Yeah, but as soon as law enforcement or homeland security, etc begin to "track" those cockroaches, you damned liberal doo-gooders file lawsuits so as to prevent it!!
Baron Max
Why is Holocaust denial illegal?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
Yeah, but as soon as law enforcement or homeland security, etc begin to "track" those cockroaches, you damned liberal doo-gooders file lawsuits so as to prevent it!!
Baron Max
Redarmy11:
Socialists ought to be killed, not silenced.
That is to say, I do not weep when a socialist is shot dead. I do, however, think it is illegitimate to rob him of the right to free speech.
The entire point of free speech is to be able to be able to say ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous, to ANYONE. This was the entire point of the Enlightenment's aim for such.
If you cannot deal with this stuff on the rational level, then you do not deserve to retain those freedoms if those people take them away from you.
BenTheMan:
Hurting someone's feeligns is not the same as endangering their life or stealing from them. "Tough noogies!" to them, I say.
There are no flag burning laws in America. We've tried to get them, but been blocked.
Socialists ought to be killed, not silenced.
That is to say, I do not weep when a socialist is shot dead. I do, however, think it is illegitimate to rob him of the right to free speech.
The entire point of free speech is to be able to be able to say ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous, to ANYONE. This was the entire point of the Enlightenment's aim for such.
If you cannot deal with this stuff on the rational level, then you do not deserve to retain those freedoms if those people take them away from you.
BenTheMan:
Hurting someone's feeligns is not the same as endangering their life or stealing from them. "Tough noogies!" to them, I say.
There are no flag burning laws in America. We've tried to get them, but been blocked.
Also, a question ought to be raised:
Cui bono?
To what end and to whose benefit do we enact these laws?
For the Jews? Certainly no European is hurt by Holocaust denial. Why are we protecting a group of people from idiotic beliefs, when we do not do so for anything else?
Cui bono?
To what end and to whose benefit do we enact these laws?
For the Jews? Certainly no European is hurt by Holocaust denial. Why are we protecting a group of people from idiotic beliefs, when we do not do so for anything else?
Redarmy11:
Socialists ought to be killed, not silenced.
you are part of this SF community...you are socializing with people here...you are a socialist...
that means...you want to be killed.
I think I agree with this. I am not a fan of political correctness. In this case it's just a matter of showing books filled with Jewish names marked for extermination, and the millions of missing person reports filed by Jews after the war.
Ahh but you are mistaken. 47 states have laws prohibiting the defacement of state and American flags. The Supreme Court has twice stricken down ammendments to the constitution. Perhaps I should rephrase, though:
If you are agree that Holocaust denial should be illegal, what is your opinion to outlawing flag burning in America, in principle?
BenTheMan:
Yes, it is not that hard to show where Holocaust Deniers are wrong in their claims.
Do you have any resources on this? I Have not heard of any such laws that have remained after the supreme court rulings.
Yes, it is not that hard to show where Holocaust Deniers are wrong in their claims.
Do you have any resources on this? I Have not heard of any such laws that have remained after the supreme court rulings.
I'm glad you brought up this point. I heard a quote by Ahmenidejad (I probably misspelled his name), and a point I wanted to bring out here---why is it ok to mock Muhammed in cartoons, but not ok to claim that the Holocaust didn't happen.
I think I actually agree with him on this point---the West rallied around the Danish last summer when a newspaper published some cartoons that were in poor taste, essentially mocking the holiest man in a faith observed by billions of people. "Freedom of speech", we all cried. But freedom of speech means that you have to hear opinions that you don't necessarily like---if we expect that from Muslims when it comes to cartoons and such, surely we should be able to abide by the same set of rules.
And when they retaliated by drawing cartoons about the Jews, the Jews critiqued them and found some of them to be funny, if I remember correctly. What's the worst that any English speaker has done when someone made cartoons that included Jesus? We sure don't riot because of it. But this really stupid, childish behavior should be catered to? I don't think so. Jews and Christians are capable of showing much more maturity and of being much more progressive, even if they do have their limits.
Quite.
Twisted and totally unacceptable.
Nobody, directly. Nobody is ever directly harmed by speech.
The problem is that Holocaust denial is part of a package that seeks to incite hatred of Jews and other groups and to legitimise their persecution.
You just get weirder and weirder.
What do you think of laws against radical Muslims inciting suicide bombings?
Where do you draw the line on freedom of speech, personally? Or should every kind of speech be tolerated?
There is danger in giving the government or law enforcement agencies too much power. That's how police states are born. Politicians and police are far from incorruptible. You naivete is touching, though.
James: Yes the Supreme Court has overruled federal laws, but there are still state laws regarding this:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/flagburning/topic.aspx?topic=flag_statelaws
Hi MetaKron---the point was that Ahmenidejad what making was that the Jews seem to be guranteed certain protections by the west that are not universal.
This is a very good point---if a radical Muslim cleric in England, or America, say, preaches jihad against the west, is he culpable for the deaths caused by suicide bombers?
Next thing you're going to tell me is that Donald Rumsfeld didn't ask Saddam to do that gassing, and that various European governments haven't been doing it since around 1913.
It looks to me like in your case an aluminum foil hat would be too little and too late.
Let's put it this way, James. As long as you dismiss all information that you don't want to believe as coming from "conspiracy" sights, you are either dishonest, willfully blind, stupid, malicious, or some combination of those negative traits, so I don't take you seriously at all.
Let's put it this way, James. As long as you dismiss all information that you don't want to believe as coming from "conspiracy" sights, you are either dishonest, willfully blind, stupid, malicious, or some combination of those negative traits, so I don't take you seriously at all.
James R.:
Holocaust denial is usually part of such, but it needn't be necessarily. That is to say, denial of the Holocaust, in whole or in part, does not entail that one must then hate the Jews.
Nor is Holocaust denial a call to persecute the Jews.
Accordingly, I don't think any case can be made that it is essentially setting the Jews up to be targetted. Moreover, even if it was, unless there is an actual incitement to acts of violence, and not simply ill-will, then there is no law being broken that warrants any abridgement of freedom of speech.
Holocaust denial is usually part of such, but it needn't be necessarily. That is to say, denial of the Holocaust, in whole or in part, does not entail that one must then hate the Jews.
Nor is Holocaust denial a call to persecute the Jews.
Accordingly, I don't think any case can be made that it is essentially setting the Jews up to be targetted. Moreover, even if it was, unless there is an actual incitement to acts of violence, and not simply ill-will, then there is no law being broken that warrants any abridgement of freedom of speech.
Indifference, perhaps due to a lack of familiarity. Can you explain to me what the fuss is all about?
As James R has said, holocaust denial is part of a package. It's advocates aren't interested in truth or open debate but in minimising Nazi atrocities using lies, misrepresentation of history and any other tool at their disposal in order to gain legitimacy and popular support for their anti-democratic agenda. They want to use democratic processes in order to usurp them, exactly as they've done before. So the burning question is: should we allow them to do that once more?
They're not cockroaches. They're wolves. Your door is always open?
Last edited:
Jew-haters love misguided academics who lend them incidental support. They crave that kind of legitmisation.