RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years

RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

luckydog1 -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 6:11:04 PM)
Sometimes you have to nip a problem in the bud and, if it means stifling a person's right to be heard, then so be it - the lesser of two evils etc. How can that be accomplished with out hindsight? No one knew what Hitler would ultimatley achieve in the 1920's. Heck in the 1920's Hitler was being very clever, he was presenting himself as a rational socialist at that point, opposed to the gulags of the USSR and the exploitation of the Capitalists. In the 1920's many on this site would have been huge supporters of him. What criteria would you have for nipping him in the Bud at that point? Or is it simply people that you disagree with need to be stifiled?

bludemonn -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 6:20:20 PM)
Holocaust...what holocaust!? So freedom of speech comes with conditions OR when they say holocaust denial does it mean he is preaching it? Strange how if you come to the UK and preach hatred against the government like that Muslin 'hook' illegal immigrant did ( hes refused asylum and still allowed to preach hatred and insight violence) no one touches for fear of being called a racist! DOUBLE STANDARDS!

thompsonx -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 7:06:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I am glad to see we are all on the same page here. Though I have to disagree with Thompsonx. "In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort or delict of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation." He could not be convicted of Libel or Slander for denying the holoucost, as he was not injuring anyones reputation. luckydog1: There are numerous lawyers just waiting for a chance to prove you wrong. Look at the sorts of libel and slander suits that are brought before the bar...this would be a slam dunk. thompson

dcnovice -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:09:42 PM)
Ernst Zundel is about an unsympathetic a character as you can find, but I have to side with the rest of the free-speech advocates.

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:16:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Everyone should be able to speak their mind and then let the chips fall where they may...... This is where I disagree. If hitler had been shutdown in the 1920s history would have been different. One lone idiot is not a problem. A nationalist agenda with support is a problem. The Germans were not inherently more racist than anyone else, one thing lead to another and spiralled out of control. Sometimes you have to nip a problem in the bud and, if it means stifling a person's right to be heard, then so be it - the lesser of two evils etc. I do agree to a point....So just out of morbid curiousity I google searched "ku klux klan" and went on to two of their websites...I vehemently oppose all that is spewed on these sites...Are they a terrorist group? They "now" go out of their way to address that violence is not the path....Sickening nonetheless...Not buying any of it. It sucks, but in order to have free speech it often means someone screaming at the top of their lungs something you find so grotesque and offensive...and thank God you have the right to respond...And you just hope that common sense will prevail and that people will be able to make the "right" decision. I have always loved the fact that if someone is so pissed off that they can burn the very symbol of our country, the flag, in protest...These are but a few costs and luxuries that a truly free country provides and honors. I see your point, Domiguy - particularly the part I've highlighted. Where you have a backed agenda however you're in the realms of weighing it up and taking the better of two bad options - civil liberties versus maintaining a balanced society. Look at the US in the 60s and the race problems. If the likes of KKK hadn't been given a platform, do you think US society would have been different? This is what needs to be considered when discussing civil liberties and free speech - they have to be balanced with responsibility to wider society.

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:20:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Sometimes you have to nip a problem in the bud and, if it means stifling a person's right to be heard, then so be it - the lesser of two evils etc. How can that be accomplished with out hindsight? No one knew what Hitler would ultimatley achieve in the 1920's. Heck in the 1920's Hitler was being very clever, he was presenting himself as a rational socialist at that point, opposed to the gulags of the USSR and the exploitation of the Capitalists. In the 1920's many on this site would have been huge supporters of him. What criteria would you have for nipping him in the Bud at that point? Or is it simply people that you disagree with need to be stifiled? I was just about to type a reply around the fact that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1924 and various other things........then, I read the part I've highlighted in bold and realised it would be one, big waste of valuable time. In future, do yourself a favour eh, save yourself the time and energy of replying to me as you won't be getting one back.

bludemonn -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:23:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Sometimes you have to nip a problem in the bud and, if it means stifling a person's right to be heard, then so be it - the lesser of two evils etc. How can that be accomplished with out hindsight? No one knew what Hitler would ultimatley achieve in the 1920's. Heck in the 1920's Hitler was being very clever, he was presenting himself as a rational socialist at that point, opposed to the gulags of the USSR and the exploitation of the Capitalists. In the 1920's many on this site would have been huge supporters of him. What criteria would you have for nipping him in the Bud at that point? Or is it simply people that you disagree with need to be stifiled? nipping something in the bud is as you know a very difficult thing to do and often leads to paranoia! As you rightly put Hitler was in favour twice and the people at that time wanted someone to lead them...dont get me wrong power seemed to twist Hitler and the sequence of events was tragic, maybe we can learn a lesson from WWII other than 'lets stamp out signs of far right activity' the lesson here was alot more deep seated than that and indeed a social economic one, just as the Vietnam Conflict was far deeper than the U.S. taking control, it went back to long before even the French started pissing around with it. If someone chooses to believe something and aslong as they are not 'brainwashing' then its their RIGHT! If i chose not to believe the earth was round should i go to prison?

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:24:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bludemonn Holocaust...what holocaust!? So freedom of speech comes with conditions OR when they say holocaust denial does it mean he is preaching it? Strange how if you come to the UK and preach hatred against the government like that Muslin 'hook' illegal immigrant did ( hes refused asylum and still allowed to preach hatred and insight violence) no one touches for fear of being called a racist! DOUBLE STANDARDS! Are you sure? Hook was kicked out of the country for his preachings i.e. by the government elected by the very people who you say are in "fear of being called racist". Why are you making this a race/religion issue? All races/religions have these jokers who think life is about destruction and division.

luckydog1 -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:27:08 PM)
Thompson how could it be a slam dunk? Who would bring suit? No individual is being defamed. If you have a specific case to prove me wrong please do so. BTW you can sue for any reason you like. A case being brought to the bar, in no way indicates it is a meaningfull suit. Just that someone was willing to pay a lawyer...

luckydog1 -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:32:11 PM)
Sure NG, I guess since you can't respond you can say you never will. That is what Rule did to me also. I guess you are tired of me pointing out your totalitarian tendancies. But you got to keep that stuff hidden untill AFTER you get power....I asked you a serious question on who should be stifiled. Remember, you are the one who wants people stifled. I can't imagine you are in favor of jailing Muslims who call for radical change in the UK. But alas you will not answer the challenge.

juliaoceania -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:40:33 PM)
quote: If this clown had been tried in the U.S, for libel and slander he could be doing about the same amount of time and a healthy fine. Both libel and slander are civil matters, and someone would have to prove they had been defamed in such a way as to cause them time from work or an important relationship. He could be sued, but any sort of judgment would hinge on proof of wrongs caused. We basically can say whatever we like when it comes to the criminal law, as long as we do not incite violence or chaos

MasterKalif -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:44:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I say no on both counts. He is expressing his opinion, and though it is a hurtful, malicious and blatantly idiotic opinion, he has the right to express it. And as for the EU prosecuting somebody for what they did in Canada, well that is just wrong....he di nothing in Germany, so how can they possibly say he commited a crime...if a crime was committed, it was in Canada, and therefore it is up to Canada to prosecute, not Germany. I firmly hope that Canada refuses to extradite, etc., but I doubt they will...our Gvt is way to PC Arpig, so well put, and I have to agree 100% with what you said...how can it be a crime in Germany? I think the EU countries have to try to stop this non-sense that their laws are superior than other countries and that they hold some imaginary jurisdiction over actions and foreign nationals in forign countries.... I dislike racism and I think holocaust denial is plain stupid and ignorant, but I don't see why they have to be jailed for it.....I think much more dangerous are communist agitators spouting the overthrow of certain governments in Europe and the world....yet they are allowed to spew their class struggle hatred with no consequences....so either all groups who do not abide by democratic norms and laws are considered unlawful and members jailed, or none should be jailed and let be...I choose to let the lunatics talk whatever they want (as long as they don't act on their ideas, leading to deaths, etc), they make life more interesting.

juliaoceania -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:49:06 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel#United_States_law I thought I would post this to be clear that these legal concepts are a civil matter and not a criminal one. There are a few states that do have some criminal law surrounding libel and slander, but these are old laws and rarely used. Edited to add this case about Noam Chomsky and his stance that people that deny the Holocaust should be allowed to spew their nonsense because of the slippery slope it creates in silencing real academics. His family are Holocaust survivors, he is a Jew, and this is what he went through to stand for freedom of thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair Now I think people who spew this tripe should be intellectually shut down... but not silenced by throwing them in jail, that only stiffles debate in other controversial topics. Where is the line of what is acceptable debate and what is not? What if we are told that we cannot debate whether Jesus ever existed for example? There are larger issues to contemplate here.

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:50:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania We basically can say whatever we like when it comes to the criminal law, as long as we do not incite violence or chaos This is usually a real point of disagreement when it comes to the freedom of speech debate because inciting violence is such an intangible concept.

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:53:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterKalif I think the EU countries have to try to stop this non-sense that their laws are superior than other countries and that they hold some imaginary jurisdiction over actions and foreign nationals in forign countries.... Steady on, MK. I don't think the country I live in has the right to overstep the mark into foreign territory and I estimate 99% of Britons feel the same way. I don't know the ins and outs of this case but I'm very surprised the German government are extending themselves beyond their borders - this is the exception to the rule.

juliaoceania -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 9:57:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania We basically can say whatever we like when it comes to the criminal law, as long as we do not incite violence or chaos This is usually a real point of disagreement when it comes to the freedom of speech debate because inciting violence is such an intangible concept. It is not that intangible to me...if you stand before a crowd and whip them into a frenzy to attack Jews you are inciting violence. If you list a bunch of nonsense you believe to be true that is derogatory about Jews, that is not. I have seen chatrooms that talk about how evil all Americans are. Conceivably I could sue those chatters for defamation of character... I mean how far down the rabbit hole are we going to go in silencing people's opinions? I do not believe in doing that to be honest with you.

popeye1250 -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 10:14:28 PM)
I can't understand why anyone would even want to be a holocaust denier. I mean what's in it for them? How do they "benefit" from doing that stuff? Is there a way that they're making money off of it? How about being a "Manned Flight Denier?" Or a "Civil War Denier?" NG, that's kind of a slippery slope as regards Hitler. Sure, knowing now what we know millions of people would have gladly put a bullet in his head but who do we shoot today? Once in a while you see those crazy people "preaching" on the street corners with a bible telling everyone they're going to hell but we don't send them to jail.

luckydog1 -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 10:28:47 PM)
Yes, they are able to make money off of it. The Pay is not great. But for example you could get a free round trip vacation to Tehran to participate in an "academic confrence". Or a free trip to appear on a tv show ( Springer, Oprah ect). They sell books, stickers, posters ect. They sell banner advertising on thier websites. Collect donations to get the "truth" out. Same as any conspiricy nut.

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 10:57:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania We basically can say whatever we like when it comes to the criminal law, as long as we do not incite violence or chaos This is usually a real point of disagreement when it comes to the freedom of speech debate because inciting violence is such an intangible concept. It is not that intangible to me...if you stand before a crowd and whip them into a frenzy to attack Jews you are inciting violence. If you list a bunch of nonsense you believe to be true that is derogatory about Jews, that is not. Well, in your opinion, what constitutes whipping a crowd into a frenzy? Also, would you say the Danish cartoons are intended to incite violence?

NorthernGent -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/16/2007 11:04:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 NG, that's kind of a slippery slope as regards Hitler. Sure, knowing now what we know millions of people would have gladly put a bullet in his head but who do we shoot today? Once in a while you see those crazy people "preaching" on the street corners with a bible telling everyone they're going to hell but we don't send them to jail. Popeye, Hitler wasn't a crazy bloke on a street corner. He was a man with openly declared views of a struggle between the Germanic peoples and Jews. He also had the backing of powerful militarists, industrialists as well as the support of conservative peasants. This man had an agenda with some serious support. Should this have been allowed to continue in the interests of freedom of speech? What about the US in the 1960s? In hindsight should the KKK have had a platform to preach their hate? Were they not a factor which caused lynchings etc? It is very easy to say everyone should be entitled to freedom of speech, but you need to think about the potential consequences - e.g. Hitler etc. I'm not for one minute saying one lone idiot should be silenced, but there comes a point where a powerful lobby is a serious threat to the interests of wider society and you need to weigh up civil liberties against the interests of wider society. It's not always black and white.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02