 |
| 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 Deniers Convention in Iran |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                 Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I don't agree that hate speech laws DO actually restrict freedom of speech in any serious way. I mean, Ireland and New Zealand, for example, are probably more open and free societies with less self-censorship despite the fact that they have hate speech laws and America doesn't. There is no real slippery slope here. You wanna talk about freedom of speech issues, you'd be much better off focussing on the odious sedition laws that've been passed in various countries.
As we've already gone through, free speech isn't an absolute right any more than any other right is an absolute. The generally accepted principle for restricting free speech is the harm principle, that's why we have libel laws and so forth. Hate speech - that is, people getting up and loudly and publically saying things that are intended to be intimidating, insulting, harassing and offensive to certain groups of people, intended to stir up hatred and contempt and even violence -- can potentially do demonstrable harm by themselves, in that they target and aim to undermine specific racial/ethnic/etc groups, and moreover, they aim to create tensions and divisiveness and contribute to a climate of fear and violence. Why should these forms of abusive trolling be protected speech? Frankly, the right of people to stick up posters or shout through megaphones about how horrible Ethnic Group X are and how everyone should stay away from them and not serve them in shops and tell them to go back to their own countries and so forth, isn't a right worth protecting. Once it becomes specifically, hatefully and incitefully targetted at a specific group of people, then applying criminal penalties for this anti-social behaviour is pretty reasonable. They're not really political, and really, free speech laws are about protecting political speech more than anything. Racial abuse, inciting hatred, etc, is just a powerfully anti-social form of behaviour, similar to laws about disturbing the peace and so forth. No, you can't really eliminate the hatreds and ideas behind the speech acts, but you can still use laws like this to make it a bit harder for them to actually, you know, undertake these threatening and harassing behaviours towards people.
Nah, if you're gonna speak of that you need to include the decimation of native peoples in Australia (complete disappearance of the Tasmanians, the only successful genocide in history), Latin America, Africa, etc, as well. Horrible as it was, the experiences of natives in the USA hasn't been unique. Moreover, the historiographical debates over these various things are still fairly complex and unresolved, and the fact that even calling them full-on "genocides" is debatable kinda demonstrates their relationship to the Holocaust. The difference though, is still what I said earlier, about the cold, clinical, utterly gratuitous nature of the Holocaust and how it was an exp (edited by Arwon on 12-22-06 07:35 PM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES   Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Words caused this
 |
|||
Silvershield   580   Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationAnd that same scene has appeared countless times and in countless places - not all of them being World War II Germany. To call the Holocaust "sick" would be about as dire an understatement as I could hope to make, but providing a gruesome photograph that acts only as emotional evidence and doesn't appeal at all to the intellectual discussion - and, for that matter, doesn't even work all that well as emotional evidence, because I could go out and find pictures of ten other genocides that look as bad, if not worse, than that one - is not too effective, I think. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| The difference between the Holocaust and other genocides is the fact that the Holocaust was a legislated and fully industrialized process - it was just that different.
However, that photo speaks volumes of intellectual information. The way that the bodies have been starved and are tossed into a shallow grave, awaiting incineration. They way that they were used for testing and slave labour while they were around. That grim mosaic of corpses repesents the cruel and cold logic that went into the Holocaust. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| So what?
We're all well aware of how the holocaust happened, we had to study the hell out of it, but as Arwon so easily pointed out to me, I know nothing about the Australian genocide and other such things. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SinfjotleSo, I guess a tangent that I can suggest is, does allowing those more obscure atrocities to remain "speakable," but keeping the universally recognized Holocaust as unspeakable, further trivialize the former? Just as a sort of Devil's advocate question, maybe. Those obscure genocides are already given less attention than they deserve - murder on such a large scale, whether it's the high profile German Holocaust or some smaller event in a far corner of the planet, demands that the world community is made aware of it so that it may be remembered and memorialized and whatnot; by not addressing them, are we simply perpetuating a cycle of "ignoring" every holocaust that is not the Holocaust? |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| They're different categories of thing. The Holocaust was the Holocaust, and I can't think of another organised industrialised deliberate extermination that can be set alongside it. By contrast, I think it's illustrative that no one colonial atrocity can be singled out, they're better understood as all falling under the grim and complex banner of "colonialism". I hesitate to call them genocides, but that's a matter of much historiographical debate. You don't need to know about the Tasmanian aboriginals specifically because that's just one of the more extreme examples of a process that repeated itself throughout the world over a period of 3 or 4 hundred years. You don't need to be aware of every specific battle, massacre, failed uprising, in every corner of the world, to be aware of the nature of Colonialism as a whole.
A few examples: Did you know that a century after Columbus made landfall in Hispaniola, the natives of that island were virtually extinct? Ever notice that Argentines seem a great deal more European than other Latin Americans, and if so, did you know it's because the native populace of that area was virtually wiped out? What about the Germans in South West Africa (modern Namibia) who actually, rarely for a European colonial power in Africa, set out to wipe out entire groups of natives? The thing is, though, A LOT of the miseries of the natives of the Americas, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific, were part of the general dynamic of one society claiming the territory and resources of another. Colonialism SUCKED. It continues to be the biggest shaping influences, usually for the worse, in most parts of the world. While horrible, these atrocities weren't really of a different kind than earlier periods of human history. It was still just stronger societies fighting wars of aggression to subjugate other groups of people, take their resources, increase their own power, etcetera. These still strike me as different than the Holocaust, which was a singularly abysmal event and easily the worst crime committed in human history. I baulk at attempts to equate it with colonial atrocities, because the sum total of colonialism just feels different to what Hitler attempted to orchestrate. In terms of cruelty, deliberateness, cool rationality, and so forth, the colonial question still pales compared to what the Holocaust demonstrated modern industrial societies are capable of doing to people. But here's perhaps the key point: just by saying that something wasn't as bad as the Holocaust, the worst crime in history, doesn't mean you're trivialising it. I just don't think it's terribly useful to try to equate colonialism with the Holocaust, because they're better understood as different things. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonAbsolutely correct, but wouldn't the equivalent of saying "Genocide X was not as bad as the Holocaust, but was still terrible" be to enforce some sort of restrictions on speaking about Genocide X, though having those restrictions fall short of the absolute ban on Holocaust denial? What I mean is, at the moment, the Holocaust is the single example with any sort of restrictions whatsoever, whereas every other example has no restrictions whatsoever; does that send the message that the Holocaust is really the only one that should be taken seriously? (Of course, that is not the conscious message being sent, but is it a consequential message that is somehow implied?) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| How about the fact that Holocaust denial is an organised, actual, existing movement? It's not a consequence of trivialising the genocidal history of colonialism or whatever or giving the Jews special treatment, it's a conseuqnece of the fact that HOLOCAUST DENIAL EXISTS AND THE OTHER THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DON'T. Holocaust denial is a crime in about a half dozen European countries and Israel, and that's because these are places which have specific social and historical imperatives compelling them to want to severely repress anything smacking of resurgent anti-Semitism and Nazism. THAT separates Holocaust denial from other ideas. The implicit, automatic association with hategroups and Nazism. There are groups which more or less think that Jews are evil society-destroying parasites, and Holocaust denial is for them an important part of their hateful ideas. THAT makes it different. Practically speaking, Holocaust denial is always associated with hate-speech. Practically speaking, based on what happens in the real world, the Holocaust is a different ballgame.
No such equivalent hate/denial groups exist around any other ethnic group or any other massacre, and that's why there's not denialist movements surrounding them. There's no reason in Europe, to deny that say, the Native Americans, were given smallpox blankeys because there's no anti-Amerindian Nazis who want to deny that in order to deny them sympathy or whatever. It's partly also because of the previously discussed different nature of the Holocaust versus other massacres (as a gratuitious, industrialised, rational genocide). The Holocaust strikes closer to home, and so there's higher stakes for those denying it. Moreover, it could simply be a matter of different legal codes. Civil versus Common Law. Civil Law systems, of which continental European countries are examples, can be much more specific and proscriptive in their legal systems than can Common Law systems of the Anglo variety. The fact that Holocaust denial is the only idea of its kind that specifically needs combatting means that they might as well just make a law specifically saying that, to avoid confusion. If your hypothetical made-up hate-group denialist movements actually did exist and were problems, well they'd pass a law against them, too. Simple. Talking in the abstract about denial of random other massacres is meaningless, because these other ideas don't really exist for various historical and social reasons. If they did, and if there were hate-groups for whom denial of these things was an essential plank of perpetuating their own hateful ideas about other groups, then we could begin to discuss equivalency, but until then, Holocaust denial occupies a special place because there are organised hate groups who push the idea as part of their general hateful anti-Semetic agenda. With NO other group is this true, especially of the societies which, you know, HAVE anti-denial laws in addition to regular hate-speech laws. edit: 'blankeys' was a typo but I'm leaving it in. (edited by Arwon on 12-23-06 02:25 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonWhy take such a tone? I did everything I could to muster the most non-confrontational voice I was possibly able to muster, and you're getting bent out of shape.  |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Well, now you get the point, so it was apparently effective. Anyways, I'm playing the ball, not the man (albeit aggressively). (edited by Arwon on 12-23-06 02:31 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonYou must be paying off the refs, then, because I am not personally a fan of the "no blood, no foul" rule. (I can make basketball metaphors too!  ) |
|||
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6283 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
OK y'all, I'm closing this. Give y'all some time to cool down.  |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6282 days |
| ||
| I'm still against making an idea, ANY idea, illegal. Just as I'm against making a thought, ANY thought illegal. It's understandable that the Holocaust can cause people to get extremely upset, very understandable, but locking people up for simply disagreeing is not going to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. I think that everyone should be made to watch Schindler's List in school, and be taught about the Holocaust. But using laws to prevent people from questioning things is wrong-headed. And if we start down the slippery slope of illegalizing ideas, why stop at the Holocaust? Every single genocide or major human tragedy should be given equal protection. It should also be illegal to say that the Spanish Inquisition never happened, or to question how the Japanese treated the Chinese during WW2. Then why would we stop there? Maybe it should be illegal to question whether or not people convicted of crime did it or not? Because maybe we are hurting the victim/family of the victim to question whether or not the person charged is really the actual murderer or rapist. But then maybe lets take it further, maybe if you are an American and you question whether or not we should be in Iraq, you are hurting the troops by lowering morale, potentially causing people to die, so that should be outlawed to.
Instead of making Holocaust denial illegal, lets make advocating violence illegal. That way someone who is innocently questioning history and honestly looking for evidence will not be jailed over it, while the hate groups you want to target can still be prevented from trying to organize another genocide. Intent and actions are more important than simply questioning the Holocaust or any other tragedy. On an unrelated tangent, I saw hannity & Colmes a few days agao and there was a Jewish Rabi on there who attended the Holocaust Deniers Convention in Iran, and is a Holocaust Denier. I thought that was very strange. |
|||
|
blackhole89 Moronic Thread Bodycount: 17 (since 2006-08-21 09:50 EST) F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 Since: 12-31-69 From: Dresden/SN/DE Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jomb As far as I know, most countries already do have laws against violent agitation. Yet, for some reason, those are regarded as not enough in some countries. In my opinion, people who try to justify laws making holocaust denial punishable are ignorant to the fact that makes them, from the freedom of exp Originally posted by Jomb The latter would force governments to build whole new prisons to handle the influx of knuck-style quasireligious weeaboo to-be jailbirds who have a stronger belief in Japan's "superiority" (vocable (C) the aforementioned) alone than the whole creationist front of the USA has in the USA being god's chosen country taken together.  |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Limiting the fact that you can't say "Fucking |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationWell, the similarity would be in principle, but obviously not magnitude. If such a similarity exists. Edit: ...which I'm not sure it does. (edited by Silvershield on 12-24-06 07:19 PM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Yeah, you see. I just can't see many similarities or parallels between the two. The liberal-democratic idea of liberty being a series of limitations of freedom to ensure the best for the most of the population isn't exactly equatable with the NAZI ideology of nihilistic, radical sociali-darwinism. The NAZIs were the most bizarre of all the denizens of Cloud Kukoo Kukoo Land. | |||
|
blackhole89 Moronic Thread Bodycount: 17 (since 2006-08-21 09:50 EST) F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 Since: 12-31-69 From: Dresden/SN/DE Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| To repeat my point which apparently didn't come over clearly enough, hate crime laws exist either way, and I don't object to those. I do, however, object to the ban on questioning the occurance of the holocaust because, in my eyes, it's an unjustifiable limitation of freedom of exp If you still want to say that's not the same thing for the reasons given, please tell me how the WWII Nazi freedom of exp edit- since you were so quick with your reply, tell me how your concept of "liberty by lack thereof" is not schizophrenic. Democracy means allowing all opinions to be voiced, even if you don't like them. Even if most people don't like them. Even if you know for yourself they are wrong. (edited by Satan Claus (oops typo) on 12-24-06 07:25 PM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| That didn't. lead to world war 2. But you decided to draw a superflous and questionable issue between the issue of the laws surrounding Holocaust denial and the actual perpetuators of the said atrocity. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Holocaust Deniers Convention in Iran |
| |
