Pages: 1

 

Poll

What is More Important to You?

Freedom of Speech85%85% - 17
Laws Against Genocide Denial15%15% - 3
Total: 20
2007-01-22 10:08:47
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7183|Argentina
A lot of countries in Europe consider the Genocide Denial (Nazi Holocaust or Armenian Genocide) as a crime.  These countries ban your freedom to deny these crimes that are historically proven.  They do this to prevent present and future generations to commit the same mistakes some assholes did in the past. 
In your opinion, what is more important, the freedom of speech, or avoiding these crimes against humanity to happen again?

These countries have these penalties for violation of Laws against Holocaust Denial:

Country                           Minimum         Maximum
Austria                            6 months       10-20 years
Belgium                              Fine              1 year
Czech Republic                6 months         2 years
France                        Fine or 1 month    2 years
Germany                    Fine or 6 months   5 years
Israel                                1 year           5 years
Lithuania                     Fine or 2 years    10 years
Poland                       Fine or 3 months    3 years
Romania                          6 months       3-5 years
Slovakia                     Fine or 1 month     3 years
Switzerland                  Fine or 1 year   15 months

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-01-22 10:47:54)

2007-01-22 10:16:21
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981
Freedom of speech all the way. Genocide denial laws do NOTHING to prevent future bad things happening and are pathetically laughable. It's like price fixing - black markets develop. One cannot quell a concept or idea. Criminalising it adds an air of mystique to it, such criminalisation is tempting to misguided people who wish to 'rebel'. Let the idiots say what they want - as soon as they starting taking harmful actions (rather than words) then their waywardness must be nipped in the bud.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-22 10:19:28)

2007-01-22 10:27:49
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7183|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:

Freedom of speech all the way. Genocide denial laws do NOTHING to prevent future bad things happening and are pathetically laughable. It's like price fixing - black markets develop. One cannot quell a concept or idea. Criminalising it adds an air of mystique to it, such criminalisation is tempting to misguided people who wish to 'rebel'. Let the idiots say what they want - as soon as they starting taking harmful actions (rather than words) then their waywardness must be nipped in the bud.
We'll never agree on this issue.  These countries do this because humans are so dumb they need a government to ban a part of their rights in order to prevent the same BS happening again.  You'll find that a lot of persons are weak and easy to convince of the wrong thing.  What do you think about a guy saying "the Earth is the center of the universe"?  He is an ignorant.  But in this case his ignorance doesn't affect anybody, except himself.  But when someone is denying a Genocide, is saying "Hey Hitler was a good dude, he lost the WWII, but he didn't do bad things".  That guy is an asshole, and like the first one he isn't telling the truth, but in this case he can teach a younger one, the wrong stuff.  Spreading ignorance about crimes against humanity is allowing them to happen again.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-01-22 10:29:27)

2007-01-22 10:29:29
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7007|SE London

Null Vote.

I don't think there should be specific laws against genocide denial, nor do I think freedom of speech should be unnecessarily infringed upon.

There are cases when misinformation causes all sorts of problems, which is why we have libel laws and a national curriculum in schools. Making sure people are not misinformed by complete nonsense is important and public figures and published writers denying genocide is an example of that, which I believe should not be allowed. There shouldn't be a law that will prevent any wacko from saying it, but it should not be published or taught to anyone by any type of authority figure.
2007-01-22 10:32:56
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981

sergeriver wrote:

We'll never agree on this issue.  These countries do this because humans are so dumb they need a government to ban a part of their rights in order to prevent the same BS happening again.  You'll find that a lot of persons are weak and easy to convince of the wrong thing.  What do you think about a guy saying "the Earth is the center of the universe"?  He is an ignorant.  But in this case his ignorance doesn't affect anybody, except himself.  But when someone is denying a Genocide, is saying "Hey Hitler was a good dude, he lost the WWII, but he didn't do bad things".  That guy is an asshole, and like the first one he isn't telling the truth, but in this case he can teach a younger one, the wrong stuff.  Spreading ignorance about crimes against humanity is allowing them to happen again.
I don't see how banning it will prevent people holding such views. I don't see how allowing fringe minorities to air such stupid views endangers anyone, provided they are shouted down loud enough by the moral majority.
2007-01-22 10:33:23
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7183|Argentina

Bertster7 wrote:

Null Vote.

I don't think there should be specific laws against genocide denial, nor do I think freedom of speech should be unnecessarily infringed upon.

There are cases when misinformation causes all sorts of problems, which is why we have libel laws and a national curriculum in schools. Making sure people are not misinformed by complete nonsense is important and public figures and published writers denying genocide is an example of that, which I believe should not be allowed. There shouldn't be a law that will prevent any wacko from saying it, but it should not be published or taught to anyone by any type of authority figure.
You say "There shouldn't be a law that will prevent any wacko from saying it, but it should not be published or taught to anyone by any type of authority figure".  How do you avoid this?  Only laws can do that.  In this case, your freedom of speech is less important than avoiding these wackos saying BS.
2007-01-22 10:36:56
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Null Vote.

I don't think there should be specific laws against genocide denial, nor do I think freedom of speech should be unnecessarily infringed upon.

There are cases when misinformation causes all sorts of problems, which is why we have libel laws and a national curriculum in schools. Making sure people are not misinformed by complete nonsense is important and public figures and published writers denying genocide is an example of that, which I believe should not be allowed. There shouldn't be a law that will prevent any wacko from saying it, but it should not be published or taught to anyone by any type of authority figure.
You say "There shouldn't be a law that will prevent any wacko from saying it, but it should not be published or taught to anyone by any type of authority figure".  How do you avoid this?  Only laws can do that.  In this case, your freedom of speech is less important than avoiding these wackos saying BS.
You can outlaw governmental agencies holding such views (schools, ministries, etc.) - you needn't restrict the average joe soap on the street. It's like maintaining governmental secularity whilst allowing politicians and people alike to practice whatever religion they want in their spare time.
2007-01-22 10:39:31
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7197|PNW

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Freedom of speech all the way. Genocide denial laws do NOTHING to prevent future bad things happening and are pathetically laughable. It's like price fixing - black markets develop. One cannot quell a concept or idea. Criminalising it adds an air of mystique to it, such criminalisation is tempting to misguided people who wish to 'rebel'. Let the idiots say what they want - as soon as they starting taking harmful actions (rather than words) then their waywardness must be nipped in the bud.
We'll never agree on this issue.  These countries do this because humans are so dumb they need a government to ban a part of their rights in order to prevent the same BS happening again.  You'll find that a lot of persons are weak and easy to convince of the wrong thing.  What do you think about a guy saying "the Earth is the center of the universe"?  He is an ignorant.  But in this case his ignorance doesn't affect anybody, except himself.  But when someone is denying a Genocide, is saying "Hey Hitler was a good dude, he lost the WWII, but he didn't do bad things".  That guy is an asshole, and like the first one he isn't telling the truth, but in this case he can teach a younger one, the wrong stuff.  Spreading ignorance about crimes against humanity is allowing them to happen again.
Even if you did side with the Nazis, you wouldn't like Hitler's "later" years in power. What a flake.
2007-01-22 10:40:44
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7183|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

We'll never agree on this issue.  These countries do this because humans are so dumb they need a government to ban a part of their rights in order to prevent the same BS happening again.  You'll find that a lot of persons are weak and easy to convince of the wrong thing.  What do you think about a guy saying "the Earth is the center of the universe"?  He is an ignorant.  But in this case his ignorance doesn't affect anybody, except himself.  But when someone is denying a Genocide, is saying "Hey Hitler was a good dude, he lost the WWII, but he didn't do bad things".  That guy is an asshole, and like the first one he isn't telling the truth, but in this case he can teach a younger one, the wrong stuff.  Spreading ignorance about crimes against humanity is allowing them to happen again.
I don't see how banning it will prevent people holding such views. I don't see how allowing fringe minorities to air such stupid views endangers anyone, provided they are shouted down loud enough by the moral majority.
You can't know when some asshole is going to initiate another movement like Hitler did.  In fact, it is still happening.  In Rwanda 800k were killed in 1993/94 because of ignorance.  Allowing people to tell the wrong story (only in the case of crimes against humanity like Genocide) is spreading ignorance.
2007-01-22 10:43:05
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7007|SE London

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Null Vote.

I don't think there should be specific laws against genocide denial, nor do I think freedom of speech should be unnecessarily infringed upon.

There are cases when misinformation causes all sorts of problems, which is why we have libel laws and a national curriculum in schools. Making sure people are not misinformed by complete nonsense is important and public figures and published writers denying genocide is an example of that, which I believe should not be allowed. There shouldn't be a law that will prevent any wacko from saying it, but it should not be published or taught to anyone by any type of authority figure.
You say "There shouldn't be a law that will prevent any wacko from saying it, but it should not be published or taught to anyone by any type of authority figure".  How do you avoid this?  Only laws can do that.  In this case, your freedom of speech is less important than avoiding these wackos saying BS.
You can outlaw governmental agencies holding such views (schools, ministries, etc.) - you needn't restrict the average joe soap on the street. It's like maintaining governmental secularity whilst allowing politicians and people alike to practice whatever religion they want in their spare time.
That's pretty much what I meant.

Though my post was horribly written. I'd also include mainstream media as being banned from saying stuff that isn't true, because that's where people get their information from in general. Making sure none of these mainstream sources give any credit to these stupid notions means that people who support such ideas will tend to be ridiculed, which prevents them from posing any sort of threat.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-22 10:45:20)

2007-01-22 10:44:14
A12345
Member
+77|6896

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Freedom of speech all the way. Genocide denial laws do NOTHING to prevent future bad things happening and are pathetically laughable. It's like price fixing - black markets develop. One cannot quell a concept or idea. Criminalising it adds an air of mystique to it, such criminalisation is tempting to misguided people who wish to 'rebel'. Let the idiots say what they want - as soon as they starting taking harmful actions (rather than words) then their waywardness must be nipped in the bud.
We'll never agree on this issue.  These countries do this because humans are so dumb they need a government to ban a part of their rights in order to prevent the same BS happening again.  You'll find that a lot of persons are weak and easy to convince of the wrong thing.  What do you think about a guy saying "the Earth is the center of the universe"?  He is an ignorant.  But in this case his ignorance doesn't affect anybody, except himself.  But when someone is denying a Genocide, is saying "Hey Hitler was a good dude, he lost the WWII, but he didn't do bad things".  That guy is an asshole, and like the first one he isn't telling the truth, but in this case he can teach a younger one, the wrong stuff.  Spreading ignorance about crimes against humanity is allowing them to happen again.
yeah im going to agree with Cameron on this one. besides people can think whatever they want, you really believe outlawing an opinion is going to stop people from having it. and some people consider Hitler to be a good dude and they cant be proven wrong. and as for rawanda thats why genocide is illegal and not genocidal thinking. im all for people having thier ideas but some they shouldnt act on them or spread them, but thats just my opinion.

Last edited by A12345 (2007-01-22 10:46:21)

2007-01-22 11:31:14
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6788|Vancouver
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).

We've had some controversial cases in Canada, regarding Holocaust denial and other contentious issues. James Keegstra was a teacher who taught to his students that the Holocaust was a fraud and that Jews are "treacherous, evil and responsible for depressions, anarchy and war."

Canadian law prohibits inciting hatred, the public form of holding such views in order to encourage them and advocate certain activities.  It is fine to hold private views, but attempting to incite hatred with those views is another matter.

I am in agreement with these laws. There is no need to have Holocaust deniers spewing hatred in public forums, attempting to incite hatred in other citizens, most likely to commit crimes, or giving misinformation to the less educated, or in Keegstra's case, to those being educated.
2007-01-22 22:30:19
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7127|Little Rock, Arkansas
Wow, am I really going to be an American telling the Europeans that their laws are too strict? Who would have thought......

Freedom of Speech for the win. You cannot criminalize what people think and say. You CAN criminalize what they do. Whenever you try to turn into the thought police, you jump with both feet onto a slippery slope that has no end in sight. Who are you to say that denying the Holocaust is illegal? What about critizing your country's past actions? What about critizing the current ones?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the morons say whatever they want. People will see them for what they are, idiots, not martyrs willing to go to prison to protect their right to say what they want in the privacy of their own home, or the public square. Sending a man to jail for what he thinks or says is about as unethical as it comes.

And its not what we do here.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard