What an odd case...Holocaust denier jailed... [Archive]

ChrisLove

02-21-2006, 04:07 AM

I concur. The fact is, you may not like or agree with the law, but it is the law in Austria, and this man knowingly and willfully broke it. And there is a consequence to that, and now he has to face it. It's not as though he went there, said some stuff and people got upset and so they made a new law to apply to him. When in Rome, and all that.

I think everyone would agree this guy is an idiot and that one should always respect the law of the land your in or if not expect to be punished. However, while accepting Aces point about the Austrians understanding the situation far better than I do - I think there is something seriously amiss about this particular law. Whats more it would seem to me that it must be in violation of some European laws that I would assume Austria are subject to (although I do not know which laws).

So I think the point here is not whether or not that guy should have had the law enforced against him (he should - he is clearly guilty) but whether laws like this should exist at all in countries in the first place.

Personally, I think Ace made a good point - that it may be the case that this law is nessecary to contain anit semetic and Nazi views in Austria (I am aware the country has a very strong right wing element still) but even so I find it all deeply troubling.

It turns out that according to BBC there are 11 countries with similiar laws - including Germany and France.

I think part of this debate involves the discussion about whether anti-Semitism is religious or racial hatred - but I dont want to touch that with a barge pole right now

Funkaloyd

02-21-2006, 04:09 AM

to put it into perspective, it is precisely the laws against holocaust denial that have guaranteed that the facistic elements of those societies don't all dress up as SS and start partying on Hitler's birthday.
And then we'd have to let Republicans and Tories hold rallies too, so I guess I see your point.

ms.peachy

02-21-2006, 04:28 AM

So I think the point here is not whether or not that guy should have had the law enforced against him (he should - he is clearly guilty) but whether laws like this should exist at all in countries in the first place.

So, who gets to decide what laws a country has? Me? You? or, the people who actually live there?

How shall we decide which country that has laws that we don't like to try and change first?

Funkaloyd

02-21-2006, 05:04 AM

Would you be saying the same things if people on this forum were registering their disgust at, say, the beheading of gays in Saudi Arabia?

ms.peachy

02-21-2006, 05:11 AM

Would you be saying the same things if people on this forum were registering their disgust at, say, the beheading of gays in Saudi Arabia?
That's interesting, because that was an example I was thinking of using.

That and female circumcision.

So the question remains - who tells a country what laws they can have? And, when is it appropriate to 'step in'? What is the yardstick? How egregious a violation of our own principles does it need to be before another country should intervene? And who should do the intervening, the U.S.? But isn't that just us being all imperialist and shit and pissing everybody off again?

ChrisLove

02-21-2006, 05:18 AM

So, who gets to decide what laws a country has? Me? You? or, the people who actually live there?

How shall we decide which country that has laws that we don't like to try and change first?

Well, it depends I guess. Primarily the elected government of the country in question but also me and you as voters subject to the European Union (if you are one that is - I dont know) which sets out certain freedoms and rights which should exist within the EU. I had assumed until now that I would be protected from this sort of thing by EU law - it now seems I am not so I am somewhat concerned and my initial reaction is that I woud favour an EU law that does not allow a government to send people to prison for disagreeing with what the state decides is an accurate historical account. As a citizen of the EU I have some say in this through the democratic process, I think.

I think you were making a more general point that the laws of governments under whom I dont live isnt really my business which is undoubtedly true - still I think it is OK for me to express an opinion on whether I find them to be morally agreeable?

ms.peachy

02-21-2006, 05:21 AM

I'm just throwin' the questions out onto the floor, is all. I wasn't looking for a particular answer, just raising relevant points for debate.

ChrisLove

02-21-2006, 05:44 AM

That's interesting, because that was an example I was thinking of using.

That and female circumcision.

So the question remains - who tells a country what laws they can have? And, when is it appropriate to 'step in'? What is the yardstick? How egregious a violation of our own principles does it need to be before another country should intervene? And who should do the intervening, the U.S.? But isn't that just us being all imperialist and shit and pissing everybody off again?

I guess you have to weigh up the costs and benefits of the intervention. In this case, we are dealing with a western country with good diplomatic relations that is subject to Euro law - which suggests that the cost of diplomatic intervention is quite low. Although as I pointed out - it seems most of Europe agrees on this particular law so in actuality applying any diplomatic pressure would probably be difficult.

The benefits are also very small - ultimately some bigot is going to get a few months in the slammer - its no big deal. SO in this case no intervention is really appropriate.

I think the important consideration when trying to avoid being all imperialist in intervention is externalities. ie the intervener should weigh up not just the costs (eg military) and benefits (eg oil) to itsself but also the net costs and benefits to mankind as a whole. Thats a pretty crude analysis off the top of my head but I think I could argue that its along roughly sensible lines.

Obviously no entity is going to be entirely as selfless as I have described but some fair system of accounting for the externalities of intervention should prevent one from being an unreasonable imperialist

yeahwho

02-21-2006, 09:57 AM

That's interesting, because that was an example I was thinking of using.

That and female circumcision.

So the question remains - who tells a country what laws they can have? And, when is it appropriate to 'step in'? What is the yardstick? How egregious a violation of our own principles does it need to be before another country should intervene? And who should do the intervening, the U.S.? But isn't that just us being all imperialist and shit and pissing everybody off again?

Seeing how Austria is a minor player in the "Global Economy" we will actually have more discussion and outrage due to the corporate rape curve, if this happened in China, India, Zambia or any number of repressive "Global Economy" countries, it wouldn't even be a blip in the local sweatshop. Don't want to shine to much light on whats going on with all those US corporations who say they're responsible citizens.

We should be intervening whenever any number of Wal-Mart suppliers allow human rights abuses to continue in the name of making a buck.

just my 2 cents

Many US based corporations are not making new markets, they're co-opting human rights abuses, enviromental damage and the quality of life in their own backyard while doing so. It's sleazy.

QueenAdrock

02-21-2006, 06:55 PM

he's a bigot....but shouldn't bigots be allowed to talk?

You mean like how Hitler was allowed to talk?

Hitler talked about the big "international Jewish conspiracy." Think someone else should be able to come forward and talk about how the Holocaust is an international conspiracy by the Jews? I personally don't. I like to take lessons from history, and realize that nothing good will come of hate-speech...it'll lead at least to more hatred, and at most to genocide, both horrible achievements. I believe in free speech, but it has to be censored somewhere - extreme circumstances such as these.

There's a reason why it's illegal in Germany and Austria. It's not a bad idea, either. It's the most documented event in history, to deny it is only because you're a complete idiot with total disregard for facts, or because you're a fascist. Even the Nazis came forward with records at Nuremburg, admitting guilt. If you allow people to come up with conspiracy theories, especially racist conspiracy theories, you allow a society to ripen into an environment where something like this could happen again.

Funkaloyd

02-21-2006, 07:22 PM

Why draw the line at fascism? Why not just go ahead and outlaw nationalism, communism, denial of evolution, Christianity, etc.

First they came for the fascists.
Then they came for the nationalists.

ASsman

02-21-2006, 07:52 PM

Slippery slope.

yeahwho

02-21-2006, 08:31 PM

Question.

You know who else jailed people for their beliefs?

That's right!

Funkaloyd

02-21-2006, 08:35 PM

Heh, I hate slippery slope, "gateway drug" style arguments, so ignore those last two lines.

"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas de Quincey

But still, why not outlaw communism as well? By allowing the dissemination of Marxist ideas, we're allowing a society to ripen into an environment where something like the Gulags could happen again. No?

QueenAdrock

02-21-2006, 09:25 PM

valvano

02-21-2006, 09:36 PM

queen,
you mean like when democrats ignore the fact that govt revenues actually increase after tax cuts and preach against them, we should censor them?

or people support additional govt programs even though its proven that everything the govt touches turns into a clusterfuck (see hurricane katrina), we should censor them?

thats scary, a self avowed liberal supporting censorship..........hope you havent renewed your aclu dues...

where you been, the thick of acc basketball and you've been in hiding?

EN[i]GMA

02-21-2006, 09:47 PM

We're not "drawing the line" at fascism. We're drawing the line at denying something that's proven to have happened in order to help spread their ideology of hate. There's a difference between opinion and blatant disregard for facts. If Christians deny something PROVEN to have happened, say in order to recruit more members to hate Islamic people, then by all means they should be censored too.

And of course the government has the power to decide what is 'fact' and what isn't 'fact'.

Need I really insert the obvious Orwell quote here?

If thinking something that goes against governmental doctrine is grounds for imprisonment than I fear for my safety.

Sure, today it's the holocaust, but tommorow, maybe American collusion in foreign affairs.

I'm currently reading the Trial of Henry Kissinger by Hitchens. The facts in it certainly don't jive with a lot of what the establishment would like you to believe. It goes against 'common knowledge'.

What if thinking Kissinger were a war criminal were a crime itself?

It's not impossible, at all, to imagine this happening, if such a precedence is set.

Documad

02-21-2006, 09:53 PM

GMA']I'm currently reading the Trial of Henry Kissinger by Hitchens. The facts in it certainly don't jive with a lot of what the establishment would like you to believe. It goes against 'common knowledge'.
FYI -- the documentary was very poorly made. I don't know everything there is to know, but I didn't learn a darn thing and it was put together in a very unconvincing fashion.

I'm all for free speech, but I'm willing to cut Austria a break on this. WWII is still pretty fresh for us and it should be even more so for them.

valvano

02-21-2006, 10:07 PM

FYI -- the documentary was very poorly made. I don't know everything there is to know, but I didn't learn a darn thing and it was put together in a very unconvincing fashion.

I'm all for free speech, but I'm willing to cut Austria a break on this. WWII is still pretty fresh for us and it should be even more so for them.

so has the US Civil War passed long enough for me to preach that slaves really were happy down here in the south, and the CSA were the true victims of northern agression?

:confused:

its like the case we had here in va a few years ago regarding the right to burn a cross, the klansman was defended by david baugh, a noted african american attorney here who lost nearly all his membership in civil rights groups in va because he defended the civil rights of.......a klansman...

even though the case went to the supreme court and the lost, it sets an extremely scary precedent...you cant burn your cross....you can't show your swastika......you can't show your confederate flag....you can't show your black pride fist flag......you cant do this....you cant do that.......

or is it the case, as long as the removal of somebody elses rights doesnt affect my civil rights is okay (y) ????

Funkaloyd

02-21-2006, 10:24 PM

GMA']And of course the government has the power to decide what is 'fact' and what isn't 'fact'.
Need I really insert the obvious Orwell quote here?
This has nothing to do with 1984 and you know it. Now shut up and go back to your Ministry of Truth published history books.

fucktopgirl

02-21-2006, 10:40 PM

while they put in prison a old schmuck who was really in a total state of delirium 20 years ago,they let go of the real fuckers.The ones who ARE doing an holocaust;usa,britain,korea,china,,,,,,

People should be able to say what they want ;free speech!
You can argue people opinion but putting them in jail?
plus Irving admits he was wrong!

Documad

02-22-2006, 12:29 AM

so has the US Civil War passed long enough for me to preach that slaves really were happy down here in the south, and the CSA were the true victims of northern agression?
No, that would be stupid and the opposite of what I said. More importantly, despite the fact that it's ignored by our current president and VP, the USA has a constitution that guarantees you your right to say stupid things like what you wrote above. I don't believe that the Austrians have such a constitution. I don't know what other countries have such a set of rights. The UK doesn't. Heck, we probably won't have it much longer unless we have a dramatic change of course.

If you want to burn a cross on your own property and you don't let it get so far out of hand that it endangers others' property or violates some sort of local ordinance setting out fire codes, etc., then I would agree that you have a legal right to do it. You do not have the right to burn that cross in someone else's yard or in a manner that endangers others. Where I break with my more liberal friends is that while I strongly believe that you have a right to hate speech (not hate actions but hate speech), I wouldn't waste my time/money/energy helping you perpetuate your hate speech.

franscar

02-22-2006, 10:13 AM

I wonder how many books he's sold in the last week. It's probably the best publicity he's ever had.

ASsman

02-22-2006, 10:19 AM

Gah, both sides make reasonable arguments. But still I do not see a Government doing this 'right'.

Who decides what is inciting hate and what is only inciting questions. I can understand it might not get out of hand in Europe, obviously being American we can see how it can though.

I just don't see the clear connection between his bullshit and other people being like, YEAH HITLER KICKS ASS! HE DIDN't DO IT! Which it of itself makes no sense.

Schmeltz

02-22-2006, 11:43 AM

You've got it all backwards, Funkaloyd. First the fascists came for us. Then our grandfathers kicked the shit out of them. And rightly so.

I think that Ms.Peachy and QueenAdrock have it right (trust the ladies to be level-headed). The Holocaust is a uniquely vicious and destructive historical event with a unique historical legacy. Laws relating to its treatment are therefore also unique and must be considered in light of the sheer horror that defines its remembrance, especially in the very countries with direct connections to it. It is futile to attempt to address the issue under the same umbrella terms that would define debate about a less weighty issue. This isn't about historians being forced to conform to any "state doctrine," it's about societies ensuring that a very recent historical event of unparalleled horror is not glossed over by revisionists with specific political agendas.

Here in Canada we just recently deported Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, in spite of the fact that certain legal channels were bypassed in order for this to happen. Scary contravention of human rights by a dictatorial government? No. Safeguarding of our nation's intellectual legacy from xenophobic fanatics? Yes. I am not worried that the Canadian government is going to prosecute me for the paper I'm writing on the economic background to the Fourth Crusade. If they do - well, then we will definitely have a problem. But for a state to prosecute, on behalf of its citizens, those who deliberately attempt to poison its intellectual atmosphere with heavily politicized, racist agendas... I don't see the problem. Holocaust deniers are scum on a par with rapists and murderers and they ought to be treated accordingly.

As for valvano's inane question about the civil war... well, buddy, that's for your own society to work out by yourselves. None of us can answer that question for you. If you and your fellow citizens want to make idiots of yourselves by pretending the slaves were happy, by all means go ahead. It's not like that's the worst thing you and your ilk would have done to your international reputation. Of course, you won't be able to stop historians in other countries from arriving at dissenting points of view... unless you bomb their academic institutions. Which I wouldn't put past you at all.

valvano

02-22-2006, 11:50 AM

As for valvano's inane question about the civil war... well, buddy, that's for your own society to work out by yourselves. None of us can answer that question for you. If you and your fellow citizens want to make idiots of yourselves by pretending the slaves were happy, by all means go ahead. It's not like that's the worst thing you and your ilk would have done to your international reputation. Of course, you won't be able to stop historians in other countries from arriving at dissenting points of view... unless you bomb their academic institutions. Which I wouldn't put past you at all.

ummmmmmm I was the Civil War / slavery thing as an example........ :rolleyes:

Schmeltz

02-22-2006, 11:55 AM

Sorry. Everything you post is so laughable I have a hard time telling when you're actually being funny.

valvano

02-22-2006, 11:58 AM

Sorry. Everything you post is so laughable I have a hard time telling when you're actually being funny.

not a problem...thanks

yeahwho

02-22-2006, 02:10 PM

Numbers matter

The Europeans remember the big lesson of the Big Lie, Americans have forgotten that and are learning again the hard way.

Most estimates place the holocaust total at 11-12 million (http://www.uca.edu/divisions/academic/history/cahr/holocaust.htm). The problem with the 6 million estimate is that it counts only Jews.
I'm always amazed at how the holocaust is portrayed by historians and historians with a special interest. The greatest degree of accuracy possible is necessary. Holocaust denial is intellectually invalid to most sane people; downplaying it, however, is a more insidious danger--a danger many people's attitude plays right into.

one cannot separate some from the group and call it a Holocaust and say the others were merely victims of war, or worse, completely ignore their numbers and leave them no record in history

Like the header says, this is an odd case with many levels of the human condition on display. Especially the evil condition.

QueenAdrock

02-22-2006, 04:35 PM

queen,
you mean like when democrats ignore the fact that govt revenues actually increase after tax cuts and preach against them, we should censor them?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. The Democrats ignore fact and are leading the path of hate that will ultimately lead to war and genocide. Thanks for clearing THAT one up, Jacko. :rolleyes:

thats scary, a self avowed liberal supporting censorship..........hope you havent renewed your aclu dues...

where you been, the thick of acc basketball and you've been in hiding?

Yeah! Whoa! A Democrat you Republicans can't write off as a "damn dirty liberal" and box them into this nice, neat category! How astonishing! What next, a pro-choice Republican? Oh, wait. There's quite a few of those. Maybe you should take your head outta your ass and realize that the world is in shades of gray.

Where have I been? Well, if you really want to know, I got my heart torn out by a guy I was deeply in love with for 5 years because his racist father would never accept me and our relationship was doomed because it was family versus me and he had been trying to fight for 5 years to stay with me and he cracked.

And with me opening up that same old wound, I'll be off now. I'll talk to you guys sometime when I'm in the mood for argumentation, because right now I don't have it in me and won't for a while. Bye.

Ace42X

02-22-2006, 05:01 PM

trust the ladies to be level-headed

You calling me a woman?!?

Funkaloyd

02-22-2006, 06:42 PM

Holocaust deniers are scum on a par with rapists and murderers and they ought to be treated accordingly.
But there's a key difference: denying the Holocaust doesn't take away anybody else's freedoms, unlike is the case with rape and murder. In fact, there's very little one can say short of "here's $2000, kill my wife" which does negatively affect other's freedoms. The US has the Imminent Lawless Action (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm) test to decide when speech is illegal, and together with the First Amendment, it's what keeps the government from locking up anti-war protestors and socialists.

It is futile to attempt to address the issue under the same umbrella terms that would define debate about a less weighty issue.
So when is an issue "weighty" enough that we can outlaw alternative views? Russia's had a pretty horrid recent past; would you say Putin has the right to lock up communists?

God, I can't believe the disregard for freedom of speech and the ideals of the First Amendment here. I feel like I'm back posting at Free Conservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/) and RonaldReagan.com (http://www.ronaldreagan.com/)

EN[i]GMA

02-22-2006, 07:22 PM

It is shameful.

I don't care how disgusting the speach is, unless it actively calls for violence, it's perfectly a perfectly legitimate use of speach.

Not that making it illegal would really solve anything or change anyone's opinion.

EN[i]GMA

02-22-2006, 07:24 PM

EN[i]GMA

02-22-2006, 07:28 PM

You've got it all backwards, Funkaloyd. First the fascists came for us. Then our grandfathers kicked the shit out of them. And rightly so.

I think that Ms.Peachy and QueenAdrock have it right (trust the ladies to be level-headed). The Holocaust is a uniquely vicious and destructive historical event with a unique historical legacy.

Eh...maybe.

You can't really delve into this line of argumentation without making arbitrary value judgements.

Was Rwanda worse? Cambodia? East Timor? All the atrocities in former Yugoslavia?

I don't think you can definitively say.

Laws relating to its treatment are therefore also unique and must be considered in light of the sheer horror that defines its remembrance, especially in the very countries with direct connections to it. It is futile to attempt to address the issue under the same umbrella terms that would define debate about a less weighty issue. This isn't about historians being forced to conform to any "state doctrine," it's about societies ensuring that a very recent historical event of unparalleled horror is not glossed over by revisionists with specific political agendas.

The thing is though, that it happens all the time.

Facts are glossed over, not just by fanatical nazis, but by the government itself.

The same governement you are trusting with these facts.

Here in Canada we just recently deported Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, in spite of the fact that certain legal channels were bypassed in order for this to happen. Scary contravention of human rights by a dictatorial government? No. Safeguarding of our nation's intellectual legacy from xenophobic fanatics? Yes. I am not worried that the Canadian government is going to prosecute me for the paper I'm writing on the economic background to the Fourth Crusade. If they do - well, then we will definitely have a problem. But for a state to prosecute, on behalf of its citizens, those who deliberately attempt to poison its intellectual atmosphere with heavily politicized, racist agendas... I don't see the problem. Holocaust deniers are scum on a par with rapists and murderers and they ought to be treated accordingly.

Again, we're delving into to meaningless value judgements.

Comparing murder to holocaust denial is, I think, laughable. Thoughtcrime.

Ace42X

02-22-2006, 07:34 PM

GMA']
Comparing murder to holocaust denial is, I think, laughable. Thoughtcrime.

Since when is simple mathematics thoughtcrime?

Funkaloyd

02-22-2006, 08:11 PM

Laws against poor mathematical and historical knowledge create thoughtcrime.

EN[i]GMA

02-22-2006, 08:18 PM

Since when is simple mathematics thoughtcrime?

You are allowed to hold incorrect, demonstrably incorrect beliefs.

You are allowed to say and think things that are untrue.

None's denying either the mathamatical ineptitude or ideological zealotry of these people; I'm just saying it isn't a crime.

Tone Capone

02-23-2006, 01:53 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11455196/

....but shouldn't bigots be allowed to talk?."

You ARE allowed to talk.

Medellia

02-23-2006, 02:22 AM

GMA']I'm just saying it isn't a crime.
Well it clearly is a crime since he was arrested for it.

Tone Capone

02-23-2006, 02:40 AM

Well it clearly is a crime since he was arrested for it.

Oh SNAP! :cool:

Qdrop

02-23-2006, 08:28 AM

So when is an issue "weighty" enough that we can outlaw alternative views? Russia's had a pretty horrid recent past; would you say Putin has the right to lock up communists?

God, I can't believe the disregard for freedom of speech and the ideals of the First Amendment here. I feel like I'm back posting at Free Conservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/) and RonaldReagan.com (http://www.ronaldreagan.com/)

yeah, i'm with you....

i've never seen Schmeltz so far off base on something...

obviously we ALL feel that Holocaust deniers are scum/liars/"Dr.Evil's-with-an-agenda....

but claiming that you are denying someone's free speech "to protect us all" from re-treading the past seems like more of a slippery slope than allowing someone to spread lies about the holocaust.

because in order to stop free speech to "protect us all", you need someone in power to make that decision and enforce that...
and how much can you trust any high authority to dictate what surpression of knowledge is "good for all of us".

obviously silencing a prominent Holocaust denier is, in and of itself, a good thing...
but it lays the groundwork for future abuses by those in power to silence other speakers "for the good of the people"...

Qdrop

02-23-2006, 08:30 AM

You ARE allowed to talk.

oh for fuck sake...why are YOU here?

again with this "you're a racist cause i said so" shit?....

valvano

02-23-2006, 08:59 AM

obviously silencing a prominent Holocaust denier is, in and of itself, a good thing...
but it lays the groundwork for future abuses by those in power to silence other speakers "for the good of the people"...

nail meets head

(y)

Ace42X

02-23-2006, 09:05 AM

but it lays the groundwork for future abuses by those in power to silence other speakers "for the good of the people"...

"lay's the groundwork" ? This legislation has been in place for over fifty years. It is not like it is some insidious creeping, or patriot act-esque subterfuge.

Ace42X

02-23-2006, 09:13 AM

GMA']
I don't care how disgusting the speach is, unless it actively calls for violence, it's perfectly a perfectly legitimate use of speach.

Your government and laws think otherwise. Look at libel, slander, defamation, etc, etc etc.

It is all very well saying "people should be able to say whatever they like" - but given how that IS NOT THE CASE, I think we can all agree that holocaust denial is hardly a more contentious issue than being able to implying someone sleeps with children.

Qdrop

02-23-2006, 09:42 AM

"lay's the groundwork" ? This legislation has been in place for over fifty years. It is not like it is some insidious creeping, or patriot act-esque subterfuge.

it's still there, opening the possibility of abuse by certain people (if the same sentiment is carried over to other laws).
i see that to be no more unlikely then the prospect of free speech of Holocaust deniers leading to another jewish genocide...

i see it to have a rather distinct similarity to Bush's "wire tapping" bullshit.
wire tapping without warrents to find terrorists is, in and of itself, a good thing.
but wire tapping without warrents most definately lays the groundwork for future abuse by those in power...if they start deaming other people "terrorists" or claiming anti-war protesters are "engaging in terrorist-like activity".

Ace42X

02-23-2006, 09:54 AM

it's still there, opening the possibility of abuse by certain people (if the same sentiment is carried over to other laws).
i see that to be no more unlikely then the prospect of free speech of Holocaust deniers leading to another jewish genocide...

Because you are very far from the situation, both historically, politcally and geographically. An Austrian DID manage to get millions of jews killed solely based on his hate speech, so it is understandable why they are so eager to prevent it ever happening again. We can argue that enough time has passed that the law is an anachronism. They think otherwise, and the fact that they still have use of it is a testament to this.

i see it to have a rather distinct similarity to Bush's "wire tapping" bullshit.

I don't. There is a different between illegal wiretaps without any recourse to the people, and a public and discrete law that has the support and mandate of the people. It is not like they don't know that they live under this law, or that it can be used for anything other than prosecuting holocaust deniers. It jut isn't that open-ended that it can be exploited for anything else. Unlike a lot of current anti-terrorist legislation, which has already been seen to creep beyond its remit, it doesn't have any bearing on any other legislation.

Now, if you want to argue that by virtue of acceptance of this law, the Austrians are more likely to introduce (or tolerate the introduction of) new legislation that curtails other civil liberties, that is a different kettle of fish. But given that they have had over half a century to do so, and have yet to outlaw people criticising the government, we can see that it doesn't hold too much water.

Holocaust denial though is a very very real, and very very dangerous threat to a number of people. It is already used as a justification for anti-semitic violence, etc. Perpetrating the ongoing myth of a global zionist conspiracy that leads to racial tension, violence, and is a contributing factor to the animosity in he middle-east.

EN[i]GMA

02-23-2006, 02:26 PM

Well it clearly is a crime since he was arrested for it.

Kind of like how being a Jew was crime DURING the Holocaust.

How ironic.

EN[i]GMA

02-23-2006, 02:28 PM

"lay's the groundwork" ? This legislation has been in place for over fifty years. It is not like it is some insidious creeping, or patriot act-esque subterfuge.

But it's still an infringement on freedoms, even if its a particular freedom I dislike.

"I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

That whole thing.

EN[i]GMA

02-23-2006, 02:34 PM

Your government and laws think otherwise. Look at libel, slander, defamation, etc, etc etc.

I can and do look at them, and see things I both like and dislike.

Firstly, libel and slander can be shown to be demonstrably harmful to an individual; saying the holocaust never happend, not so much.

Saying something ABOUT somone, that effects their daily life in a negative, objective, manner, is wrong.

Saying something that is your opinion ("You are a cunt" for example) may be derogatory, offensive, and cause you some hurt feelings, but is not and should not illegal.

Holocaust denial, I think, belongs in the latter catagory.

None can cause you financial damage, social damage, etc. by saying 'the holocaust never happen' and if it causes significant emotional trauma, than you probably have a seperate problem altogether.

Libel, slander, and defamation can be shown to objectively hurt a person; holocaust denial, in and of itself, cannot.

Now, if they are a holocaust denier and a racist, bent on 'driving the jews out', than you very likely have a point and this individual probably is breaking a law against speach, because his threat is very clear.

It is all very well saying "people should be able to say whatever they like" - but given how that IS NOT THE CASE, I think we can all agree that holocaust denial is hardly a more contentious issue than being able to implying someone sleeps with children.

Nice try, but we can't all agree is the problem.

Simple holocaust denial, by itself, should not be a crime; it is not harmful.

That's the key here.

Saying someone sleeps with children is obviously harmful.

Saying "there was no holocaust' is not going to ruin anyone's reputation or life, other than the person uttering it.

Ace42X

02-23-2006, 03:21 PM

GMA']But it's still an infringement on freedoms, even if its a particular freedom I dislike.

*Any* law is an infringement on freedoms. That is the whole point.

Firstly, libel and slander can be shown to be demonstrably harmful to an individual; saying the holocaust never happend, not so much.

A lot of people would beg to differ. Plenty of people believe that holocaust denial is or can be very and tangibly dangerous. The Austrians clearly believe that it is dangerous, and not without good reason, several million of them, infact. Far be it from me to attribute motivation to the Austrian people, but I am sure there are plenty of Jews who will say there are cast-iron pragmatic reasons why holocaust denial is a clear threat to the personal safety of their people. The legislation is there to prevent racially motivated violence.

Saying something ABOUT somone, that effects their daily life in a negative, objective, manner, is wrong.

Saying something that is your opinion ("You are a cunt" for example) may be derogatory, offensive, and cause you some hurt feelings, but is not and should not illegal.

Holocaust denial, I think, belongs in the latter catagory.

And I think not. Holocaust denial is negative, and objectively wrong. It is not like an opinion, it is not a value-judgement, it is a statement of fact. And, as I pointed out, holocaust denial is particularly relevent, given that it is being used as a very very real legitimisation for very very real acts of terrorism and violence. For example, the Ayatollah saying Israel should be wiped from the map. Holocaust denial spreads racism and racial intolerance, and gives a justification for biggotry and prejudice. Biggotry and prejudice undeniably has a tangible and significant impact on people's lives. It is not the same as someone calling you a cunt in the street.

Saying someone sleeps with children is obviously harmful.

Saying "there was no holocaust' is not going to ruin anyone's reputation or life, other than the person uttering it.

Except for ruining the reputation of every single Jew, and anyone who maintains that the holocaust did happen, as it implies that they are a perjorer, or part of a zionist conspiracy.

yeahwho

02-23-2006, 03:41 PM

Chilling. Our freedom to commit hate crimes is being taken away while we sleep!

I have no stake in this debate, I do not live in Austria and I do not have any legitimate stance on the Austrian legal belief system. I tend to think they are fighting fascism (http://www.sonicyouth.com/prmp3/Against_Fascism.mp3) with fascism, but really is 3 years the correct term for being an idiot?

What if an actual physical crime with evidence occured? David Irving is arrested after attacking a man by throwing a swastika shaped pie in his face. Again I'm not an expert in this area, but I tend to think the pie crime would be less time.

Why would neo-nazis want to deny the holocaust?

If I were an anti-semitic fascist I should think that the Holocaust was some sort of spectacular achievement that should be celebrated, not denied.

I think Irving is probably a bit further removed from reality than just denial.

EN[i]GMA

02-23-2006, 03:56 PM

*Any* law is an infringement on freedoms. That is the whole point.

No, a law is a protection of freedom.

The freedom to not be killed, for instance.

A lot of people would beg to differ. Plenty of people believe that holocaust denial is or can be very and tangibly dangerous. The Austrians clearly believe that it is dangerous, and not without good reason, several million of them, infact. Far be it from me to attribute motivation to the Austrian people, but I am sure there are plenty of Jews who will say there are cast-iron pragmatic reasons why holocaust denial is a clear threat to the personal safety of their people. The legislation is there to prevent racially motivated violence.

