• 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.

Is the Univ. of Wisconsin strong enought to face ad ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saggy

Graduate Poster
S
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
1,819
UW community strong enough to face ad, reject it

That's the title of an article by the UW student newspaper editor, it can be seen here .....

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2010/02/26/uw_community_strong_.php

What was the ad?

The holocaust question: The Power of Taboo www.codoh.com

If we judge by some of the comments that follow the article, I don't think the UW community is strong enough. There is a lot of name calling, etc. It sounds like a quick descent into irrationality to me. What do you think?

The ad was placed by Bradley Smith, who in his response to the 1200 word article linked above notes that the ad itself only has 7 words. His response can be seen here ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vj51dmNrZ0&feature=sub
 
Saggy said:
UW community strong enough to face ad, reject it

That's the title of an article by the UW student newspaper editor, it can be seen here .....

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2010/02/26/uw_community_strong_.php

What was the ad?

The holocaust question: The Power of Taboo www.codoh.com

If we judge by some of the comments that follow the article, I don't think the UW community is strong enough. There is a lot of name calling, etc. It sounds like a quick descent into irrationality to me. What do you think?

The ad was placed by Bradley Smith, who in his response to the 1200 word article linked above notes that the ad itself only has 7 words. His response can be seen here ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vj51dmNrZ0&feature=sub
Click to expand...

By by Jupiters phallus what the eff are you trying to say?

The man keeps the ad up, and some comments get posted that people don't like antisemitism.

All i see in your post is the insinuation that a 7 word ad is more intelligent and thought out than a 1200 word paper, and you trying your best to make it look like smith is having anything bad happen to him.

Newsflash to those who don't already know, but trying to downplay a worldwide tragedy is going to get some people angry. And Mars forbid that these people actually put their anger into words.
 
Here is the ad .... The holocaust question: The Power of Taboo www.codoh.com

Here are some excerpts from the editors article...

The placement is a vile, reprehensible and absurd recreation of history that would be rejected as blatant lies and fantasy by any rational student on campus.

The assertion is so wildly and obviously false that to even address its claims would be an exercise in futility.

This advertisement, while certainly fueled by veiled anti-Semitism,

It is patently obvious to the most rational individual that there is no truth to Bradley’s grand project. Any student of this university who views the page (or, perhaps even the link) would recognize his mission as a wholesale rejection of truth and, in turn, dismiss it.

The absolute incompetence with which Smith defends his views can only be fully illuminated if this campus is faced to confront those views in their rawest form.

Smith would argue, as he has in the past, that such suppression is part and parcel of the exact reason he embarks upon this insane mission of his.

Insane? Hey, I gotta throw in an LOL on that one !

By allowing the ad to run and acknowledging its completely vacuous nature, we place this idea in the marketplace where it will be met with disgust, bemused laughter and, above all, facts.

Above all, facts ? Yep, another LOL

After all this vituperation and hand wringing, Smathers decides to keep the ad. His thinking on that point is sound. But why the histrionics ? I'll tell you why, Smathers free speech ideals have put him right in the middle of a firestorm of criticism that threatens his career. I sympathize with the guy.

Let's put this in a little context - just recently a law was passed in Hungary - this is from

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/02/23/1010758/hungary-parliament-vote-makes-holocaust-denial-illegal

Hungary's Parliament has passed a bill making Holocaust denial a criminal offense.

The legislation, which would mandate prison terms of up to three years for those found guilty of publicly "denying, questioning or making light of the Holocaust," was approved Monday night in the presence of Jewish community leaders.

Making light of? Alert Mel Brooks not to travel to Hungary !
 
So, people using their free-speech right to point out that the guy is telling blatent lies infringes on his free-speech right to tell blatant lies????:confused:
 
RossFW said:
So, people using their free-speech right to point out that the guy is telling blatent lies infringes on his free-speech right to tell blatant lies????:confused:
Click to expand...

Pretty much. As I've discovered, Nazis are eager to dish it out, but complain endlessly if they ever get some back.
 
Smith specifically targets college newspapers for his anti-Semetic garbage because he knows that naive journalism students usually don't realize that a rejected advertisment or editorial is not supression of free speech.
 
Saggy said:
Here is the ad .... The holocaust question: The Power of Taboo www.codoh.com

Here are some excerpts from the editors article...

The placement is a vile, reprehensible and absurd recreation of history that would be rejected as blatant lies and fantasy by any rational student on campus.

The assertion is so wildly and obviously false that to even address its claims would be an exercise in futility.

This advertisement, while certainly fueled by veiled anti-Semitism,

It is patently obvious to the most rational individual that there is no truth to Bradley’s grand project. Any student of this university who views the page (or, perhaps even the link) would recognize his mission as a wholesale rejection of truth and, in turn, dismiss it.

The absolute incompetence with which Smith defends his views can only be fully illuminated if this campus is faced to confront those views in their rawest form.

Smith would argue, as he has in the past, that such suppression is part and parcel of the exact reason he embarks upon this insane mission of his.

Insane? Hey, I gotta throw in an LOL on that one !

By allowing the ad to run and acknowledging its completely vacuous nature, we place this idea in the marketplace where it will be met with disgust, bemused laughter and, above all, facts.

Above all, facts ? Yep, another LOL

After all this vituperation and hand wringing, Smathers decides to keep the ad. His thinking on that point is sound. But why the histrionics ? I'll tell you why, Smathers free speech ideals have put him right in the middle of a firestorm of criticism that threatens his career. I sympathize with the guy.

Let's put this in a little context - just recently a law was passed in Hungary - this is from

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/02/23/1010758/hungary-parliament-vote-makes-holocaust-denial-illegal

Hungary's Parliament has passed a bill making Holocaust denial a criminal offense.

The legislation, which would mandate prison terms of up to three years for those found guilty of publicly "denying, questioning or making light of the Holocaust," was approved Monday night in the presence of Jewish community leaders.

Making light of? Alert Mel Brooks not to travel to Hungary !
Click to expand...

But the fact remains he let the article remain, and your quest to find something to be offended by is kinda funny. I guess free speech is only limited to ideas you like, interesting concept that someone cannot even talk about how they dislike something even if they do nothing to inhibit it's presentation , there was a group that did things like that, quite some time ago, but for the life of me, the name escapes me. I am sure someone will think of them.......
 
sadhatter said:
But the fact remains he let the article remain, and your quest to find something to be offended by is kinda funny.
Click to expand...

Offended? By something like, for example,

The placement is a vile, reprehensible and absurd recreation of history that would be rejected as blatant lies and fantasy by any rational student on campus.

I'm not offended, I'm astounded. The guy places an ad saying that there is a taboo on questioning the holocaust, and the newspaper editor blasts it with such ridiculous over the top hyperbole, is indicative of something other rational minds at work.

Let's put it in closer context - the ADL has been working for the last 30 years to get 'hate crime' laws passed in the US, and to strengthen those laws to criminalize 'hate speech'. This is a very serious attack on the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is the only thing that has kept the ADL from complete success. You can read their thoughts on the matter here ...
http://www.adl.org/internet/print.asp

and here

http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/print.asp

While the ADL has not been successful in criminalizing holocaust denial in the US, they have been very effective in keeping it out of the media, out of politics, and out of academia. One method is to launch vicious slanders against anyone who dares to mention it. Witness the case in point. Another is to intimidate college newpaper editors to the point where they are afraid to allow such an ad. Consider the editor of the next paper Smith sends the ad to, will he feel free to allow the ad, or will he think of the direct consequences to him personally? Given the firestorm of criticism that follows, it takes a brave editor to even allow such an ad.
 
Saggy said:
Offended? By something like, for example,

The placement is a vile, reprehensible and absurd recreation of history that would be rejected as blatant lies and fantasy by any rational student on campus.

I'm not offended, I'm astounded. The guy places an ad saying that there is a taboo on questioning the holocaust, and the newspaper editor blasts it with such ridiculous over the top hyperbole, is indicative of something other rational minds at work.

Let's put it in closer context - the ADL has been working for the last 30 years to get 'hate crime' laws passed in the US, and to strengthen those laws to criminalize 'hate speech'. This is a very serious attack on the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is the only thing that has kept the ADL from complete success. You can read their thoughts on the matter here ...
http://www.adl.org/internet/print.asp

and here

http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/print.asp

While the ADL has not been successful in criminalizing holocaust denial in the US, they have been very effective in keeping it out of the media, out of politics, and out of academia. One method is to launch vicious slanders against anyone who dares to mention it. Witness the case in point. Another is to intimidate college newpaper editors to the point where they are afraid to allow such an ad. Consider the editor of the next paper Smith sends the ad to, will he feel free to allow the ad, or will he think of the direct consequences to him personally? Given the firestorm of criticism that follows, it takes a brave editor to even allow such an ad.
Click to expand...

Again, he is saying it, the same as your boy is "saying it" in his ad, our boy is " saying it" in his article.

The difference is our boy is letting your boy say what he wants, and in your perfect world our boy wouldn't be saying anything.

But seriously, i am entertained by your attempts to find something evil about someone voicing their opinion, and specifically allowing someone else to do the same. Is this what holocaust denial has came down to? Hell at least when it was just skinheads you guys were scary, now it just seems whiney.

I honestly have no further questions or anything, i just like replying so you can post another few paragraphs about how free speech should only apply to controversial ideas.
 
Before this thread goes down the Holocaust denial arguments route lets try keep it to the topic and that is about the advert and the reactions to it and the apparent free speech issues it invokes. Folks can discuss Holocaust denial itself in the appropriate section, which will usually be the "Conspiracy Theory" section.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
This is a tactic that groups and individuals promoting controversial ideas have used in the past. Basically try to place an ad. If the school paper rejects it, make a claim about denial of free speech. If the school paper publishes it; wait for reactions, reproduce the reactions and then make a claim about suppression of free speech. This becomes a win-win for the group or individual promoting the controversial idea. It is a no win situation for the paper or the students.

Truth of the matter is that the ad was published, even though the paper could have fought it. The students responded, and thus is the free exchange of ideas. Besides that was the full intent of the ad.

Remember free speech means that someone else has the right to not only tell you that you are full of crap, but point out why. If that is a violation of free speech than mine is violated a lot.
 
This is a free speech issue on steroids. Completely unlike any other.

On one hand, you have the Zionists who are making major efforts all over the world to curtail criticism of Israel, and in particular to make any questioning of the holocaust a crime.

On the other hand, there are many people that think the holocaust is the basis of Israel's existence, that is therefor the root cause of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the trillions in reparations paid to Israel, the terrorist attacks that dominate the news, and the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. For instance, Fritz Hollings, said 'The US invaded Iraq to secure Israel, and everyone knows it'.

And the topic is essentially verboten on college campuses. We've seen the incredible vitriol from the editor of the UW at the mere presence of an ad not even challenging the holocaust, but instead saying there is a taboo on discussing it critically. Is there? Of course there is.

Thus, one of the most important issues of the day, arguably the root cause of three ongoing US wars, cannot be discussed on college campuses. This is mind control that Orwell could not have envisioned.
 
Saggy said:
Offended? By something like, for example,

The placement is a vile, reprehensible and absurd recreation of history that would be rejected as blatant lies and fantasy by any rational student on campus.

I'm not offended, I'm astounded. The guy places an ad saying that there is a taboo on questioning the holocaust, and the newspaper editor blasts it with such ridiculous over the top hyperbole, is indicative of something other rational minds at work.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And the editor is right to point out that Holocaust deniers have never been "rational minds at work."


Let's put it in closer context
Click to expand...

