quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Germany is a good example of a "free society" which did not prevent genocide. The cause of this genocide was the idea and widespread support for this idea. The camps, pogroms, ghettos etc were the symptoms of a problem which had its roots in 1920s Germany i.e. democratic 1920s Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf1020

quote:

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.

I like this guy

As to the person who said something along the lines of a lot of good it does when they take them away?  I asure you anyone tries to pull a NOLA on me and I will be taking many of them with me.

Many people say such brave things, the truth is that when people break your door down in the middle of the night, it rarely happens. Time and again we see countless people going quietly to their death. It happens too often for it to be anything other than human nature. The hope that it won't be as bad as they fear and there is no one else around and the alienation of the dark hours, makes people go quietly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Where did I say Germany was a "healthy strong democracy". You need to read more carefully.

I said it was a democracy where ideas were put on the table for all to see and choose to take on board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Where did I say Germany was a "healthy strong democracy". You need to read more carefully.

I said it was a democracy where ideas were put on the table for all to see and choose to take on board.

The implication is in what you said that it was a democracy where ideas was put on the table for all to see and choose giving the impression it was something akin to a modern European democracy which is far from the truth. With part of the country occupied by an enemy, hyper-inflation, personal savings lost overnight, mass unemployment, thousands homeless, the German population was ideal for manipulation by extremiusts and was. Even in the early twenties the German army was talking about getting even with France for Germany's national humiliation. Germany was a cauldron, it was hardly a place for rational debate or choices and proved not to be.

quote:

What about all the gutsy journalists working for the prestigious networks and newspapers? Certainly, these bold "defenders" of truth and justice would write an article on the illegal nature in which Ernst was deported from the United States to Canada, where he was subsequently thrown quietly into a solitary confinement cell in the Toronto West detention Center, in Toronto Canada. Or how in 2005 he was quietly deported from Canada to his native Germany where he now sits more than a year later after numerous trial delays initiated by his persecutors. These brave journalists would definitely be interested in an expose on how the new terrorism laws are already being abused to silence dissent.

The idea that Mr. Zundel is a threat to any nations national Security is ridiculous, the man hasn’t committed a violent crime in his entire life and has never been convicted of a crime that wasn’t later overturned in Canada’s highest court. The brave and courageous purveyor’s of "fair and balanced" news haven’t written an article yet, that even approached an equitable portrayal of Mr. Zundel. Ernst Zundel’s crime is that he is politically incorrect, a nonconformist and no matter what the powers that be throw at him, he just won’t apologize and prostrate himself in feigned humility like so many of our illustrious leaders. He is dangerous only to the status quo, and they know it, that in fact is why he currently languishes in prison, not because he actually represents a danger to society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Plenty of people in the UK would welcome the right to be able to effectively protect their own property.
Those that try are sometimes themselves prosecuted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Where did I say Germany was a "healthy strong democracy". You need to read more carefully.

I said it was a democracy where ideas were put on the table for all to see and choose to take on board.

The implication is in what you said that it was a democracy where ideas was put on the table for all to see and choose giving the impression it was something akin to a modern European democracy which is far from the truth. With part of the country occupied by an enemy, hyper-inflation, personal savings lost overnight, mass unemployment, thousands homeless, the German population was ideal for manipulation by extremiusts and was. Even in the early twenties the German army was talking about getting even with France for Germany's national humiliation. Germany was a cauldron, it was hardly a place for rational debate or choices and proved not to be.

You beat me to the point I was going to make, if I'm reading your meaning correctly.

I think the following is why free speech restrictions would have had no effect on the outcome.

Everyone is assuming in Germany, the people were tricked or forced to be Nazi's. While I'm sure that happened to some degree. Why is it written off that the people living in a less than ideal country, a husk of it's former stature, wouldn't gravitate towards someone that redirected the blame. And if that is the case, how would you stop a radical movement a large share of the population agreed with. Without  a civil war

My view is desperately poor countries breed genocide, and/'or people without hope gravitate towards radical ends, and humiliated people focus on revenge. That requires a target. And there is no seperation between the radicals and the government in those situations. So, who would be the judge of good speech versus bad speech when all segments of the population are open to radicalization.  The government if anything is just as radical as any individual is.

Germany and WWII could have been stopped in my opinion by not humiliating them in the aftermath of WWI. It would seem whether it be Hitler, or Thitler(made up radical), a radical was wanted at that time, by a large segment of the population. Because the country wanted radical change. So, one came to power.

It was the people, that wanted it, accepted it. Not all the people but enough to put in the seat of power.

Like banning the KKK's speech  in the pre-40's would not have happened because most people were racist then. It had nothing to do with free speech, it was what people believed to be true. How do you ban speech that 70 percent of your population believes is true?

Also, Malcolm X called for a revolution. Should he have been locked up or shot?

These debates are a bit crazy, because they assume the populace is a docile little gullible thing, that is corrupted by the ideas of the evil man. When in reality, most of what is happening at any given time is condoned by the public at large, and only in hindsite do people seperate themselves from the events.

Like the patriot act, it happened because the US citizens supported it for the sake of security. Oh, but no one does now, it's always the others that wanted it in hindsite. But at the time it was a good idea to alot of people, not all but a large share.

LOL. It's the people or a largish majority thereof that believe and accept these things as necessary and truthful. Sorry, it almost always is.  And they are the ones to blame.

At least that is my view of it. Free Speech just express the ideas, it takes the right conditions for people to want and accept those ideas. Prevent the conditions and Free Speech is not a problem.

IMHO.

quote:

Curt Maynard

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

If Zundel were free today, and not under the news blackout employed to further marginalize his most rational views, he’d be unapologetically implicating Israel as the soul beneficiary of any further hostilities in Iran or Syria.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aubre

Popeye we have a similar law now here in Alabama. Our law is kind of like this:
The new law allows homeowners and vehicle occupants who believe their lives are threatened to use deadly force against intruders. It removes a legal requirement that forced crime victims to retreat when faced with an intruder. The new law also shields those who use deadly force in self-defense from criminal prosecution or civil action. The law does not permit the use of deadly force against those who have a right to be in a house or against law enforcement officers carrying out their duties.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aubre

For someone who seems to think they have an open mind, you sure do make a lot of off-base generalizations. Every part of the United States in not covered in "hoods" full of "gangstas". You have spent way too much time watching television and movies, then forming your opinions of the United States from what you've seen. What a sad and bitter world to live in. I'm not going to say racism doesn't exist here, but it exists to some degree everywhere. But we've come a long way. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I am completely in favor of Fonda making her views heard widley and loudly.  And in the right of others to respond.  She is exactly the sort we want to keep out in the open. 

Sunlight is the best disenfectant