Oh, not at all. I'm just saying that I don't believe pushing them further underground is the way to do it, and I DO think that education and up-front attacks on their reasoning IS the way to do it.
David Irving arrested in Austria
Oh, not at all. I'm just saying that I don't believe pushing them further underground is the way to do it, and I DO think that education and up-front attacks on their reasoning IS the way to do it.
Beady
Philosopher
However, promoting the idea is often followed by executing the idea. Some would argue that waiting until the promoters have organized and are actually reaching for their guns is cutting it just a little too close.
Oh really? In the USA, better not wear a T-shirt with cross-hairs printed over the President's face, or make the worng kind of poster in school.
Bah, here I could wear a T-shirt with cross-hairs printed over the current chancellor's face without being picked up by the police. Do I have more free speech then than people in the USA? ;-)
Last edited:
I agree, it's a tricky thing
Sadly, sometimes I think you might.
If Irving has violated the Austrian Law in any way,the authorities had the right to arrest him BUT I am totally and in the most definite way against any legislation that prohibits people to publish and express their thoughts.
"Thanks" to the Holocaust deniers,the Holocaust studies have been promoted and expanded. Silencing Holocaust deniers doesn't address the problem, on the contrary it makes things worse.
This is just plain ignorant. Simply saying "I'm going to assassinate the president" is not illegal. See, I just did it. How long before I can expect the black ops troops to kick in my door, Gurdur?
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
Indeed, those who understand the inhuman barbarity and evil of the Nazi regime have nothing to fear from holocaust deniers...save the annoyance of talking to brick walls. As you rightly point out, their arguments are not intellectually or morally persuasive and they have merely forced true historians to be clearer and be smarter.
Just saw this on the wires today: tangentially interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117...cLGE7es0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-
Last edited:
Yeah, I got your opinion. Thanks for sharing.
Tell any youngster that such-and-such activity, thought, apparel, music, etc. is forbidden. Then see how long it takes for said youngster to dig up as much as they possibly can of said forbidden subject.
If you haven't noticed this, then you haven't hit puberty yet.
Then that's the fault of those who oppose them for not speaking up. Yeah, I'm looking at people like you.
Oh, here we go, if you haven't been a party firsthand, you have no right to comment, etc. etc. What an ignorant argument. You'd see that if you stopped yapping long enough to realize that the matter at hand is BIGGER THAN JUST NAZISM.
Last edited:
No, in fact you're being the ignorant and melodramatic one. Miss my link before to why you shouldn't wear the wrong T-shirt or make the wrong poster in school? Hmm? Being willfully ignorant, are you?
Or how about another linky for you:
Seems like you ignore a lot of what goes on in your own country. Not too bright.
Got any evidence that making Holocaust denial illegal in public means youngsters will be fascinated by Holocaust denial?
Because if you have no evidence, all you have are empty rhetorical assertions. Better luck next time.
Let's see, if I ask you for evidence because I am skeptical of your assertion, then I haven't hit puberty yet?
Dearie me, are you blustering, floundering or what?
Ooooooooo !
ALL IN CAPS! That must mean of course you are right! Dearie me, why do you bluster so much?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Human nature. People are attracted to the forbidden.
Beady
Philosopher
Out of how many in that municipality?
Gurdur said:
*sigh*
I wold have thought that especially on the JREF board, of all places, people would all know the difference between an assertion and actual evidence.
OK, so I was wrong to think that. The above by Mycroft constitutes an assertion; it has no evidence behind it and does not answer my point or question.
Now, I will tackle the assertion that this is supposed to be "bigger than just Nazism" (without the original poster's caps).
People, get a grip. There are always limits on free speech in any civilized society; take a look at the laws on slander and libel, just for a beginning; they constitute limitations upon free speech, and thus constitute censorship if you will. So unlimited free speech is a myth, whether in the USA or elsewhere; limits always exist, the question is only whatn the limits are and why. Now as to why Holocaust denial or advocation is illegal in public speech in France, Germany or Austria has already been covered, so deal with it, finally.
I understand your reservations but keep in mind that the existence of hate laws in many countries aknowledges what you ask; a stricter definition of what constitutes free speech so, many legislative systems consider the advocation of hatred a serious crime and not an idea that one has the right to advocate.
Regarless of what the opponents to the hate laws say, hate speech is quite clear in our modern societies.
Irving expressed an opinion that has been characterized pseudo-scientific because the evidence against his views was compelling. His opinions though, hardly constitute hate speech. If you are aware of the speech of modern Nazi groups you would know what I mean.
Last edited:
Actually, this is wrong. Not only has Irving addressed neonazi rallies, his public speeches very often do constitute hate-speech. It may be a mild form, but it's still there. Here are some links about Irving and the libel judgment against him.
And BTW, I know neonazis quite well; I have a big scar on my neck from one trying to kill me, I've ..... interacted with quite a few (translation: I've argued with them and/or literally kicked their asses).
Here is the libel case's judge's words on Irving: