - and then whine about the results from promoting hate and denying history. Oh, gee.. "How did it ever get so bad here?"

"I can't believe it's happening here"

"Why are Americans so stupid?" (Gee, maybe it's all those lies they've been told - in school, by their parents, in society - the same lies that have been going on for years that breed generational ignorance and fear...and it is the fear that leads to the horrible acts of violence against another)

"Don't they see what the right wing is doing?"

"How can anyone still support Bush?"

"How can anyone still believe Iraq was responsible for 911?"

"How do we combat all the lies? all the myths? all the distortions that are hurting our country?"


It ALL starts with words.

Words carry responsibility. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded building. You might not agree that denying the Holocaust is yelling fire in a crowded building but in Germany it is.

[Karenina]

111. Thanks, Solly!!!

America is NOT the center of the universe, nor is it the template for the rest of the planet. You were the first to mention RWANDA! What short memories some have. The "radio personalities" who fomented and fostered THAT genocide were prosecuted.

[Solly Mack]

113. I got to admit to getting a giggle from my fellow Americans

so quick to take offense to Germany's response to hate speech - more especially on hate speech that helped to rip that country a part, that helped to murder millions, and helped to start a world war.

Sure, Americans will quote Goebbels and talk about how horrible he was for his propaganda campaigns(which were hate speech)...but they see themselves as superior to falling victim to propaganda.

Now Americans do this while lamenting the current situation in America and saying things like, "It can't happen here" or "I can't believe it is happening here"

The "IT" in those statements being(99.9% of the time) - Nazi/Fascist Germany.

Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but I sense a disconnect.

Limiting speech is a slippery slope and a dangerous one.

However, my goal isn't to limit speech but to make people aware of the dangers of conferring legitimacy on dangerous speech..such as hate speech. Such as the kind of lies that lead a nation to invade a country for no reason. The kind of lies..and lies ARE speech...that incite a nation to call french fries, liberty fries (and if the intent behind that fails to register, I can't help you)...the kind of lies that cause people to fear brown skinned people...the kind of lies that cause people to attack brown-skinned people at their neighborhood convenience store or demand brown-skinned people be thrown off a plane, because "muslims attacked us".

The kind of speech that allows torture - even makes it legal. The kind of speech that allows illegal detentions. The kind of speech that denies due process.

"How/why is Bush allowed to get away with this?" is one of my favorite laments by Americans.

People say this without once ever realizing the connection between years and years of lies and distortions and encouraged bigotry leading America up to this point in history.

As if America is somehow above it all. As if something in our system - that exact same system that conferred legitimacy on Bush as president - and later on his lies and crimes - will protect Americans from the "IT" in "It can't happen here"

That somehow as Americans, we are better than that. Never mind America's history...by golly, we are better than that. (ho hum)

So I giggle...in utter amazement

Germany's entire history was poured over in attempts to explain how Hitler came to be, how the Holocaust came to happen...Germany's entire history - and Germany's history was implicated in the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust happening. Not just WW1 or the Ruhr Crisis... or any one single point in history - but the entire history.

Yet Americans can't seem to grasp that a country's entire history can lay the foundation for someone like Bush Inc and what is now happening in America.

America learns from the past doncha know...(coughspewchoke)


I'll never forget Rwanda.

Those on the radio in Rwanda inciting violence and encouraging others to go and kill people are no different from America's Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters...I have absolutely no doubts that Rush and Ann, and others like them, would tell where people were hiding so others could go and murder them.

No doubts at all.

They would.

[Karenina]

132. Ah, meine Schatzie

Wie Du ALLES in griff hast!!! KÖLLE ALAAF!!! Prosit. :toast:

[Solly Mack]

135. I got most of that. lol

:)

[file83]

123. Your comparison to "Fire" works, and here's why.

The words "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is none, lead to panic.

There is no fire, so what he is saying is false. The panic caused by that lie could lead to the deaths of many.

The words "No Holocaust!" in Germany when there was one, lead to ignorance.

There was a Holocaust, so what he is saying is false. The ignorance caused by that lie could lead to deaths of many (millions).

Conclusion: The effects of those "words" or "thoughts" have a direct impact on the lives of human beings.

That's why this man should be locked up and why that German law is justified.

[Guaranteed]

242. And here's why it works for an anti-abortion argument!

The words "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is none, lead to panic.

There is no fire, so what he is saying is false. The panic caused by that lie could lead to the deaths of many.

The words "A woman should be free to choose what do with her body!" in the United States, where hundreds of thousands of fetuses are aborted every year, leads to ignorance. Fetuses are HUMAN BEINGS, as everyone knows (/), and this justification only allows them to be killed.

The ignorance caused by that lie could lead to deaths of many (millions).

Conclusion: The effects of those "words" or "thoughts" have a direct impact on the lives of human beings.

That's why abortion doctors and those who would even SAY that abortion should be legal should be locked up and why that United States law is justified.

[file83]

270. False analogy.

The implication of "ignorance" is presumptive on your part. The question is not, nor has ever been, whether or not fetuses are being terminated. Of course they are being killed.

It also does not pivot on the definition of a fetus, whether it's a human being or not. Of course it is.

The question is the jurisdiction of DOMAIN over a mother's womb - is the territory of her womb HER jurisdiction, or the STATE'S?

Answer that question and there is your stance on abortion.

So, your example was a false analogy.

[Guaranteed]

106. Are you suggesting laws such as this should be put in place in the United States?

If so, your first hurdle would be the 1st Amendment, which was drafted, truly, with the specific intent of prohibiting laws of the kind you are advocating. And we should be thankful that it was drafted in, too, or otherwise we would probably still have slaves in our country, with only white, land-owning men voting.

Free speech cuts both in favor and against civil rights, but since such rights have reason on their side, we should have faith that the system will work to a just outcome.

[geek tragedy]

114. The law works for Germany, probably

wouldn't work for the United States.

[file83]

124. The OP just posted an article about it - there was no "argument" implied.

So, I'm not sure who you are debating. :rofl:

[Guaranteed]

128. There clearly was, from the responses.

:think:

[Taxloss]

131. Some of the responses make an argument, but not the OP. n/t

[EFerrari]

220. Faith in Torquemada deciding whether to prosecute re Abu Ghraib?

Or Gitmo? Or, extraordinary rendition? Or, over the decision to allow NOLA drown when the WH knew the levees were breeched?

No, the system requires constant diligence from all of us. It's not a perpetual Justice Machine. lol

The measures that Germany and Austria (and, I don't know who else honestly) took were appropriate.

Because this isn't so much about free speech as it is about denial. And, ya know, denial can kill ya.

/spelling, etc.

[gravity]

147. I don't like limits to free speech.

I understand why Germany obviously has holocaust denial laws, but I think that sending people into jail for it is not the right thing to do for it. People shouldn't be thrown in jail for disagreeing with the government no matter how crazy and hateful their ideas are.

[EFerrari]

190. But this person wasn't simply disagreeing with the government at all.

This so called "person" was glorifying a mass murderer and at the same time, spitting on the graves of millions of people.

This person was, probably purposefully, engaging in the very same speech that allowed those trains to run, that allowed the world to look away.

That's not "free speech". That's a very deliberate rekindling of hatred and disregard for human life and incentive to continue to devaluate human life in the most crude way. Call it inducement to repetition, if you will. Or call it, retroactive complicity. It's both.

That's criminal behavior, not expressing a personal opinion. There is a context here that most "free speech" responders to this thread seem to overlook a bit easily.

For example, Bill O'Reilly invited Al Qaida to bomb a momument to firefighters in my town. Obviously, he's an @sshole and obviously, it is his privilige to be one. But, if there had been a different context -- i.e., previous attacks on our town that singled out firefighters, I'd be for putting his inciting @ss in jail in a heartbeat.

edit for clarity, I hope. :silly:

[Leopolds Ghost]

227. If someone had posted this exact same thread stating the ACLU's position, would it be deleted?

I strongly suspect it would.

Just wondering since most of you guys are flatly hostile to the Constitutional position on this issue, which is that the free speech rights protected in the Bill of Rights are RETAINED by the people because they are INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS, i.e. not restricted to Americans.

[EFerrari]

250. I have no problem with Germany's Constitution.

And, moreoever, if someone wants to retroactively participate in genocide, I think they belong in jail. :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

255. So do you think that the fact that the ACLU defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie

makes the ACLU Nazis, Nazi supporters, or co-participants in Genocide?

I ask this as someone who had relatives die in the camps- someone who has been to Yad Vashem and cried while looking at the shoe (if you've been there, you know what I mean). If you think I'm somehow squishy soft on Nazis or the Holocaust, you're sorely mistaken.

[EFerrari]

256. Well, according to US law, the Nazis do have a right to march.

This isn't an easy matrix of problems.

I'd probably be there protesting them but they have a right to march. :shrug:

Edit: And we see the law and what is moral diverge at times much to our surprise.

[Karenina]

264. Germany is NOT America

and America is NOT the center of the universe. Andere Lände, andere Sitten.

[hiaasenrocks]

265. You're advocating prosecution for this guy....

yet you were one of the most outspoken defenders of Tookie Williams, even going so far as to call into question the prosecutor's integrity, as well as that of the people who run the prison system.

So, what we have here is a person who accepts at face value the case against someone who said something, while rejecting the proven facts of a case in which a jury unanimously found a man guilty of multiple murder.

That's just nuts.

[EFerrari]

271. It's only "nuts" if you strip away context and consequence.

:)

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

267. It's sad

how we've managed to on the left create a rhetoric by which we disguise our intention to silence dissent. The further we expand on legal harassment policies the easier it becomes to silence whomever we wish. The rhetoric of the minority isms are beginning to frighten me. You cannot escape from the contradiction, "protect freedom of speach by restricting it". Freedom of speech must be an absolute, as soon as we make exceptions it we're just dickering over how restricted speach can be. Any one group that assumes political power then wields that power.

[EFerrari]

272. There is no intention to silence dissent. What this criminal did

was not "dissent". He is glorifying the deaths of millions of people WHILE he is denying they happened.

He is reenacting the precise mechanism that made those deaths possible. Borrow or buy a clue.

/typo

[Leopolds Ghost]

282. If this law is good for Germany, why is it not good for US Racists???

Such as all the people in Northern Louisiana who talk about the "coming race war" and predicted the Big One would drown New Orleans,

and lobbied their politicians to seal off the city in the event of the Big One so that "those people would drown or be forced to kill each other off", as they said repeatedly over the past 25-50 years?

as one electrician quoted this same logic on a blog as he looked across the river past the Gretna barricade, while repairing the electrical system in Gretna?

"The people left behind in NOLA are the lowest of the low. They're beginning to kill each other now... It's a good thing we didn't let them cross the river" he added.

They were saying this for years before Katrina hit. The Big One, it was called. It was a party plank in their Coming Race War theory. Everyone from Louisiana, or who has relatives in Louisiana, knows this.

So, when do we start arresting them?

[EFerrari]

303. Apart from the whole context of the law, nothing.

Do you have a link for that, btw?