 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Jomb Posts: 111/448 |
I dont see how holocaust denial is ABSOLUTELY IN EVERY SINGLE CASE tied to incitement of violence. Yes, maybe in most cases, but i strongly doubt its in every single case. Freedom of speech should still cover it except in cases where it goes beyond holocaust denial to outright incitement of violence. I never said freedom of speech was absolute, just that in my opinion it should be, with the distinction of things like yelling fire in crowded building with the intent to cause harm, which would be a criminal act.
Trying to alter peoples beliefs in historical facts should not be a crime, because historical "facts" are notoriously shady. History is based on what our best knowledge at the time is, and that changes. As far as there being no hated minorities today, i know that to be wrong. I can think of one group which is very hated and oppressed right here in America, due to the public's misinformation and fear. But its not an ethnicity. |
| emcee Posts: 242/867 |
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by Wurl...no, I never argued that. When I brought up the issue of the media, I thought more of the various pundits who make a living off of criticizing political figures' actions. If George Bush were to begin spouting anti-Jewish rhetoric, he would be attacked so visibly and thoroughly on television and radio that a person could not help but recognize it. He couldn't be so subtle and fly under the radar with it, because someone in the modern world would be quick to call him on it (which nobody really did with Hitler). You're missing the major issue here. It's not like one day Hitler was considered a general all around good guy, and the next day he just up and said "Hey, here's an idea, let's kill all the Jews". There had alway been some level of antisemitism in Europe, but after the Depression when it appeared that the Jews had came out relatively unscathed, they became a source of envy, and then a source of blame and a scapegoat for all the problems. And the Nazis nutured this hate and gradually went from oppression to slavery to mass execution. You think that can't happen here? Then you're right, you are being naive. After 9/11 there was racial tensions toward Muslim, and Arabs unlike any time in recent US history. It's obvious that much of the support giving to the Administration for the war in Iraq came from anger toward Arabs in general, since we can't catch all the individuals who did it (specifically Bin Laden), let's just declare war on the whole lot. They're the scapegoat. How many people, reported on in the mainstream press, spoke out against the detainment of prisoners in Guantanamo, without so much as a trial, even months after 9/11? God forbid there's another attack, worst than the first. With all the anger, hate and fear is it so unthinkable that a strong leader could convince the general population that internment is nessicary? Then internment camps become concentration camps, and concentration camps become death camps. |
| Silvershield Posts: 63/587 |
Originally posted by Wurl...no, I never argued that. When I brought up the issue of the media, I thought more of the various pundits who make a living off of criticizing political figures' actions. If George Bush were to begin spouting anti-Jewish rhetoric, he would be attacked so visibly and thoroughly on television and radio that a person could not help but recognize it. He couldn't be so subtle and fly under the radar with it, because someone in the modern world would be quick to call him on it (which nobody really did with Hitler). And, even if it were the media's coverage that would prevent genocide, you make it sound as if the American media pays a lot of attention to other countries, and foreign genocide has sort of just "gone unnoticed." Given the same circumstances or events in America, I can guarantee you that they'd be spotted and strewn all over the media immediately. |
| Wurl Posts: 574/842 |
My point is the media, which you argue will prevent genocide by covering the story, ignores alot of those important stories. More disturbing many major world powers ignore or help these crimes against humanity.
P.S. "Fixed" that letter a that snuck into Rwanda. |
| Sin Dogan Posts: 351/861 |
Originally posted by Wurl I can ask "how many people actually remember the Rwanda(correct spelling, btw) incident when it happened?"(I do, for the sake of argument) but there's no point to it. Also how many people do you think know about more recent genocides like in Srebenica(sp?) and Gujarat. That's more troubling because of the chronological proximity. Gujarat being in 2002 and Srebenica being in 1995. |
| Silvershield Posts: 62/587 |
Alright, let me restate my point concisely: in my estimation, genocide is essentially impossible in the modern First World because, of the steps that necessarily precede such large scale murder - for example, the process of convincing a population to be outwardly hateful towards the targeted group - none are plausible when considering the role of modern institutions (mainly the media). |
| Ziff Posts: 692/1800 |
I hardly think SS is going to start running around attack Hutus and Tsitsis, I think emcee's point was that genocide still occurs today. It's a pity that more people aren't educated against the various genocidal campaigns in history...Armenia, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, etc. |
| Silvershield Posts: 61/587 |
Originally posted by WurlHow is that? |
| Arwon Posts: 127/631 |
Originally posted by Crashman We did? |
| Wurl Posts: 573/842 |
The fact that you don't know about the genocide in Rwanda disproves the fact about media preventing genocide somewhat. |
| Silvershield Posts: 60/587 |
Originally posted by emcee...what?Originally posted by Silvershield Originally posted by emceeIt's easy for us to turn a blind eye to Rwanda because it's across the ocean. I don't forsee any such incident in our own country, though. |
| emcee Posts: 239/867 |
Originally posted by Silvershield Exactly. Originally posted by Silvershield My point is, for all our political correctness it doesn't stop us from turning a blind eye when a situation doesn't directly effect us. I can't say for certian what happened in Germany, but I suspect not everyone got behind the whole extermination idea, its just easier to look the other way. |
| Silvershield Posts: 59/587 |
I'm not familiar with what happened in Rwanda, but I don't think it's a First World country and, as such, its media and social conventions are not as developed as those in, say, America. |
| emcee Posts: 234/867 |
Well it would be nice if that was true, but what happened in Rwanda in 1994 tells me otherwise. |
| Silvershield Posts: 58/587 |
It may be naive to say so, but I really don't think the likes of the Holocaust could ever occur in the modern day. Political correctness and its related institutions are so widespread that any sort of hate speech is supressed before it has any chance of reaching such a scale. Surely there are white supremecists and similar groups, and they spout their nonsense, but we'll never reach the point of any major segment of the population shouting "kill all the [ethnicity]!" because I really can't imagine something as relatively minor as "we hate all the [ethnicity]!" reaching the mainstream. And, before Hitler began eradicating the Jews, he had to get the majority of the nation's populace on board with Jew-hating sentiment, a development that I really couldn't imagine in the modern First World. |
| Crashman Posts: 45/80 |
The man was not so much exercising his ability of free speach, as he was trying to alter the peoples belief in historical facts. And due to the sheer magnitude of the Holocaust and the mentallity that created it, the fine nation of austraila saw fit to institute a law making it illegal to infere or state that the Holocaust never happened, lest it somehow happen again.
I mean, look at why they did it. It was ignorance, racism fear and hatred that allowed the Holocaust to happen. Making it illegal to say otherwise in effect prevents the forming of the mental states that precipitated the Holocaust, or at leat prevents it on a large enough scale to allow another such atrocity to happen. Scary shit man..... |
| Wurl Posts: 569/842 |
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination Then I say we get Irving on inciting violence instead of speech. |
| emcee Posts: 226/867 |
No, inciteful is way too broad. Yes, Holocaust denial can be considered inciteful (as opposed to insightful). But, anyone speaking out against something and be construed as incitement. And really, to me atleast, when someone's speaking out against something, that's when freedom of speech is most important.
Take the civil rights movement. The civil rights leaders weren't advocating violence, but just bringing attention to the problem of racial inequality was enough to bring racial tensions in the US to the point of riots. And, yes, "that's different". The civil rights leaders of the 50s and 60s were right, David Irving isn't. Well, hindsight's 20/20. Alot of people thought Martin Luther King was wrong. And besides that, this isn't just about Irving. I don't feel the least bit bad that David Irving is going to prison, he's a racist antisemite. And it's my understanding that Eastern Europe doesn't put as much importance on freedom of expression as they do farther west. But even for Austria, I feel they are setting a dangerous presidence by crimalising speech that's not in itself inciteful. Saying "The Holocaust didn't happen" is clearly not the same as saying "The Holocaust didn't happen, so kill some Jews", the listener must make that connection on their own. It's not too hard to make the connection between Holocaust denial and violent antisemitism. But what about cases a little more in the "gray area". What about "The Passion of the Christ"? To some, its just a expression of Christian faith, meant to remind people of the sacrifice their savior made for them. For others, its meant to accuse Jews of deicide, and stir up anger towards Jews. So should Austria ban this movie? If it was made there, would Mel Gibson go to prison? But I've seen the movie, and there are basically two types of scenes: long, drawn-out beating scenes (adapted from one or two sentences in the Bible) where Roman authorities are the main antagonist, and scene that are literally word for word adaptations of the Gospels, and these are the scene people take issue with. As a matter of fact one line was removed from one of these scene because it was so contriversial, even though it was taken right from the Gospels. So should Austria ban the New Testament? |
| Arwon Posts: 126/631 |
Well no, because none of those things are inseparably tied up with antisemetic, violent fascist movements to the point where they're basically the only ones who hold that view. Holocaust denial, for all intents and purposes, essentially *is* advocating the associated ideas, and it is advocating the idea that the Jews are a conspiratorial minority undermining European civilisation. Your other attempts at analogy are fatally flawed for this reason.
But anyway, let's take a step back here. This began with me pointing out the inconsistancy of people going "the west values free speech as an absolute" in defending publishing cartoons designed to incite and inflame and offend muslims... then the west also going "no, here, free speech isn't absolute because it's the Holocaust". Clearly this simply lends credence to the claims that if it pisses off Muslims that's okay, but what if it were antisemetic cartoons the Danish paper was publishing? I doubt too many people would've rallied to their defence... Islam is just an easy target right now. I'm actually undecided on the Holocaust Denial issue, it's probably a lot more sensitive in countries where it happened. Regardless, the issue here is the absolutism of free speech. You claimed free speech is absolute in all cases. Clearly it isn't. Speech can cause harm, we've demonstrated cases in which speech can cause harm, ranging from holocaust deniers adding fuel to the neonazi fire, to trolling cartoons deliberately inciting people with a very different attitude to their prophet and to the printed images, to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. The right to free speech must be balanced against other often contradictory rights, just like each other. Free speech does not mean freedom to deliberately and intentionally incite hate and incite violence, or to cause unjustified public panic, because that violates other folks' rights. For example, in the case of Holocaust denial, it violates the right to feel safe from fucking Nazis. Now, different countries balance these two conflicting rights differently, but the point remains, free speech is not an absolute any more than any other right is. |
| Jomb Posts: 110/448 |
And what if all that were true? So what, i did'nt have anything to do with gravity existing (or not) 
Or what if i said Bush is a loser and should be removed from office. Should i go to prision because that could cause damages in lost confidence, possibly inspire some wacko to attempt assassination, or could be interpreted as a lie (he is not a loser as he won the election)? Or what if i were to vehemently believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, many have died over that one, so should i go to prison? When you start limiting what people can say or believe, you begin down that road towards fascism, even if your intentions were good at the start. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