Let's put it in even closer context.

A Nazi apologist tells lies.

An editor points out that he is telling lies.

A second Nazi apologist gets his panties in a twist about having the lies pointed out, and raves incoherently on the JREF forum.

Nothing to see here.
 
Saggy said:
This is a free speech issue on steroids. Completely unlike any other.

On one hand, you have the Zionists who are making major efforts all over the world to curtail criticism of Israel, and in particular to make any questioning of the holocaust a crime.

On the other hand, there are many people that think the holocaust is the basis of Israel's existence,
Click to expand...


Yes. The first group, in particular, exist only the paranoid fantasies of the second group. And the editor is right to point that out.

Freedom of the speech doesn't imply that the editor has to accept whatever drivel you choose to write. And freedom of the press doesn't imply that the editor has to print anything. If you want to start your own neo-Nazi newspaper, you have the freedom to do that. And other people have the freedom to laugh at you.
 
It is isn't a free speech issue. The school paper isn't a public forum, and there is some editorial control involved with the paper. The ad was run, and the students and an editor expressed their feelings on the nature of the ad. This was a free exchange of ideas. It seems to me that Saggy is upset about the free exchange of ideas, which includes a person's ability to point that a specific idea or theory is reprehensible. That isn't Orwellian, that isn't a suppression of free speech.

We're not talking about Germany, we're talking about Israel; the subject is a school running an ad, and people's reaction to the ad.

There is no suppression of speech here. Unless you want to stretch the definition of suppressing free speech to include the rejection of an idea. A person can deny the Holocaust, a person can deny the moon landing, and deny gravity for all I care. I don't have to hold their rejection at the level as established fact and I don't have to hold my tongue and not point out what I feel is wrong with it. Which seems to be what the OP wants to happen. As in to equate criticism of an idea with denying the free speech writes of the one who originates it.
 
Saggy said:
This is a free speech issue on steroids. Completely unlike any other.

On one hand, you have the Zionists who are making major efforts all over the world to curtail criticism of Israel, and in particular to make any questioning of the holocaust a crime.

On the other hand, there are many people that think the holocaust is the basis of Israel's existence, that is therefor the root cause of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the trillions in reparations paid to Israel, the terrorist attacks that dominate the news, and the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. For instance, Fritz Hollings, said 'The US invaded Iraq to secure Israel, and everyone knows it'.

And the topic is essentially verboten on college campuses. We've seen the incredible vitriol from the editor of the UW at the mere presence of an ad not even challenging the holocaust, but instead saying there is a taboo on discussing it critically. Is there? Of course there is.

Thus, one of the most important issues of the day, arguably the root cause of three ongoing US wars, cannot be discussed on college campuses. This is mind control that Orwell could not have envisioned.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

"But it is because of this very fact that I have decided to accept this ad and allow it to run its course."
 
dirtywick said:
What are you talking about?

"But it is because of this very fact that I have decided to accept this ad and allow it to run its course."
Click to expand...

Most University newspapers will not print the ad. Judging from the editor's response, he'll be lucky not to have a nervous breakdown as a result of his correct decision to publish.

The seven word ad was followed by a 1200 word denunciation. Now, I'm all for the editor having his say, but I think it's unusual for him to denounce ads. But that aside, how about giving Smith 1200 words to respond in the paper. That would be an 'open exchange of ideas'. That's what the university is supposed to be about. See?

Here's a question for you - have you ever seen a cogent argument that the holocaust story is a hoax? You'll never see on in the US media, or in academia. However, thanks to the internet, you can see one here .....

http://www.holohoax101.com
 
I've never seen a cogent argument that the Earth is flat either. Or that the Sun orbits the Earth. Or that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Funnily enough, I've never ever seen a cogent argument for the Holocaust being a hoax either, in national press or on the Internet.

Should the national press really give over time to every half baked theory out there? Should the 'Time Cube' get equal billing to normal physics, hmm?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom