 |
| 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. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Holocaust denial |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Nah that's dodgy, you are getting way too literal. "Yelling fire" is a common sense and widely known example illustrating the principle that sometimes words themselves can cause harm, and that some speech cannot be considered sacrosanct, and that therefore, free speech, while incredibly incredibly important, can't be held as completely absolute.
I actually largely disagree that wartime is or should be an exception, especially in these days of limited warfare coupled with tight, overbearing, unjustified levels of evasiveness, secrecy and media "management" but that's just a matter of where we place the goalposts. Yelling "there's a fire here" when there isn't, is an example of speech which is not protected by the principle of free speech, precisely because, as you say, it causes a "public disturbance" (I'd call it "a fucking deadly deadly stampede" rather than a "disturbance" but hey, to each their own). |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku     Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| To me free speech means the ability to have your own opinions and to exp Though i dont see anything particularly humorous or redeeming in the cartoons of Mohammed, i still think the person who drew them was entitled to free exp |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Well you've just hit apon the rationale for incitement laws right there man. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, pedalling incendiary rhetoric with the intent to stir up hate, anger and violence, pandering to the beliefs of a tiny violent and antisocial minority by denying the systemic massacre of about 8 million people... it's essentially the same principle. The recognition that sometimes words can be more than just words, and can be used in dangerous or criminal ways. That free speech is not an absolute any more than any other right or principle is. (edited by Arwon on 02-23-06 07:41 PM) |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| There is a world of difference between yelling fire in a theater to cause a stampede, and claiming the holocaust did'nt happen. Yelling fire had a malicious intent, and is going to cause a reaction immediately (people dont sit around and contemplate whether or not there is a fire when their life could depend on it in a matter of seconds). Writing a book that the holocaust did'nt happen is not putting people's lives in immediate danger, people have all the time in the world to ignore it or debate it or make their own mind up about it. Its not like if they dont immediately act on the holocaust book then they could be killed in a fire. Also, what if this guy really believes he is right? Then its not a malicious act, its just one guy putting out what he thinks is truth. Any one else is free to then put out a book about what crap his book is. It would be different if his book contained a plan which it advocated for people to go out and murder jews. But even then i'd consider anyone who listened to him and actually killed someone to be far more guilty than the dumbass who wrote a book. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES  Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jomb But Irving DID advocate such stances in his earlier statements and CAN be linked to having incited hate violence. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| Thats different then, i dont know much about him other than someone saying he is in prison for denying the holocaust. If what he actually did was advocate murdering people (in a serious and not joking way), then thats completely different and makes alot more sense. | |||
Supersuit Goomba Since: 01-17-06 From: crap-for-weather Michigan Last post: 6619 days Last view: 6619 days |
| ||
| Of course the holocaust did happen, so the only crime you can convict this man of is lying. While it is a sin, and on a grandscale subject, I'm not sure if it alone will have him punished, as America's finest Bill Clinton showed. He could have also been awfully brainwashed, to the point where you'd show him the disgust of which prisoners were treated at Aushwitz and he'd do everything in his power to prove the images were fake. The right to say the holocaust didn't exist is probably valid, but if it weren't, it would only be to save him from the immediate public opinion ("you're a moron, GTFO"). In American Free Speech's fuzzy mass, lies are never comparable to profanity, and even that's been bent long past the breaking point. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| The thing with holocaust denial is it's so far beyond the pale, so undniably obvious that it happened, that denying it almost automatically identifies you as having certain other allegiences and beliefs. | |||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| So if i said there is no such thing as gravity, then i should go to prison because i'm obviously wrong? | |||
|
Thexare Metal battleaxe Off to better places  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| That depends. Was someone responsible for gravity's existence? And if so, did he kill or order the killing of countless people in order to make gravity exist? | |||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
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. (edited by Jomb on 02-24-06 07:31 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| 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. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| 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 exp 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 exp |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6337 days Last view: 6337 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination Then I say we get Irving on inciting violence instead of speech. |
|||
Crashman Grizzo  Since: 12-26-05 From: Maine Last post: 6332 days Last view: 6332 days |
| ||
| 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..... |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| 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. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Well it would be nice if that was true, but what happened in Rwanda in 1994 tells me otherwise. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| 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 Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
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. (edited by emcee on 02-26-06 07:04 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
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. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Holocaust denial |
| |
