• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Beat me to death"

Oliver

Penultimate Amazing
Oliver
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
17,396
In light of the Should the UK extradite Holocaust denier? thread I will tell
you people a story my Grandma is telling me for years now:

My German ancestors lived in White Russia near Odessa during the Nazi-
Regime - and in 1941, the town was occupied by German forces.

My Grandma told me that she never feared anything during her childhood
until this happened:

Across the River they used to live, the occupying Nazi's burned Jews in
mass graves using caustic lime. One day, a neighbor of my Grandmothers
family came to their house and reported this:

"Last night I went outside after hearing some strange noises coming from
outside. I was shocked when I realized what was going on. A heavily
burned Jew was lying in front of me and he asked me to beat him to death
to stop the pain he was going through."

I don't know what happened to this jewish Man [I can only imagine], but
my Grandma told me that at this point, she knew what fear is about.

And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech
is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more
important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the
things that I just mentioned.
 
I apologize if I posted that in the wrong forum. I posted it in here because
the other thread in here I mentioned - while at the same time, I didn't want
to derail the other thread.
 
Oliver said:
And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech
is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more
important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the
things that I just mentioned.
Click to expand...

How does outlawing speech accomplish that goal?

How does outlawing holocaust denial, specifically, accomplish that goal?

Even if I could convince the world that the holocaust never happened, I wouldn't need to suggest in the slightest that something like the holocaust would be permissible or a good thing.

Likewise, I can still be an antisemite even if I acknowledge the holocaust. (I might consider it a good thing, and that's - unfortunately- not too rare a thing.)
 
Rasmus said:
How does outlawing speech accomplish that goal?

How does outlawing holocaust denial, specifically, accomplish that goal?

Even if I could convince the world that the holocaust never happened, I wouldn't need to suggest in the slightest that something like the holocaust would be permissible or a good thing.

Likewise, I can still be an antisemite even if I acknowledge the holocaust. (I might consider it a good thing, and that's - unfortunately- not too rare a thing.)
Click to expand...


It's simple. If the Holocaust never happened, there is no need whatsoever
to prevent any hate speech. Therefore "hate speech isn't bad since the
holocaust never happened and therefore hatespeech doesn't have any
negative consequences".

But as I said: There is no specific "Holocaust denial law" in Germany - in
contrast to the "§ 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased
Persons"-law - which of course, does include the Victims of the Holocaust.
 
Oliver said:
It's simple. If the Holocaust never happened, there is no need whatsoever
to prevent any hate speech.
Click to expand...

Oh bull. Are you saying that the holocaust was the only negative result that ever came from one group of people hating another?

Therefore "hate speech isn't bad since the
holocaust never happened and therefore hatespeech doesn't have any
negative consequences".
Click to expand...

Apparently, you do. :jaw-dropp

But as I said: There is no specific "Holocaust denial law" in Germany - in
contrast to the "§ 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased
Persons"-law - which of course, does include the Victims of the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

There isn't?

Try § 130.2 - it's on the same page you're quoting!
 
Rasmus said:
Oh bull. Are you saying that the holocaust was the only negative result that ever came from one group of people hating another?

Apparently, you do. :jaw-dropp
There isn't?
Try § 130.2 - it's on the same page you're quoting!
Click to expand...


Look, Rasmus - it's quite simple:

Libel and Slander is illegal in ALL western societies. Also crying "Fire" in
a crowded theater or saying: "Kill the president" is illegal in your country.
The reason for that is that Free Speech is one thing - and Speech endangering
citizens is a different issue.

By that I mean you also have limited Free speech in the cases I mentioned.
So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have
as well concerning the limitation of free speech? [Despite the different historical
backgrounds]
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
Look, Rasmus - it's quite simple:

Libel and Slander is illegal in ALL western societies. Also crying "Fire" in
a crowded theater or saying: "Kill the president" is illegal in your country.
The reason for that is that Free Speech is one thing - and Speech endangering
citizens is a different issue.

By that I mean you also have limited Free speech in the cases I mentioned.
So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have
as well concerning the limitation of free speech? [Despite the different historical
backgrounds]
Click to expand...

a) You pressure too much
b) You fail to address anything I've said

EOD.
 
Hi

The problem of abridgment of freedom of speech because of some individual or group's sensibilities always winds up being whose sensibilities are we talking about?

Sure, it starts of all chocolate cake and Earl Grey, but regimes change and, next thing you know, it's illegal to alarm people by talking about the Second Amendment, or Equal Rights!

Freedom of speech exists so that you CAN offend the offense-worthy.

Pull its teeth, and you leave the business of deciding what's offensive to the government, which is often the very agency which requires the most offending.
 
Rasmus said:
a) You pressure too much
b) You fail to address anything I've said

EOD.
Click to expand...


Your points don't contradict the fact that you also don't have free
speech without limitations. So everything you're trying to make a
point is invalid in the first place.

So let me ask: Do you have "unlimited Free Speech" in your country,
or not?

And if you don't: Why don't you have unlimited free speech? :confused:
 
Oliver said:
So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have as well concerning the limitation of free speech? [Despite the different historical backgrounds]
Click to expand...
How about the law regarding "Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons."
 
Did this forum warp its way into the Twilight Zone while I was asleep last night?

Oliver, you do realize that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater does pose a genuine risk of causing physical harm by the result right?

Saying "I hate X" is not risking anyone any physical harm (except maybe the person who says it). Saying "let's go kill some Xs" is incitement to commit violence, which to my knowledge is already illegal.

There's nothing a "hate speech" law can prevent that an "incitement to commit violence" law cannot. But what the latter can't do that the former can is outlaw speech that cannot be considered to be any more harmful than causing offense to someone, not to mention pushing that same speech out of the sunlight where it is more likely to become incitement to violence, because it generates a persecution complex among the same bigots who use it.

It also creates a slippery slope for the outlawing of satire and possibly even simple discussion of the subject.





Was I the only one who saw the thread title and thought of a man with a gun on a plane?
 
Polaris said:
Oliver, you do realize that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater does pose a genuine risk of causing physical harm by the result right?
Click to expand...


Yes. Just like the German laws are trying to prevent a "panicking crowd".
Same threat, different circumstances. No?
 
Oliver said:
How is this a bad law in light of our history? :confused:
Click to expand...
I'll take this step by step, because you seem confused.
1) You asked: "So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have as well concerning the limitation of free speech?"
2) I responded: "How about the law regarding 'Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons.' "
3) I at no point stated that the law was good or bad. It was not my intention, nor does it relate to what you asked. You asked about a law that was different, as libel and slander in most US Staes does not cover the deceased.
Are you still confused? Should I use smaller words?
 
Giggywig said:
I'll take this step by step, because you seem confused.
1) You asked: "So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have as well concerning the limitation of free speech?"
2) I responded: "How about the law regarding 'Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons.' "
3) I at no point stated that the law was good or bad. It was not my intention, nor does it relate to what you asked. You asked about a law that was different, as libel and slander in most US Staes does not cover the deceased.
Are you still confused? Should I use smaller words?
Click to expand...

No, no. You're confusing my point: You also have limitations of speech,
wrong?

Wrong???
 
Oliver said:
No, no. You're confusing my point: You also have limitations of speech,
wrong?

Wrong???
Click to expand...
I have at no point argued against that point. I pointed that you have certain limitations different to those here. Agreed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom