Pages: 1 2 3

 

2006-10-15 11:46:36
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6810

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Freedom of speech yes, Genocide denial no.  If you let those assholes who deny the Armenian Genocide or The Holocaust talk their BS, then the kids can learn wrong history, and these two episodes should be learned in order to prevent another one to happen in the future.
Sorry but you can put the details of the holocaust in the school curriculum and maybe ensure such views aren't allowed to be broadcast in the media but sending an individual to jail for saying something is plain wrong IMO.
Last week one guy opened a threat questioning the Armenian Genocide and saying it didn't happen at all.  After some discussion between him and other people, a Mod closed the topic saying that denying the Armenian Genocide was racist.  Where did his freedom of speech go?  To the can, and btw the Mod was absolutely right.
I think this is a case of 'agree to disagree'. Would you deny me the right to say that the US are, both directly and indirectly, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? A claim I would imagine some on this forum would vehemently protest.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-15 11:48:13)

2006-10-15 12:00:55
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6945|Tampa Bay Florida
Taken from wikipedia :

Laws against Holocaust denial

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries: Austria (article 3h Verbotsgesetz 1947), Belgium (Belgian Negationism Law), the Czech Republic under section 261, France (Loi Gayssot), Germany (§ 130 (3) of the penal code) also the Auschwitzlüge law section 185, Lithuania, The Netherlands under articles 137c and 137e, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code). In addition, under Law 5710-1950 it is also illegal in Israel.

The following punishments are used with regards to Holocaust Denial Laws: Austria (min: six months, max: twenty years (violent), ten years (non-violent)), Belgium (min: fine, max: one year), Czech Republic (min: six months, max: two years), France (min: fine/one month, max: two years), Germany (min: fine/six months max: five years), Israel (min: one year, max: five years), Lithuania (min: fine/two years, max: ten years (violent)), Poland (min: fine/three months, max: three years), Romania (min: six months, max: three years (public offender), five years (public servant offender)), Slovakia (min: fine/one month, max: three years) and Switzerland (min: fine/one year, max: fifteen months).

Many Holocaust deniers claim their work falls under a "universal right to free speech", and see these laws as a confirmation of their own beliefs, arguing that the truth does not need to be legally enforced. Some people who do not deny that the Holocaust occurred nevertheless oppose such restrictions of free speech, including, despite her legal battle with David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt. Another prominent opponent of the laws is Noam Chomsky. An uproar resulted when Serge Thion used one of Chomsky's essays without explicit permission as a foreword to a book of Holocaust denial essays. See: Criticism of Noam Chomsky. At times, Holocaust deniers seek to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, when faced with criminal sanctions against their statements or publications. The European Court of Human Rights however consistently declares their complaints inadmissible. According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.
2006-10-15 12:42:19
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6660|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Sorry France but hang your head in shame. Restricting freedom of speech to pander to the needs of a minority is a big no-no in my book.
Freedom of speech yes, Genocide denial no.  If you let those assholes who deny the Armenian Genocide or The Holocaust talk their BS, then the kids can learn wrong history, and these two episodes should be learned in order to prevent another one to happen in the future.
Sorry but you can put the details of the holocaust in the school curriculum and maybe ensure such views aren't allowed to be broadcast in the media but sending an individual to jail for saying something is plain wrong IMO.
I agree...
2006-10-15 13:14:48
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7012|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


Sorry but you can put the details of the holocaust in the school curriculum and maybe ensure such views aren't allowed to be broadcast in the media but sending an individual to jail for saying something is plain wrong IMO.
Last week one guy opened a threat questioning the Armenian Genocide and saying it didn't happen at all.  After some discussion between him and other people, a Mod closed the topic saying that denying the Armenian Genocide was racist.  Where did his freedom of speech go?  To the can, and btw the Mod was absolutely right.
I think this is a case of 'agree to disagree'. Would you deny me the right to say that the US are, both directly and indirectly, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? A claim I would imagine some on this forum would vehemently protest.
No, but yet complete different things.  While denying the Armenian Genocide and The Holocaust is just ignorant and racist, saying that 650.000 Iraqis died during this war is true, so say it.  I would condemn someone who says nobody died in Iraq.
2006-10-15 13:47:18
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6660|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Last week one guy opened a threat questioning the Armenian Genocide and saying it didn't happen at all.  After some discussion between him and other people, a Mod closed the topic saying that denying the Armenian Genocide was racist.  Where did his freedom of speech go?  To the can, and btw the Mod was absolutely right.
I think this is a case of 'agree to disagree'. Would you deny me the right to say that the US are, both directly and indirectly, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? A claim I would imagine some on this forum would vehemently protest.
No, but yet complete different things.  While denying the Armenian Genocide and The Holocaust is just ignorant and racist, saying that 650.000 Iraqis died during this war is true, so say it.  I would condemn someone who says nobody died in Iraq.
Serge, I think we agree on a number of things socially, but you seem to have taken a fascist turn on this issue.  The Freedom of Speech is something that any social liberal should encourage.  This includes defending the speech of people who you disagree with or who even say ignorant things.  Those of us with common sense realize that the Armenian genocide did in fact occur, but if someone wants to say it didn't happen, then that's his/her folly.

I don't know much about France's doctrine of government, but I would assume this flies in the face of their freedoms.
2006-10-15 13:53:00
Bernadictus
Moderator
+1,055|6992

Gentleman, I will allow this discussion to continue, if you promise not to turn this into yet another pointless flame/spam thread!
2006-10-15 14:33:23
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7012|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I think this is a case of 'agree to disagree'. Would you deny me the right to say that the US are, both directly and indirectly, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? A claim I would imagine some on this forum would vehemently protest.
No, but yet complete different things.  While denying the Armenian Genocide and The Holocaust is just ignorant and racist, saying that 650.000 Iraqis died during this war is true, so say it.  I would condemn someone who says nobody died in Iraq.
Serge, I think we agree on a number of things socially, but you seem to have taken a fascist turn on this issue.  The Freedom of Speech is something that any social liberal should encourage.  This includes defending the speech of people who you disagree with or who even say ignorant things.  Those of us with common sense realize that the Armenian genocide did in fact occur, but if someone wants to say it didn't happen, then that's his/her folly.

I don't know much about France's doctrine of government, but I would assume this flies in the face of their freedoms.
In several EU countries is a crime to deny the Holocaust.  As a liberal do you encourage ignorance by letting fascists or racists say a Genocide didn't happen?  You can discuss the motivation, but a denial is out of question.  You can't allow ignorance to spread.  When a person says the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust didn't happen, that person is lying, do we agree?  If we don't let that person tell a lie about such terrible crime we are denying his freedom of speech?  Why did they deny Clinton freedom of speech when he lied about the BJ?  You can enjoy freedom of speech but you can't make propaganda about a crime. 
Freedom of Speech is a great thing, but in this case you can't allow ignorant people to spread hate and you must prevent this kind of episodes to happen again in the future. 

There you go your freedom of speech in Europe.  Read this article about laws against the holocaust denial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_ … ust_denial

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-10-15 14:39:45)

2006-10-15 14:45:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6660|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

In several EU countries is a crime to deny the Holocaust.  As a liberal do you encourage ignorance by letting fascists or racists say a Genocide didn't happen?  You can discuss the motivation, but a denial is out of question.  You can't allow ignorance to spread.  When a person says the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust didn't happen, that person is lying, do we agree?  If we don't let that person tell a lie about such terrible crime we are denying his freedom of speech?  Why did they deny Clinton freedom of speech when he lied about the BJ?  You can enjoy freedom of speech but you can't make propaganda about a crime. 
Freedom of Speech is a great thing, but in this case you can't allow ignorant people to spread hate and you must prevent this kind of episodes to happen again in the future.
I see this in a very different way.  You see, by allowing people to ignorantly speak, those of us with facts and tolerance can demonstrate quite effectively why such claims are false.  It doesn't take much effort to point out that the Armenian Genocide did happen.  The same applies to the Jewish Holocaust.  Only someone truly in denial or delusion would continue to believe that these things didn't happen when the entire world has a record of these events.  You would have to literally believe there is a worldwide conspiracy to deceive people about these very specific things in order to defend such denials when confronted with such blatant facts.

Quite frankly, someone that deluded isn't going to be swayed by any laws, but I'm assuming such people are in the minority.

In summary, by allowing public discussion of things like the Armenian genocide, people can rationally prove that it did occur, and by extension, they can diminish the number of deniers out there.  By making a statement illegal, you have brought undue attention to the ignorance, and therefore, it is easier to believe in a conspiracy supporting it.

What Clinton did was perjury.  Lying under oath is punishable by law, and so is denying anything else under oath.  I still believe the Lewinsky investigation was a massive waste of time and taxpayer money, but that doesn't excuse Clinton for perjury.
2006-10-15 14:54:37
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7012|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

In several EU countries is a crime to deny the Holocaust.  As a liberal do you encourage ignorance by letting fascists or racists say a Genocide didn't happen?  You can discuss the motivation, but a denial is out of question.  You can't allow ignorance to spread.  When a person says the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust didn't happen, that person is lying, do we agree?  If we don't let that person tell a lie about such terrible crime we are denying his freedom of speech?  Why did they deny Clinton freedom of speech when he lied about the BJ?  You can enjoy freedom of speech but you can't make propaganda about a crime. 
Freedom of Speech is a great thing, but in this case you can't allow ignorant people to spread hate and you must prevent this kind of episodes to happen again in the future.
I see this in a very different way.  You see, by allowing people to ignorantly speak, those of us with facts and tolerance can demonstrate quite effectively why such claims are false.  It doesn't take much effort to point out that the Armenian Genocide did happen.  The same applies to the Jewish Holocaust.  Only someone truly in denial or delusion would continue to believe that these things didn't happen when the entire world has a record of these events.  You would have to literally believe there is a worldwide conspiracy to deceive people about these very specific things in order to defend such denials when confronted with such blatant facts.

Quite frankly, someone that deluded isn't going to be swayed by any laws, but I'm assuming such people are in the minority.

In summary, by allowing public discussion of things like the Armenian genocide, people can rationally prove that it did occur, and by extension, they can diminish the number of deniers out there.  By making a statement illegal, you have brought undue attention to the ignorance, and therefore, it is easier to believe in a conspiracy supporting it.

What Clinton did was perjury.  Lying under oath is punishable by law, and so is denying anything else under oath.  I still believe the Lewinsky investigation was a massive waste of time and taxpayer money, but that doesn't excuse Clinton for perjury.
Imagine this scenario: a 11 years old kids classroom, a teacher speaking about history.  He denies the Holocaust, and says that Jews are making up stories and in fact that never occured.  A kid goes to home and talks with his parents about the issue.  Dad what is the Holocaust?  Dad explains to him the real facts.  Then, the kid tells the teacher's story.  Next day you have a lot of fathers at school asking for the teacher's head.  The school fires the teacher.  Was his freedom of speech wrongly punished?
2006-10-15 15:01:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6660|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

In several EU countries is a crime to deny the Holocaust.  As a liberal do you encourage ignorance by letting fascists or racists say a Genocide didn't happen?  You can discuss the motivation, but a denial is out of question.  You can't allow ignorance to spread.  When a person says the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust didn't happen, that person is lying, do we agree?  If we don't let that person tell a lie about such terrible crime we are denying his freedom of speech?  Why did they deny Clinton freedom of speech when he lied about the BJ?  You can enjoy freedom of speech but you can't make propaganda about a crime. 
Freedom of Speech is a great thing, but in this case you can't allow ignorant people to spread hate and you must prevent this kind of episodes to happen again in the future.
I see this in a very different way.  You see, by allowing people to ignorantly speak, those of us with facts and tolerance can demonstrate quite effectively why such claims are false.  It doesn't take much effort to point out that the Armenian Genocide did happen.  The same applies to the Jewish Holocaust.  Only someone truly in denial or delusion would continue to believe that these things didn't happen when the entire world has a record of these events.  You would have to literally believe there is a worldwide conspiracy to deceive people about these very specific things in order to defend such denials when confronted with such blatant facts.

Quite frankly, someone that deluded isn't going to be swayed by any laws, but I'm assuming such people are in the minority.

In summary, by allowing public discussion of things like the Armenian genocide, people can rationally prove that it did occur, and by extension, they can diminish the number of deniers out there.  By making a statement illegal, you have brought undue attention to the ignorance, and therefore, it is easier to believe in a conspiracy supporting it.

What Clinton did was perjury.  Lying under oath is punishable by law, and so is denying anything else under oath.  I still believe the Lewinsky investigation was a massive waste of time and taxpayer money, but that doesn't excuse Clinton for perjury.
Imagine this scenario: a 11 years old kids classroom, a teacher speaking about history.  He denies the Holocaust, and says that Jews are making up stories and in fact that never occured.  A kid goes to home and talks with his parents about the issue.  Dad what is the Holocaust?  Dad explains to him the real facts.  Then, the kid tells the teacher's story.  Next day you have a lot of fathers at school asking for the teacher's head.  The school fires the teacher.  Was his freedom of speech wrongly punished?
What you're talking about is quite different.  A school board is responsible for the quality of a school's education.  Assuming we're not talking about certain areas of Kansas, most communities truly care about the accuracy of history courses when presented with issues like this one.  They obviously don't want a denier teaching WW2 history or a creationist teaching evolution.  Therefore, the inevitable flack that a school board would get for employing this teacher would naturally result in the firing of the teacher.  Schools should be representative of their constituents in much the same way government should be.  Firing this teacher was following the interests of the community, not violating his freedom of speech.

If the government threw this man in jail or fined him over his denial of the Holocaust, then yes, that would violate the freedom of speech.  That's what France is essentially set to do.
2006-10-15 15:05:46
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7012|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I see this in a very different way.  You see, by allowing people to ignorantly speak, those of us with facts and tolerance can demonstrate quite effectively why such claims are false.  It doesn't take much effort to point out that the Armenian Genocide did happen.  The same applies to the Jewish Holocaust.  Only someone truly in denial or delusion would continue to believe that these things didn't happen when the entire world has a record of these events.  You would have to literally believe there is a worldwide conspiracy to deceive people about these very specific things in order to defend such denials when confronted with such blatant facts.

Quite frankly, someone that deluded isn't going to be swayed by any laws, but I'm assuming such people are in the minority.

In summary, by allowing public discussion of things like the Armenian genocide, people can rationally prove that it did occur, and by extension, they can diminish the number of deniers out there.  By making a statement illegal, you have brought undue attention to the ignorance, and therefore, it is easier to believe in a conspiracy supporting it.

What Clinton did was perjury.  Lying under oath is punishable by law, and so is denying anything else under oath.  I still believe the Lewinsky investigation was a massive waste of time and taxpayer money, but that doesn't excuse Clinton for perjury.
Imagine this scenario: a 11 years old kids classroom, a teacher speaking about history.  He denies the Holocaust, and says that Jews are making up stories and in fact that never occured.  A kid goes to home and talks with his parents about the issue.  Dad what is the Holocaust?  Dad explains to him the real facts.  Then, the kid tells the teacher's story.  Next day you have a lot of fathers at school asking for the teacher's head.  The school fires the teacher.  Was his freedom of speech wrongly punished?
What you're talking about is quite different.  A school board is responsible for the quality of a school's education.  Assuming we're not talking about certain areas of Kansas, most communities truly care about the accuracy of history courses when presented with issues like this one.  They obviously don't want a denier teaching WW2 history or a creationist teaching evolution.  Therefore, the inevitable flack that a school board would get for employing this teacher would naturally result in the firing of the teacher.  Schools should be representative of their constituents in much the same way government should be.  Firing this teacher was following the interests of the community, not violating his freedom of speech.

If the government threw this man in jail or fined him over his denial of the Holocaust, then yes, that would violate the freedom of speech.  That's what France is essentially set to do.
I think getting fired is worse than getting fined.  And forgive me, but a teacher who says that to kids belongs in jail.  I'm liberal not anarchist.
2006-10-15 15:23:10
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6660|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

I think getting fired is worse than getting fined.  And forgive me, but a teacher who says that to kids belongs in jail.  I'm liberal not anarchist.
Serge, I'm really surprised at how staunch you are on this one.  I understand your concerns, but I just don't understand your reasoning here.

Firing the teacher is similar to people not reelecting a politician.  When someone makes a big verbal gaffe while in office, that can lead to the people shifting their support to someone else.  I see this in much the same way as with the teacher.  Getting fired from a job is, indeed, worse in and of itself as a punishment, but the difference is that it's not the government doing it.  A company or school board is not subject to the same limitations as government, so therefore, they can fire pretty much anyone they want to.

Thankfully, the American government doesn't usually imprison people for what they say, although they did a lot of this during the Red Scare.  Several people's lives were ruined by the American government over McCarthyism.  I don't want us to return to that era, whether it has to do with communism, Islamism, or denial of historical events.

That's hardly an anarchist suggestion....
2006-10-15 16:22:10
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7012|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I think getting fired is worse than getting fined.  And forgive me, but a teacher who says that to kids belongs in jail.  I'm liberal not anarchist.
Serge, I'm really surprised at how staunch you are on this one.  I understand your concerns, but I just don't understand your reasoning here.

Firing the teacher is similar to people not reelecting a politician.  When someone makes a big verbal gaffe while in office, that can lead to the people shifting their support to someone else.  I see this in much the same way as with the teacher.  Getting fired from a job is, indeed, worse in and of itself as a punishment, but the difference is that it's not the government doing it.  A company or school board is not subject to the same limitations as government, so therefore, they can fire pretty much anyone they want to.

Thankfully, the American government doesn't usually imprison people for what they say, although they did a lot of this during the Red Scare.  Several people's lives were ruined by the American government over McCarthyism.  I don't want us to return to that era, whether it has to do with communism, Islamism, or denial of historical events.

That's hardly an anarchist suggestion....
Read the EU laws against Holocaust Denial, I think they don't get you in jail just for saying it, you must do something very extreme.  In most cases you only get a fine.  How do you compare this with McCarthyism?  That was complete abolition of freedom of speech and this is prevention of another Genocide taking place in the future.  With McCarthyism you couldn't say anything, you were labeled as communist just for thinking different.  People who deny these two episodes don't think.
2006-10-15 16:34:17
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6660|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

Read the EU laws against Holocaust Denial, I think they don't get you in jail just for saying it, you must do something very extreme.  In most cases you only get a fine.  How do you compare this with McCarthyism?  That was complete abolition of freedom of speech and this is prevention of another Genocide taking place in the future.  With McCarthyism you couldn't say anything, you were labeled as communist just for thinking different.  People who deny these two episodes don't think.
I understand why Holocaust Denial was originally deemed a crime after WW2 in Europe.  It was a valid concern when pockets of Nazi resistance groups were still around in Germany and elsewhere.  However, I think 60 years is more than enough time for these countries to have healed with regards to it.  It should no longer be a crime, because nowadays, its illegal status has made it a staple of an underground neo-Nazi culture in Germany and Austria.  Such movements would not be as eminent if these people were allowed to speak their minds.  Then, publicly, they could be discredited and shamed for being so stupid.  With it still being a crime, it lends an unworthy glory to it in the minds of these unstable people.  It's as if they are bucking the system by believing in it.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-10-15 16:34:37)

2006-10-15 18:34:57
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6774|Πάϊ
This issue is really difficult to judge... On one hand you got freedom of speech which is indispensable, and on the other you got denial of a historical fact...

I think the key issue here has to do with who says what. What I mean is: If a single person (or a relatively large number of single persons for that matter) was to deny the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But here we're dealing with an orchestrated and massive effort to change history. Entire nations are taught false facts, with a clear intention to one day change the way the entire world views a certain situation.

I have seen this happen elsewhere as well. For example: Have you ever heard of Macedonia? How many of you know it as a place (county) in Greece, and how many of you know it as the separate state just above Greece (formerly called Skopje) ?

A few days ago, FYROM*, which is the real name of that country, were playing England for Euro 2008 qualifiers. The header of the english channel that was broadcasting the game read Macedonia, until ERT, the Greek National TV protested, by which time it was changed to FYROM. The same "mistake" seems to happen in every book or map etc.

It is clear in such cases that there are no mistakes or misconceptions involved. Some people stand to gain a lot from changing or clouding historical facts, that's all. My guess is that it is this precise phenomenon the French are trying to put an end to by penalizing denial.

* FYROM: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
ƒ³
2006-10-16 00:06:30
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6816

sergeriver wrote:

You are wrong, ignorance perpetrates when people learn false facts.  History is truth and nobody can deny your freedom of speech relating the Holocaust if you talk with the truth, but you can't say it didn't happen.  Your freedom of speech ends right there m8.
*Ahem*

Bubbalo wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Then you have an asshat like Ottomania opening a thread "do you agree that the Armenian Genocide is a myth?" and defending the turks saying there's no proof of it.
Which he has every right to do.  The problem is, how do you make the call on what is or isn't disputable?
Well?

sergeriver wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Nobody should deny this Genocide or the Holocaust, because who does is a complete ignorant, and ignorance is the worst of humans problems.
If we start by outlawing ignorance, what do we outlaw next?  Stupidity?  Lack of fashion sense?
I didn't expect that from you.  You are twisting my words to sound like you want.  Not all ignorants are racists, but all racists are ignorants.  What they are outlawing here is public racism.  If you wanna be a racist do it in your home, I think this is the main idea.
No, I'm not.  You are saying that the reason this should be outlawed is that it's ignorant.  I'm asking what you will outlaw next.  It is, for example, ignorant to say that pink is a girls colour.  Are we going to outlaw that?
2006-10-16 00:08:15
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6899
pink is a girls color
2006-10-16 00:18:07
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6816
My lacy underwear says otherwise!
2006-10-16 00:34:52
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6841|Montreal

Bubbalo wrote:

I disagree with any law like this.  The word "though-crime" comes to mind.
2006-10-16 00:40:29
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6816
I find it funny that what is probably my most quoted comment has a typo in it.......................

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard