quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

the vast majority of Germans never knew about the Holocaust, never would have approved of it, and did not agree with Hitler when it came to Jewish people.

I agree with the above. My university days were spent studying the rise of the Nazis. It's an interesting period of history because the Germans were up there with the most civilised nations when it comes to philosophy, technology and science.

The majority of Germans however were aware of the pogroms and the likes of Kristallnacht. They were aware of the burning of Jewish books and art as well as the looting and boycott of Jewish shops. They were aware of the yellow stars and aware of Jews leaving in droves to other countries to escape anti-semitism.

In terms of facts, I think most would agree with the following:

1) Hitler began as a crank.
2) He established a power base including powerful industrialists and militarists in the 1920s.
3) His party swayed the minds of average Germans and, as a result, Germans stood back and watched rampant anti-semitism.
4) The conclusion of this cycle events was the holocaust. The holocaust didn't just happen, like anything it was the result of a chain of events.

In hindsight, should 2 have been allowed to become 3 and 4.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

It would seem the lack of speech causes things like Genocide. All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good people remain silent

Genocide is not caused by "a lack of speech". It is caused by the thoughts and actions of a malevolent group in society. The intentions of these people are the driving force. Then there is a tough choice to make - stand by and watch potential serious consequences or intervene. Society can't really work unless there is a balance between civil liberties, responsibility and law.

I just saw this post.

The Germans were often fearful of speaking up after Hitler consolidated his dictatorship. Life seemed better for Germans after he took over, he instilled pride in them. My point is that people knew to speak out against him was an invitation to a concentration camp... he led by not only a carrot, but a stick. He did this by abridging civil liberties, one that he abridged was freedom of the press.

quote:

To add, the surpression of free speech came after the Nazis gained power. In other words, it was not instrumental in them gaining power and not instrumental in the holocaust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

To add, the surpression of free speech came after the Nazis gained power. In other words, it was not instrumental in them gaining power and not instrumental in the holocaust.

They gained it the way that many in this country are suspicious that GW gained his, by framing people burning the Reichstag....

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

NG, we here in America have an additional freedom that would have prevented the nazis from comming into power in Germany had they had it.
It's called the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bare arms.
If the German people had killed a few hundred or a few thousand of those nazis perhaps they would have rethought their whole gameplan.

quote:

At this point, knowing that they had openly declared their intentions, knowing they were starting to gain powerful backing, knowing they did not rule by fear, should they have been shut down?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Julia, I'm looking at a practical example (Nazi Germany) as opposed to ifs and buts, as per my last post.

NG, to be honest I have no clue what you mean.

If you go back and read post 66, you'll see the question "should 2 have been allowed to become 3 and 4". Read the full post and, hopefully, you'll have a clue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

To add, the surpression of free speech came after the Nazis gained power. In other words, it was not instrumental in them gaining power and not instrumental in the holocaust.

But even on the way to total power (which they gained in stages), weren't they intimidating rival newspapers and trying to suppress rival viewpoints?

Still, you're right, I think, in that they couldn't totally limit free speech till they gained power. I do think, though, that lack of free speech did at least help them carry out the holocaust.

quote:

There was a point however when the German people had a real choice (1926ish to 1936ish) and they stood back and watched virulent anti-semitism - the burning, looting, sacking of Jewish culture, art, literature etc - reducing Jews to second class citizens with the wearing of the star etc. The result was the holocaust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

There was a point however when the German people had a real choice (1926ish to 1936ish) and they stood back and watched virulent anti-semitism - the burning, looting, sacking of Jewish culture, art, literature etc - reducing Jews to second class citizens with the wearing of the star etc. The result was the holocaust.

True and heartbreaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

You know what, I call Mormons "Morons"... so please come send the Utah officials to come pick me up for making fun of their religion... I am not on the list of those who incite others and offend them with my thoughts

quote:

For example, neo-nazi's marching a protest down a community street where there are known holocaust survivors would most definitely be denying those people their rights to feel safe and secure.

quote:

But we've really got to understand that our laws/customs don't apply everywhere.

quote:

you've got to understand a little bit more about the intracacies of the Constitution before just spouting off "1st amendment!!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Even in the U.S., freedom of speech is far more nuanced that many of us realize. I was not aware of Chaplinsky, for instance, and appreciate your bringing it to our attention.

quote:

You guys all take the 'free speech' thing way too far. Free speech applies as long as it does not abridge the rights of other people. For example, neo-nazi's marching a protest down a community street where there are known holocaust survivors would most definitely be denying those people their rights to feel safe and secure.

quote:

You are all so offended because we're American - and freedom of speech is our big deal, but you've got to understand a little bit more about the intracacies of the Constitution before just spouting off "1st amendment!!". Should he go to jail for five years? - He'll probably be out before that time is even up. And honestly, if we are all going to come to the defense of someone who was unjustly jailed or detained why not make it the Canadian citizen Maher Arar who was tortured by the United States military?

quote:

But we've really got to understand that our laws/customs don't apply everywhere.

quote:

There is also something known as the fighting words doctorine (since we're applying this to U.S. custom). Which states that Fighting words are words that are written or spoken to incite hatred or violence which then places the targets of the words in danger or harm. These kinds of words are not legal, nor allowable under the constitution. Meaning, he is a Holocaust denier who lambasts victims of the Holocaust, and spreads hate, whereby making those affected by the Holocaust experience further persecution. This was established by the supreme court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942. He is not Constitutionally protected in Germany OR in the United States.