I can see the rationale, and I can respect it, but I can't agree with it.

Maybe in Austria it really is a different case, but here in America, I don't support such a law.

And I think not. Holocaust denial is negative, and objectively wrong. It is not like an opinion, it is not a value-judgement, it is a statement of fact. And, as I pointed out, holocaust denial is particularly relevent, given that it is being used as a very very real legitimisation for very very real acts of terrorism and violence. For example, the Ayatollah saying Israel should be wiped from the map. Holocaust denial spreads racism and racial intolerance, and gives a justification for biggotry and prejudice. Biggotry and prejudice undeniably has a tangible and significant impact on people's lives. It is not the same as someone calling you a cunt in the street.

Would making it illegal really change anything though? Would it really change anyone's opinion?

I can't see it solving the problem of racism.

There's a difference between enacting a law to combat this sort of speach and getting rid of it.

You can't outlaw people talking amongst themselves, privately, for instance.

As long as people have private communication, they will have the ability to communicate lies and racist ideas. It's the nature of the game, and no law is going to stop it.

Germany's many laws against nazism and Swastika-showing do nothing to stop neo-nazis from being an actual force in the country, or stop them from killing minorities as they intermittantly do.

I don't know the exact laws, but I would assume that they are rather strict (I know you can't show a swastika), yet Germany still has a significant neo-nazi population.

Except for ruining the reputation of every single Jew, and anyone who maintains that the holocaust did happen, as it implies that they are a perjorer, or part of a zionist conspiracy.

Some whacko denying the holocaust ruins the reputation of every Jew?

Ace42X

02-23-2006, 04:21 PM

GMA']No, a law is a protection of freedom.
The freedom to not be killed, for instance.

That is Orwellian. A freedom is a freedom to do or to not do. You cannot have a "freedom to have not done upon you."

Freedom, in this context, is:
" Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly."
or
"The condition of being free of restraints."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom

A law prohibiting killing is a law that curtails your freedom to kill. It is nonsensical to think of it in any other terms.

Would making it illegal really change anything though? Would it really change anyone's opinion?

Its efficacy is a different matter altogether. It is not there to change minds, it is there to stop people spreading lies, proganda and hatred to people who are as of yet undecided. The holocaust did not happen because a few racists managed to get their way, it happened because their warped values were propogated to a wider and less entrenched population. It is this that the legislation is supposed to curtail.

I can't see it solving the problem of racism.

It is preventative rather than curative. It is to prevent these ideologies being voiced in a mainstream or authoritative way.

There's a difference between enacting a law to combat this sort of speach and getting rid of it.

Indeed, one is a mechanism that strives for an ideal, the other is the ideal being strived for.

You can't outlaw people talking amongst themselves, privately, for instance.

You can, and it is. The problem is in prosecution, rather than the law itself. While it might be impossible to secure a great number of those convictions, that doesn't effect the legality or morality of the law.

It's the nature of the game, and no law is going to stop it.

You could say that about any crime - are you going to disband all laws?

Germany's many laws against nazism and Swastika-showing do nothing to stop neo-nazis from being an actual force in the country, or stop them from killing minorities as they intermittantly do.

Wanna bet?

yet Germany still has a significant neo-nazi population.

And what makes you think that it wouldn't be significantly higher without the legislation, hmmm? Besides, I don't think I have ever come across a neo-nazi German. All of the Germans I've known have been perfectly nice, and the whole war thing is a distant memory.

Some whacko denying the holocaust ruins the reputation of every Jew?

Some whacko accusing a guy of molesting children ruins his reputation?

If a whacko denying the holocaust convinces another person that it is a tissue of lies propogating a zionist agenda, that person is going to view all Jews with suspicion, and regard them as untrustworthy manipulative liars. That is defamatory.

EDIT: Incidently, this topic is being debated on Question Time at the moment. As the chair pointed out, the laws were supposedly in place to "Nip in the bud any revival of nazism."

yeahwho

02-23-2006, 04:47 PM

Holocaust denial by the standard of this debate is in the context of "Jewish Holocaust" denial. This is akin to saying the population of Indiana and Washington state (appx. 10.5 million) have been murdered, but since the population of Washington state is a hodgepodge (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/indictment1.htm) of dissenters let's just focus on the population of Indiana....because in Indiana the population all have the same belief system, which is propagandized as a hate state and threat by proxy of sheer numbers of same beliefs.

Maybe 50 years later we'll recognize the Washington State population as a byproduct of the Indiana solution. But because they are a hodgepodge of liberal blue ACLU sympathizers the value of their lives are considered less.

I feel this is part of a bigger lie we live today with Darfur, Rwanda and many recent atrocities on Earth.

OK, just my 2 cents. Carry on.

Funkaloyd

02-23-2006, 06:11 PM

An Austrian DID manage to get millions of jews killed solely based on his hate speechMaybe we should ban effective public oration and snazzy uniforms.

[Holocaust denial] is being used as a very very real legitimisation for very very real acts of terrorism and violence.
You know, when you criticize the Patriot Act, you're giving militia and survivalist groups justification for anti-government violence.

Some whacko accusing a guy of molesting children ruins his reputation?Perhaps, perhaps not. Whether something's defamation or not is decided on a case by case basis, whereas what Austria has done is akin to banning all incorrect accusations, regardless of context or harm done.

Ace42X

02-23-2006, 06:16 PM

Maybe we should ban effective public oration and snazzy uniforms.

Yeah, it's not like we could take steps to prevent a facistic and evil dictatorship taking power of the country, that would be undemocratic...

You know, when you criticize the Patriot Act, you're giving militia and survivalist groups justification for anti-government violence.

Good, it's about time they used the second amendment as it was meant to be.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Whether something's defamation or not is decided on a case by case basis, whereas what Austria has done is akin to banning all incorrect accusations, regardless of context or harm done.

I think you'll find that the Irving case was tried on the merits of that case. The judge and jury both have discretionary powers, so it is not like he just happened to fall into the same catergory as "real criminals".

Funkaloyd

02-23-2006, 06:56 PM

Yeah, it's not like we could take steps to prevent a facistic and evil dictatorship taking power of the country, that would be undemocratic...Banning speeches would definitely prevent another rise of fascism.

Funkaloyd

02-23-2006, 07:02 PM

it's about time they used the second amendment as it was meant to be.

"Timothy McVeigh - A-OK!"

(I thought that up myself. God, I'm clever)

fucktopgirl

02-23-2006, 07:33 PM

Banning speeches would definitely prevent another rise of fascism.

i dont think so! It would eventually lead to rebellion because abus will certainly appear on the surface!

But rebellion against the government is good! :D

EN[i]GMA

02-23-2006, 08:05 PM

That is Orwellian. A freedom is a freedom to do or to not do. You cannot have a "freedom to have not done upon you."

Freedom, in this context, is:
" Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly."
or
"The condition of being free of restraints."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom

A law prohibiting killing is a law that curtails your freedom to kill. It is nonsensical to think of it in any other terms.

It protects your right to live.

I feel as though we're just restating the same though.

Its efficacy is a different matter altogether. It is not there to change minds, it is there to stop people spreading lies, proganda and hatred to people who are as of yet undecided. The holocaust did not happen because a few racists managed to get their way, it happened because their warped values were propogated to a wider and less entrenched population. It is this that the legislation is supposed to curtail.

But is holocaust denial necessarily racist?

One could feasibly be a holocaust denier and not be racist, so if it's racism you want to combat, than combat racism, not something that generally coincides with it.

Attack 'Jews should die' not 'Jews didn't die'.

It is preventative rather than curative. It is to prevent these ideologies being voiced in a mainstream or authoritative way.

But I don't think they would be without the laws, at least now.

You can, and it is. The problem is in prosecution, rather than the law itself. While it might be impossible to secure a great number of those convictions, that doesn't effect the legality or morality of the law.

Yes, you can, but it isn't likely to happen.

Two deniers talking amongst themselves are not likely to be charged simply because they're not likely to be heard.

And prosecution is a bitch. What else, besides eye-witness testimony, do you have to go on?

And as I'm sure you know, eye-witness testimony can be problematic, to say the least.

Wanna bet?

It certainly hasn't solved the problem entirely.

It may have helped, I really don't know.

And what makes you think that it wouldn't be significantly higher without the legislation, hmmm?

Isn't that arguing from ignorance?

Besides, I don't think I have ever come across a neo-nazi German. All of the Germans I've known have been perfectly nice, and the whole war thing is a distant memory.

Interesting thing I found, googling around: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/germ-m31.shtml

What's your take on that?

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany_(NPD)

Some whacko accusing a guy of molesting children ruins his reputation?

Maybe, maybe not.

It depends on the circumstances.

But this doesn't apply, as Jews, as a race, don't all believe in the holocaust, so, conceibably, some Jew, some where, is a holocaust denier, thus the accusation does not discredit 'all jews'.

If a whacko denying the holocaust convinces another person that it is a tissue of lies propogating a zionist agenda, that person is going to view all Jews with suspicion, and regard them as untrustworthy manipulative liars. That is defamatory.

The assumption made is defamatory.

The specific 'facts' are not defamatory, by themselves.

EDIT: Incidently, this topic is being debated on Question Time at the moment. As the chair pointed out, the laws were supposedly in place to "Nip in the bud any revival of nazism."

OK, that I can see.

But the real is question, are they still valid today, when, presumably, Nazism is not likely to make a resurgence?

Medellia

02-24-2006, 12:58 AM

GMA']Kind of like how being a Jew was crime DURING the Holocaust.

How ironic.
Yeah, because knowingly breaking a law is the same thing as being Jewish during the Holocaust. Right.

Funkaloyd

02-24-2006, 01:52 AM

The White Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose) group, among others, knowingly broke the law.

Medellia

02-24-2006, 02:15 AM

The White Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose) group, among others, knowingly broke the law.
Yes, and that's terrible. However, it's not the same thing as the "crime" of being the wrong race, which is what Engma said earlier. Of course before that he claimed that Irving [I]hadn't committed a crime at all.

synch

02-24-2006, 02:46 AM

I subscribed to xbox live about a year a back (barely used it and stopped the service a couple of days ago) and read the entire "terms of use" bit before accepting it.

There was a section dedicated to what you aren't allowed to say on xbox live. A particularly relevant one contained something like this:

"It's not permitted to deny the existance of historical events the denial of which can be hurtful for other users"

I like how they managed to put that in there without actually using the word holocaust. Unless they were talking about the 1982 world cup that is.

Tone Capone

02-24-2006, 05:29 AM

oh for fuck sake...why are YOU here?

....

I'm here because I CARE!!! :(

Funkaloyd

02-24-2006, 06:10 AM

(iow, because these laws are a risk to his far-right ass)

Ace42X

02-24-2006, 07:52 AM

GMA']It protects your right to live.
I feel as though we're just restating the same though.

No, there is a difference between a freedom and a right. It is an important distinction.

You can have a right to do something which is heavily regulated, and thus you are not necessarily "free" to do it.

But is holocaust denial necessarily racist?

No, and you are right, we should be more specific. Something Yeahwho pointed out several times. However, it is generally used solely to disparage Jews and to mitigate Hitler and his policies. Surely you can see "Hitler wasn't so bad... Maybe he was onto something, and the Jews just span a lot of lies" is not a safe argument to have bandied around? And you should know just by posting on this forum that sensible refutations with these people do not always carry as much weight as they should.

not something that generally coincides with it.

It is combatting something that is used to justify it.

Attack 'Jews should die' not 'Jews didn't die'.

How can you hope to refute any argument if you allow them to use lies?

But I don't think they would be without the laws, at least now.

Like I said, I'd like to think they've moved on. But I'm not an Austrian, I don't know what the state of racism and political facism is like.

It certainly hasn't solved the problem entirely.

No law has. We going to use that as a criticism of laws against murder?

It may have helped, I really don't know.

And yet I suspect they know better than we do.

Interesting thing I found, googling around: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/germ-m31.shtml

What's your take on that?

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany_(NPD)

Prolly for another thread. Without looking at the links (currently doing stuff) I am guessing that this is pointing out that there are far-right elements of the society. Hardly anything new, there are BNP councillors and candidates for parliament here (see my 'prick' thread about that prick Nick Griffon). I would hardly say that we have a strong facistic element in our society based on that. I think we need some germangs in here to have their take on the issue. And Austrians.

But this doesn't apply, as Jews, as a race, don't all believe in the holocaust, so, conceibably, some Jew, some where, is a holocaust denier, thus the accusation does not discredit 'all jews'.

Ah, but it does. Because the person being told of the "Jewish Conspiracy" will be prejudiced against *all Jews.* He will not be in a position to use that mitigating argument to say "Oh, well, but this Jew might not believe the holocaust."

The assumption made is defamatory.
The specific 'facts' are not defamatory, by themselves.

False facts are defamatory, look at libel. Libel has to be factually innaccurate, not assumptions.

But the real is question, are they still valid today, when, presumably, Nazism is not likely to make a resurgence?

"Not likely to make a resurgence." - Instead of "it couldn't happen here." We get "it couldn't happen now" ?

Like I said, I'd like to think we have all learned and move on, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/default.stm#

^^^ This debate featured heavily on Question Time last night.

Ace42X

02-24-2006, 08:19 AM

In a related matter:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1717241,00.html

Does this have any bearing?

franscar

02-24-2006, 09:58 AM

In a related matter:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1717241,00.html

Does this have any bearing?

Any bearing on Red Ken being a cock? Nah, I'm pretty sure everyone was well aware of that years back.

fucktopgirl

02-24-2006, 01:37 PM

In the same kind of news !
A london mayor got suspended for having compare a jew journalist to a NAzi concentration camp guard!

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=20104

humm,wandering if thye will stop us from farting one day! :D

Ace42X

02-24-2006, 01:38 PM

A london mayor got suspended for having compare a jew journalist to a NAzi concentration camp guard!

*THE* London mayor, the semi-famous politician Ken Livingstone.

Schmeltz

02-24-2006, 03:37 PM

Just to reiterate a little: I don't think any of us here are at all in favour of repealing the right to free speech. I certainly am not. But as I understand it, the right to free speech does not necessarily entail the right to say whatever you please. There's use, and there's abuse. Holocaust denial is an abuse of that fundamental right by extremists promoting falsified political agendas. Societies have a right (indeed, I would say, a duty) to preserve free speech and its accompanying need for critical distinction by ensuring that hatemongers and extremists are not given a soapbox. I don't think decisions like this set a precedent for a slippery slope of revisionism and the crushing of dissent; they are, rather, simply attempts to preserve the intellectual fabric of society from those who would deliberately poison it. By contrast, fascists set the precedents for their own treatment sixty years ago and so far as I'm concerned they can learn to deal with the consequences.

We will be able to tell when governments are making moves to eliminate legitimate dissent and remove democratic debate from our societies. This is not one of those moves.

ms.peachy

02-24-2006, 04:34 PM

Well put.

Funkaloyd

02-24-2006, 06:36 PM

the right to free speech does not necessarily entail the right to say whatever you please. There's use, and there's abuse. Holocaust denial is an abuse
What's your definition of protected speech? Where's the line drawn? Why is Holocaust denial special?

valvano

02-24-2006, 07:27 PM

"But as I understand it, the right to free speech does not necessarily entail the right to say whatever you please. There's use, and there's abuse."

do you mean, say, cheering for the yankees at fenway?

who's to decide when speech become abuse, who has that power, how do they get that power, and is there a means for them to lose that power?

i guess you mean, you are free to say what you want, but not really?

:rolleyes:

ASsman

02-24-2006, 07:33 PM

Odd? Can you say Old? Seriously, ages ago.

Ace42X

02-24-2006, 07:57 PM

who's to decide when speech become abuse, who has that power, how do they get that power, and is there a means for them to lose that power?

i guess you mean, you are free to say what you want, but not really?

There is plenty of things that you would get arrested for saying in the US as it stands. Like it or not, your legal system makes this decision, and prosecutes on it, daily.

As I keep pointing out, defamation is an abuse of free speech, and is frequently prosecuted.

How do judges, jury, and legislators get that power? Do some research, it's your fucking legal system for chrissakes.

I'd wager that hoax phonecalls to the emergency services are just as illegal there as they are here. You gonna bitch about that impinging upon your right to be an asshole?

valvano

02-24-2006, 09:30 PM

"There is plenty of things that you would get arrested for saying in the US as it stands. Like it or not, your legal system makes this decision, and prosecutes on it, daily."

Besides threats of harm/violence against individuals, or libel or slander, can you give me so examples of these daily prosecutions?

Who was prosecuted today?
Last Thursday?
Christmas Eve 2003?

:confused:

2sweet2Bsour

02-24-2006, 11:07 PM

I highly recommend Chapter II of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion." It can be found here (http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html). It's the finest advocacy piece in existence on the importance of preserving freedom of speech, and extending it to protect even (perhaps especially) the expression of despised views. This passage I adore:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

A nice summary:

We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any object is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

You tell 'em, JS. You tell 'em.

Funkaloyd

02-24-2006, 11:49 PM

I never got around to reading all of On Liberty, but John Stuart Mill provided a lot of inspiration for an essay I did a while back on hate speech legislation.

ms.peachy

02-25-2006, 08:03 AM

OK, let's throw this into the mix:
An animal rights spokesman has said that student accommodation could be targeted as a result of groups backing Oxford University's £18m biomedical research lab.

Robin Webb from the Animal Liberation Front said some activists might see student groups supporting animal testing as "legitimate" targets.

Some say that this statement can be construed as incitement to terrorism under UK laws, and that Mr. Webb threfore should be charged and prosecuted. Or, is it his right to freely intimidate all Oxford students with his speech as he sees fit?

Funkaloyd

02-25-2006, 08:22 AM

It depends on what he actually said and the context.

If he was sentenced to 3 years for saying "fish have feelings", then that would be stupid.

ms.peachy

02-25-2006, 08:31 AM

It depends on what he actually said and the context.

The context is, Oxford is building a new lab where animal tests will be conducted, and the ALF has already used intimidation and violence against the builders, architects, engineers and faculty to halt the building. The construction workers who work on the project already wear balaclavas to prevent them from being identified, so that they and their families are not harassed or attacked by these people. So now what Mr Webb is saying is that because the students attend Oxford University, and Oxford University is pressing ahead with building this facility,"some members of the ALF might consider" all Oxford students to be legitimate targets for violence.

Schmeltz

02-25-2006, 10:47 AM

What's your definition of protected speech? Where's the line drawn? Why is Holocaust denial special?

who's to decide when speech become abuse, who has that power, how do they get that power, and is there a means for them to lose that power?

The answer to these questions, as Ace pointed out, is that we decide these things ourselves on the basis of social negotiation. Democratically elected legislators translate social consciousness and consensus into laws that dictate the bounds of acceptable behaviour. The line is drawn wherever we see fit to draw it. It may very well be true that in the future societies like Austria's or England's will redefine their laws to allow extremist points of view greater reign. As it stands, it is apparent that the current social consensus in those societies does not allow for the unlimited expression of these viewpoints. All to the better, in my opinion: whatever changes in social currents we may witness in our lifetimes, I will continue to insist that the bounds of free speech do not include hateful, politicized, ahistorical revisionism by extremists interested more in the promotion of toxic ideology than in open and honest intellectual investigation.

And what makes the Holocaust special, you ask? Fact of the matter is that the Holocaust is the greatest crime ever committed. Genocide is always the lowest form of human behaviour, but in the Holocaust it reached a new standard for barbarity and inhumanity. Genocides like that which took place in Rwanda are basically chaotic mass mob actions - but the Holocaust was more sinister; a systematic, sophisticated, highly organized attempt to ethnically "purify" an entire continent employing not mass hysteria but the direct, formal complicity of state institutions. To my mind it is more dangerous to allow extremists to whitewash this horror than it is to remove their right to a podium for the dissemination of their ignorance.

As for J.S. Mill - well, he spoke on the basis of ideal principles. It would be nice if we still lived in an age when all we had to worry about, in terms of the exchange of ideas, was the prospect of losing out on the diversity of opinion. But Western society has changed dramatically since Mill's time; information is routinely used as a weapon and the free exchange of ideas simply isn't the honest proving ground of the Enlightenment anymore. New societies require new philosophies that take into account the historical trajectories that have formed them. In my opinion.

valvano

02-25-2006, 11:26 AM

The answer to these questions, as Ace pointed out, is that we decide these things ourselves on the basis of social negotiation.

As in the majority decides?

Well, on other threads, we've seen Christians slammed repeatedly, yet America is still a majority Christian nation.........so based on your own words, we should all just suck it up until another religion becomes the majority religion here in the US of A??

You sound dangerously close to supporting censorship with the words:

"we decide these things ourselves on the basis of social negotiation"

you are whacked..

This is fucked up....me, one of the few conservative leaning folks here, defending free speech rights against a bunch of liberal / socialist / communist leaning left wingers.......

:rolleyes:

Schmeltz

02-25-2006, 11:51 AM

As in the majority decides?

No, not necessarily. Try as you might, you won't be able to reduce this debate to your own simplistic level. Well, at least not without making yourself look like an idiot, which you do nicely with your irrelevant blather about religion.

me, one of the few conservative leaning folks here, defending free speech rights

You would only be "defending free speech rights" if those on the other side of the table were attacking them. We are not. Nobody is advocating the repeal of the right to freedom of speech; in point of fact all parties engaged in this discussion have gone out of their way to reaffirm their commitment to that very principle. What you are defending, and what your opponents (including myself) are attacking, is the abuse of free speech by extremists in contravention of the true purpose of such rights.

valvano

02-25-2006, 12:01 PM

there's no middle ground when it comes to free speech (besides the obvious, such as libel / slander / personal threats , yelling fire in crowded theatre, etc),

either you are for free speach or against it.....you cant nicely cubby hole free speech into "good" free speech, "bad" free speech, "ugly" free speech, and "okay to ban" free speech, its either all or none, because once you start putting stuff into the "banned" category, you've opened a pandora's box...

the true abuse of free speech is by those who try to prevent it........not those who use it to put out a point of view that happens to offend / disgust / revolt a percentage of the population........

Schmeltz

02-25-2006, 12:12 PM

there's no middle ground when it comes to free speech (besides the obvious, such as libel / slander / personal threats , yelling fire in crowded theatre, etc)

Ha ha ha, I note your resolute compromise absolutism. How heroic.

In my opinion, Holocaust denial is part of "the obvious" because permitting it opens a worse pandora's box than forbidding it. Feel free to disagree. Obviously nothing is going to convince you that neo-Nazism doesn't merit a platform, even in a free society.

Ace42X

02-25-2006, 01:32 PM

there's no middle ground when it comes to free speech (besides the obvious, such as libel / slander / personal threats , yelling fire in crowded theatre, etc),

So there's no middle ground when it comes to free speech except for when there is? Well, it's good to know that you don't let the mutual exclusivity of your arguments get in the way of you pretending that they are coherent.

Now to put on my Valvano cap:

You're a flip-flopper! Typical Republican, I thought you Republicans were supposed to <insert irrelevant and pointless stereo-type>, but I am implying that this makes you look like a hypocritical fool! rolleyes, cheeky smile, cut and run before the obvious contradictions in my post catch up with me!

valvano

02-25-2006, 01:46 PM

So there's no middle ground when it comes to free speech except for when there is? Well, it's good to know that you don't let the mutual exclusivity of your arguments get in the way of you pretending that they are coherent.

Now to put on my Valvano cap:

You're a flip-flopper! Typical Republican, I thought you Republicans were supposed to <insert irrelevant and pointless stereo-type>, but I am implying that this makes you look like a hypocritical fool! rolleyes, cheeky smile, cut and run before the obvious contradictions in my post catch up with me!

ace,
go through all my post, when have i ever advocated censorship?

and who was prosecuted today in the US for their speech? you said it happens everyday...
:confused:

valvano

02-25-2006, 01:48 PM

"In my opinion, Holocaust denial is part of "the obvious" because permitting it opens a worse pandora's box than forbidding it. Feel free to disagree. Obviously nothing is going to convince you that neo-Nazism doesn't merit a platform, even in a free society."

so, in order to prevent the rise of neo-nazis to protect freedom, you are going to use nazi-like censorship to squash it????

that makes sense....

:rolleyes:

Ace42X

02-25-2006, 02:00 PM

and who was prosecuted today in the US for their speech? you said it happens everyday...

Google for libel / slander cases, you'll get tons of hits, and those are just the news-worthy ones. Why not google for the people who say the president should be killed, hmmm? And get the secret service busting in on them? Let me guess, in Valvano-land, no-one ever makes hoax calls to the cops, yah? Or if they do, they never get arrested and prosecuted, right?

Stop clutching at straws, you already admitted that there are plenty of exceptions to free speech that you feel are ok. It is only your monumental arrogance that prevents you from seeing the obvious contradiction in what you have said.

Or are you trying to tell me that today, no-one in the entire country was prosecuted for anything like that? Hmmm?

valvano

02-25-2006, 04:01 PM

you are the one that says somebody is prosecuted in america every day for speech.......

who was prosecuted today?...you made the charge, back it up...

ms.peachy

02-25-2006, 04:44 PM

you are the one that says somebody is prosecuted in america every day for speech.......

who was prosecuted today?...you made the charge, back it up...
Well Dillweed, here's a nice story about how pediatricians in Virginia are no longer allowed to ask parents if they keep guns in their homes (courstesy of the NRA, lovely) from yesterday, (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=100053&ran=103354&tref=po) if that's good enough for you. (This being Saturday, most of the courts are closed, see.)

Ace42X

02-25-2006, 05:03 PM

you are the one that says somebody is prosecuted in america every day for speech...

Yes, it is called rhetoric.

Commonplace; ordinary: everyday worries.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=everyday

However, pinhead, Peachy gave you an example right off the top of her head.

You gonna roll over and admit you were wrong now? Or you gonna keep throwing up irrelevant shit to avoid and obfuscate the obvious fact that you clearly and undeniable contradicted yourself?

Let's get back to the REAL point, rather than you lamely trying to nitpick to cover your ass:

there's no middle ground when it comes to free speech (besides the obvious, such as libel / slander / personal threats , yelling fire in crowded theatre, etc)

So there's no middle ground, besides the obvious examples of middle ground which you have no problem with?

What part of all the middle ground that you just admitted to existing, doens't exist?

What part of "there's no middle ground, except (the middle ground)" do you think you are trying to argue?

Why the hell can you not see, in that one golden sentence, that you are full of hypocritical shit, and should be labotomised and sterilised to prevent your ignorance from spreading?!?

valvano

02-25-2006, 05:09 PM

thats a proposed bill........thats a long way from being prosecuted....

you said people are being prosecuted every day...okay lets say every business day....

who was prosecuted yesterday for their speech?

Ace42X

02-25-2006, 05:19 PM

you said people are being prosecuted every day

Not going to reply to my post then? Going to ignore all the arguments that undermine everything you believe in? Can't accept the immutable fact, so you are just going to keep saying "Oh, you said every day... so if I can find a single day, that undermines your argument. It doesn't matter that speech is prosecuted, as long as I can prove that there are individual days it doesn't" ?

Or are you going to step up and take what's coming to you like an adult?

I'll say it again, incase you are hard of hearing:

there's no middle ground when it comes to free speech (besides the obvious, such as libel / slander / personal threats , yelling fire in crowded theatre, etc)

So, there's no middle ground, except for the obvious middle ground that is undeniably there, as you freely admit?

Keep reading your words. You admitted there is a middle ground in the same breath as you said there was none. You listed several "obvious" examples of curtailed free speech in that paragraph, and now you want me to cite evidenciary examples of things you FREELY ACCEPT?

Why do you want me to waste my time giving evidence for something you have already conceded?

You yourself have admitted that there are plenty of cases of "middle ground", so stop them pretending that there is none and that it is a black and white issue. I know you are too stupid to think of things in anything but the most facile of ways, but even you must see this contradiction in your own argument.

That is, if you can stop running from the actual argument for long enough to do a little soul-searching.

But, of course, that would be totally uncharacteristic of you. Whenever someone points out the flaw in your rationale, you just ignore it and run, just like Gismo. You're a fuckign cretin, and a waste of space, and proof that not everyone deserves freedom of speech.

However, just to humour you, even though I have already shown this is totalyl beside the point:

Every year hundreds of libel lawsuits are filed against newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations in the United States. Typically, these cases are brought by current or former public officials, by entertainers, or by business executives who feel they have been damaged by critical media publicity -- usually accusing or suggesting that the person has engaged in unlawful, improper, or questionable
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

So, let's see, hundreds every year. Even if that is only two-hundred (the quote suggests more), that is still about 2 every 3 days on average.

That strikes me as pretty commonplace. And, as you would know from my previous post that you glossed over, daily = "everyday" and "everyday" = commonplace.

QED.

I am not sure how else you expect me to prove that libel is commonplace, other than providing several hundred links for a different libel case for every day... Like that is a reasonable expectation...

Oh, BTW, fuckface:

pros·e·cute Audio pronunciation of "prosecute" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prs-kyt)
v. pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing, pros·e·cutes
v. tr.
1. Law.
1. To initiate civil or criminal court action against.

How is the introduction of a bill not "initiating" action against the people it targets?

You attempts to worm your way out of it are pretty pathetic. Just admit it, you're fuckign wrong. a-fucking-gain. Dump your ignorant view-points, and adopt some of the more realistic views held by us, your intellectual superiors.

valvano

02-25-2006, 05:40 PM

the cases you reference are civil matters, not criminal i.e. they do not involve formal prosecution by a govt agency....

civil cases do not involve an arrest 99.9999% of the time

you stated;
"There is plenty of things that you would get arrested for saying in the US as it stands. Like it or not, your legal system makes this decision, and prosecutes on it, daily."

so who was arrested yesterday for saying something they should have said?

:D

the holocaust case we are discussing involves formal prosecution by a govt for speech, not a private group or individual.......

maybe this guy should have been taken care of in civil court instead of imprisoned????

:p :p

ms.peachy

02-25-2006, 05:43 PM

You are just... so... unsane.

Ace42X

02-25-2006, 05:59 PM

the cases you reference are civil matters, not criminal i.e. they do not involve formal prosecution by a govt agency....

civil cases do not involve an arrest 99.9999% of the time

Ah, so now you got busted on "prosecution" (which applies to civil cases just as much as those prosecuted by the government) as well as "everyday", you want to change your argument again, eh? Still not done clutching at straws? Going to keep nit-picking until you get down to querying the fullstop and the use of the word 'and' ?

Didn't bother you at all that I was just refuting you for sake of argument, even though I already pointed out that it was beside the fact?

The fact that you have to keep skipping around, changing your argument, and ignoring the points I keep pushing in your face doesn't make you feel a little insecure about the argument?

Doesn't bother you at all that you can't find an answer for it, so have to keep going back to something immaterial?

Hah, of course not. As long as you can find some little semantic victory, no matter how small, you'll be able to pretend that it magically grows and overwhelms all the other points you concede.

99.9999999% ?

Are you sure about that? 'cause I don't think you can "back that up."

Come on, now it's your turn to waste your turn answering some pointless nitpicking at your hyperbole.

you stated;
"There is plenty of things that you would get arrested for saying in the US as it stands. Like it or not, your legal system makes this decision, and prosecutes on it, daily."

so who was arrested yesterday for saying something they should have said?

Actually, if you read what that says (as you are determined to play the semantics game, rather than actually answer the point of the argument):

You will see that I said "there are plenty of things that you would get arrested for saying in the US as it stands."

That is true. Saying any one of a number of things about killing the president would get you arrested. You are aware of the fact that threatening the life of the president is an arrestable offence?

And you ARE aware that your legal system makes this decision, and is responsible for it every day that it is in force?

You are aware that when a trial is bought on this subject, it is the legal system that prosecutes and presides over it, whatever day and every day that it occurs?

See, keep clutching at straws, I'll keep striking them down. You got no-where to run, no-where to hide. YOU ARE WRONG, TAKE IT LIKE A MAN YOU STUPID SACK OF SHIT.

Now, back to the real topic, semantic wrangling aside:

1. Even if the cases are unlikely to result in being arrested and imprisoned - that is not the be all and end all of free-speech curtailment. Would you say that you had free-speech if you got sued for every penny you owned if you tried to use it? How is it "free" if you cannot use it without risk of being prosecuted by the legal system (and yes, the civil system is a legal system, and yes, you run the risk of being prosecuted by it in a libel case, QED.)?

2. (this is a repost, as you seem unable to answer the point, and are content to ignore the main cut and thrust of the argument, preferring to pick at inconsequentialities. Like a diver dipping his toe in the wading pool, and pretending he's diving with full marks)

I'll say it again, incase you are hard of hearing:

there's no middle ground when it comes to free speech (besides the obvious, such as libel / slander / personal threats , yelling fire in crowded theatre, etc)

So, there's no middle ground, except for the obvious middle ground that is undeniably there, as you freely admit?

Keep reading your words. You admitted there is a middle ground in the same breath as you said there was none. You listed several "obvious" examples of curtailed free speech in that paragraph, and now you want me to cite evidenciary examples of things you FREELY ACCEPT?

Why do you want me to waste my time giving evidence for something you have already conceded?

You yourself have admitted that there are plenty of cases of "middle ground", so stop them pretending that there is none and that it is a black and white issue. I know you are too stupid to think of things in anything but the most facile of ways, but even you must see this contradiction in your own argument.

That is, if you can stop running from the actual argument for long enough to do a little soul-searching.

But, of course, that would be totally uncharacteristic of you. Whenever someone points out the flaw in your rationale, you just ignore it and run, just like Gismo. You're a fuckign cretin, and a waste of space, and proof that not everyone deserves freedom of speech.

Funkaloyd

02-25-2006, 06:06 PM

Democratically elected legislators translate social consciousness and consensus into laws that dictate the bounds of acceptable behaviour.
Ah, people like McCarthy and Hitler. I see.

the bounds of free speech do not include hateful, politicized, ahistorical revisionism by extremists interested more in the promotion of toxic ideology than in open and honest intellectual investigation.
Would you be willing to lock up communists, too? Or are fascists the only hateful, politicized revisionists out there now.

This is fucked up....me, one of the few conservative leaning folks here, defending free speech rights against a bunch of liberal / socialist / communist leaning left wingers.......
Stfu, Mr. :D black people are dying :D. Everyone knows you get your opinions from StromFront.

Ace42X

02-25-2006, 06:15 PM

Ah, people like McCarthy and Hitler. I see.

Actually, Hitler was a dictator. He suspended democratic elections when he declared the state of emergency. Furthermore, pretty much all of his acts of censorship and denial of free-speech were illegal under German law. The Germans and the Nazis were *above the law* and as such they would deny their victims their right to due process. The fact that they denied their victims their legal rights doesn't change the fact that they HAD legal rights.

McCarthy was elected as a senator, yes, but that does not automatically give him the ability to censor or prosecute. It does not necessarily follow that his position in the anti-communist trials was democratic, legitimate, or in anyway comparable to judges or other law-makers.

Would you be willing to lock up communists, too? Or are fascists the only hateful, politicized revisionists out there now.

Strawman. Prosecution of Holocaust denial != total blanket censorship *AND* arrests of all facists and/or 'politicized revisionists' nor should it.

And Valvano only thinks he is "defending free speech" because he is a self-important boob. Aside from the fact that he is woefully ill-equipped to defend a cookie jar from a Jim Henson puppet, as has been shown in this thread, he doesn't really know what Free Speech means, nor how it fits into his, or any other, society. As such, he cannot defend it.

Jmoney77

02-25-2006, 06:34 PM

That is crazy

valvano

02-25-2006, 07:42 PM

ace,
if you do not understand the difference between one private individual/group sueing another individual/group in civil court for slander / libel, etc, vs. a govt body prosecuting an individual / group for specific speech.....

then you are truly a fucking idiot and it is no wonder you seem to spend 24/7 on this message board, its because you are of no use to anybody else.......and this place is the only place in your pathetic life to which you feel you have found success.....

:o

ms.peachy

02-26-2006, 04:27 AM

if you do not understand the difference between one private individual/group sueing another individual/group in civil court for slander / libel, etc, vs. a govt body prosecuting an individual / group for specific speech.....

Oh blimey, I wasn't aware that the civil court system operated outside of the laws imposed by government. For some reason, I thought that they had to follow legal restrictions, and that all judges and court personnel were either local, state or federal government employees. How silly of me. Where did I ever get such a ridiculous notion?

Ace42X

02-26-2006, 07:39 AM

ace,
if you do not understand the difference between one private individual/group sueing another individual/group in civil court for slander / libel, etc, vs. a govt body prosecuting an individual / group for specific speech...

I do understand the difference, but clearly you don't. Apparently another piece of "middle ground", which according to you both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously, is civil law. Notice the word "law" in that.

Again, Peachy beat me to the punch, and what a surprise, you don't have an answer for the latest bout of nit-picking and red-herring fishing.

then you are truly a fucking idiot

Considering that I have proven you wrong step by step here, that hardly bodes well for you, does it? If even a "fucking idiot" can refute your arguments roundly and repeatedly, don't you think that perhaps you should re-evaluate your position?

and it is no wonder you seem to spend 24/7 on this message board,

Logically, you cannot know that I am on the board any longer than you are. So, really, what does this say on you? For it to "seem" I am on 24/7, you'd have to be on 24/7 to observe it...

its because you are of no use to anybody else

That's not what your mother thinks. And it is funny, I gather that the world has more use for me, who is objectively smarter, more informed and more rational than you, than for a crank like you...

Hmmm, so, you still have yet to answer a single point then...

You are *for* curtailment of free speech, as long as it is prosectued in a civil court of law? Because so far, that has been the crux of your argument. "It doesn't matter that no-one has free speech, as long as it ain't the government, or those damn dirty liberuls bringing it to public attention! Of course... The government is the people who brought these laws into practice, and have the authority to redefine them... And there is nothing stopping private citizens that make up the government from bringing a civil case, is there?

Oh, and there are the other examples which you ignored... Threatening the life of the president, and being arrested for it, are CIVIL cases? Really?

And, of course, there is the fact that, having repeated it three times already, you STILL haven't answered a point about your key contradiction:

there's no middle ground when it comes to free speech (besides the obvious, such as libel / slander / personal threats , yelling fire in crowded theatre, etc)

So, there's no middle ground, except for the obvious middle ground that is undeniably there, as you freely admit?

Keep reading your words. You admitted there is a middle ground in the same breath as you said there was none. You listed several "obvious" examples of curtailed free speech in that paragraph, and now you want me to cite evidenciary examples of things you FREELY ACCEPT?

Why do you want me to waste my time giving evidence for something you have already conceded?

You yourself have admitted that there are plenty of cases of "middle ground", so stop then pretending that there is none and that it is a black and white issue. I know you are too stupid to think of things in anything but the most facile of ways, but even you must see this contradiction in your own argument.

That is, if you can stop running from the actual argument for long enough to do a little soul-searching.

But, of course, that would be totally uncharacteristic of you. Whenever someone points out the flaw in your rationale, you just ignore it and run, just like Gismo. You're a fuckign cretin, and a waste of space, and proof that not everyone deserves freedom of speech.

EN[i]GMA

02-26-2006, 10:45 AM

I can't believe I haven't realized who Irving was until now. The Economist has a few articles on the topic that I thought were good (They agree with me).

I can't believe I'd forget, because I'd read an article on him, written by Hitchens.

It's all coming back to me now, as it were.

There's no doubt that Irving is a disgusting human being, but I don't think his particular crimes warrant him jail time.

In fact, he's recanted, for whatever that may be worth.

Isn't it only libel/slander (In America) if you know the claims to be false, that is, if you made the claim in good faith and thought they were true, you didn't commit a crime?

I believe this is the case, and I think it applies to deniers.

They seriously believe the holocaust didn't happen. This may say volumes about their education, their delusion, their methodology, etcetera, but I don't think it warrants criminal prosecution.

ms.peachy

02-26-2006, 11:06 AM

I understand what you are saying E and you're not wrong if you are talking about US law, but the fact is that he broke a very specific law in Austria, so whether he 'truly believed' it or said it slanderously isn't strictly relevant in this case. I do get the point you are trying to make; however, I think the issue of 'slander' only came up as one illustration of where limitations on free speech do exist and are accepted.

Ace42X

02-26-2006, 11:20 AM

however, I think the issue of 'slander' only came up as one illustration of where limitations on free speech do exist and are accepted.

What she said.

Although, apply the same rationale to slander, belief doesn't matter. How can you prove in a court that the slanderer doesn't truly believe that Tom Cruise is gay, sleeps with pigs and beats hookers? How can a court prove that a person "knows it to be false" ?

Surely, it is just as demonstrable that there is not a Jewish conspiracy and that the holocaust DID happen, and that the people spreading the lie are motivated by malice, with the intent of damaging the reputation of Jews as a whole?

2sweet2Bsour

02-26-2006, 03:04 PM

[QUOTE='EN[i]GMA'][...]Isn't it only libel/slander (In America) if you know the claims to be false, that is, if you made the claim in good faith and thought they were true, you didn't commit a crime?[...][QUOTE]

While I think it varies from state to state, the standard in my state is that the defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that the statements were false. Coincidentally, I'm stuck in the office today researching the very issue.

I wouldn't call it a crime, though. I agree with valvano where he distinguishes a crime from a civil cause of action. You may end up paying money in civil court, but you don't go to prison, and more importantly, the government keeps its nose out of what citizens are and aren't allowed to say to one another. It's not a trivial distinction by any means. Someone legitimately commented that the point was that slander is an example of a check on free speech in America, which example was probably necessitated by someone overstating the degree of free speech available in America. But that there are constraints on free speech in America in a civil context is not the same as criminalizing speech, and perhaps all volvano was trying to do is get off the tangent and bring the original issue back into focus.

While an ardent proponent of free speech, I can live with civil recovery for the spreading of vicious or irresponsible lies. Notably, these suits typically deal with speech that is directed to private citizens' private affairs, a form of speech which has minimal social value under the Millsian school of thought of which I am a fan (in all my idealism, hehe). In addition, often more valuable to the victim of defamation than any money he stands to gain from the suit is the opportunity to set the record straight in a public forum, undoing the damage to his reputation. It's a formalized forum for the process by which truth is brought to light by the collision of competing beliefs.

Anyhow, it's a complicated issue. The solution depends on the application to the facts of competing principles, principles being peculiar creatures of thought having the dimension not only of meaning but of weight. I think everyone here is essentially in accord over which principles are worthy of respect in this context. All that remains is to determine the relative weight each principle is to be afforded. While I like to believe that there is such a thing as an objective "right" answer to problems in ethics, I also believe human beings for various reasons are limited in their ability to arrive at such answer with absolute confidence. Thus, the varying outcomes in opinion here are due to the difference in weight being attributed to the competing principles by the individual posters' scales of justice, imprecise by virtue of their humanity. As disgusting as I believe Holocaust deniers to be, my scales tip in opposition to criminalizing Holocaust denial. But who knows if I'm right; it's a close call, and I'm only human.

Ace42X

02-26-2006, 05:10 PM

I wouldn't call it a crime, though.

crime
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.

If libel isn't against the law, how can people be compelled to pay reparation? Is it a good will gesture?

Libel is against the law, even if it is civil law. This makes libel a crime, and someone who libels a criminal.

Yes it doesn't result in a custodial sentence (although, depending on the country, it could theoretically, depending on the unwillingness of the libeler to pay reparation), but then plenty of "crimes" don't.

You needn't get a custodial sentence for shop-lifting, does that make it less of a crime?

yeahwho

02-26-2006, 06:16 PM

Irving was convicted for having an unorthodox belief in which historical reference points did not jive with the mountain of evidence which proves otherwise.

He is passing himself off as an historian, but his perversion of history goes against the laws of Austria. Even though these laws are not uniformily admired in the 9 countries that have them on the books, they serve a purpose in reminding people that the systematic state-sponsored persecution and genocide of millions of Jews in Europe along with other groups during World War II by Nazi Germany and collaborators is documented in great detail even by eyewitness Nazi accounts.

The Holocaust Denials laws in Austria also serve a purpose to remind some that historians, just as doctors, physicists, dishwashers and taxidrivers all have a responsibility to society when they practice their craft. David Irving wasn't just expressing an opinion when he said Hitler had no idea about the genocide of millions of humans, he was validating it as historical fact and using his credentials as an historian to serve his own perverse purpose on earth.

"He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone. He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."

He is an idiot.

2sweet2Bsour

02-26-2006, 08:08 PM

crime
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. [...] Libel is against the law, even if it is civil law. This makes libel a crime, and someone who libels a criminal.

There is no such thing as a "conviction" for libel. Rather, a person is held civilly liable to another (meaning, a person is granted a court-enforceable right to get money from another) for economic loss caused by the publishing of libelous statements. The intent of civil law is not to punish but to make the other guy whole. Thus, proving economic loss (damages) is typically an essential element of the defamation-based civil cause of action. If you can't prove damages, game over.

The pressing of criminal charges is a far more serious matter; hell, you could probably be sued for defamation of character for suggesting someone is a criminal, or was "convicted," based on having been found liable for defamation of character. In responding to a crime, as your definition confirms, the intent is of society to punish for behavior we have deemed intolerable, of no use to a civilized society. Some crimes are punished by hitting you in the wallet. The amount of the fine does not typically focus on the harm caused by the conduct but by how much a would-be criminal stands to benefit from committing the crime. More serious crimes are punished by incarceration, which punishes by taking away the criminal's liberty, and has the further effect of protecting society from a dangerous criminal for a spell. In cases where a civil action leads to incarceration, the behavior being punished is not the conduct at issue in the civil action but the criminal behavior that is a litigant undermining the authority of the court.

Bottom line, there are differences; depending on the importance you attribute to those differences, you may or may not think it is consistent to disagree with jailing someone for denying the Holocaust happened, while supporting civil recovery in appropriate cases for the same conduct.

Ace42X

02-26-2006, 08:29 PM

There is no such thing as a "conviction" for libel.

Are you sure?

con·vic·tion Pronunciation Key (kn-vkshn)
n.
1. Law.
1. The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved guilty: evidence that led to the suspect's conviction.

There are judges and jury appointing guilt in a civil case is there not? A person who is ordered to pay reparation is ordered so because he has been found or proven guilty, is he not?

At best the argument for or against it is going to be circular, "It's not a crime because there is no conviction, and there is not conviction because it's not a crime" or the inverse.

However, to escape some more semantic nit-picking:
crime
n.
2. Unlawful activity

Libel is against the law (and thus is unlawful activity) and thus is a crime. This makes a libeller a criminal. As a crime, clearly there can thus be a "conviction" as someone can be found guilty of breaking the law by the jury.

I am not an expert on law, especially of the American variety, but here a libel case is presented before a jury, who then present a verdict on the person's guilt or innocence - again, if there is no crime, there can be no guilt.

Thus, proving economic loss (damages) is typically an essential element of the defamation-based civil cause of action. If you can't prove damages, game over.

That is certainly not the case here, libel cases are often fought to protect a person's reputation, rather than protect their income. AFAIK, proving fiscal loses is only necessary if you are trying to claim that amount of renumeration, on top of the payment which is awarded as recompense for the "hurt" caused by the false allegations.

However, this is getting beside the point. Libel is clearly against the law, which clearly means that the law as it stands has dictats that are against free speech. These laws are an effective barrier for free speech, as the threat of legal action, and the very real possibility of having to pay for it, has exactly the same practical effect to the libellor as a fine. It has the same deterrant effect.

2sweet2Bsour

02-26-2006, 11:01 PM

Are you sure?

In America, I am sure. The jury comes back with a verdict of "liable" or "not liable," not of guilty or not guilty.

I am not an expert on law, especially of the American variety, but here a libel case is presented before a jury, who then present a verdict on the person's guilt or innocence

That's interesting. If true, sounds to me like in your country, libel might be a crime.

the threat of legal action, and the very real possibility of having to pay for it, has exactly the same practical effect to the libellor as a fine. It has the same deterrant effect.

I freely acknowledge an overlap in that one aim of both is to deter. A difference remains in its ranking. In criminal law, deterrence is the main concern, followed closely by retribution. Fines are set at a high enough level to ensure most people would not think the act worthwhile, though that level is tempered by the notion of desert, which considers the limits of how much the person deserves to suffer for the act. Personal injury law first seeks to make the unjustifiably injured person whole; deterrence is a secondary concern. The amount of recovery, if any, depends on whether and how much the person was harmed by the speech. In fact some harmful speech (e.g., harm to a public official absent evidence of "actual malice") has been tolerated under the First Amendment regardless of the harm to the individual, on the basis that to not tolerate it would have an unduly "chilling" effect on freedom of speech. The competing principle placing value on the socially useful effects flowing from the free exchange of ideas prevents deterrence from being the primary underlying purpose of the law of libel. Similarly, preventing strict liability for any and all harm caused to others by our actions no matter how accidental or unforseeable the results is the recognition that some risky behavior is essential to the health and progress of a vibrant society.

Ace42X

02-26-2006, 11:31 PM

In America, I am sure. The jury comes back with a verdict of "liable" or "not liable," not of guilty or not guilty.

In the UK, libel falls under tort law. However, as a law, libel is still technically "illegal" (against the tort / civil law). And illegal acts are, by definition, crimes.

However, there does seem to be a distinction in the JUDICIAL usage of the words. IE tort law is distinct from "criminal law."

criminal law punishes wrongs that are so severe (like murder) that the state has a direct interest in preventing them. Note that many wrongs can result in liability to both the state (as crimes) and to the victim (as torts).

No doubt this is from where the confusion arises. Technically, libel is a tort, and not a "criminal case" in a very strict legal sense. However, in a literal and practical sense, it is a crime (breaking of the law) and has penalties, which makes this distinction irrelevant to the argument. Whether the state is bringing the case or a citizen, the upshot is the same. Either way, there is a penalty against the person making an innaccurate and hurtful claim, and so having a penalty against a holocaust denier's innaccurate and hurtful claim is not necessarily or tangibly different. Valvano was not saying "curtailment of free speech is never permissable, excepting if the penalty is only financial." Nor "curtailment of free speech is permissable if it happens to fall under a seperate branch of the law."

For those not keeping up with this rather anal analysis of law:
A tort is a breach of a non-contractual duty potentially owed to the entire world, imposed by law. The majority of legal claims are brought in tort.

It is still a "breach of duty imposed by law" - so it is not like the civil case status has any direct bearing on the practicalities.

Incidently, what happens in the US if a libellor is unable to or refuses to pay?

guilt Audio pronunciation of "guilt" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (glt)
n.

1. The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense. See Synonyms at blame.
2. Law. Culpability for a crime or lesser breach of regulations that carries a legal penalty.

Surely, being responsible for a libel is "being culpable for a 'lesser breach of regulations' that carries a legal penalty"? And libel is certaily being responsible for committing an offence.

2sweet2Bsour

02-27-2006, 04:52 PM

It is more than semantic trickery that sets tort apart from criminal law. Tort is best understood from the perspective of economic theory. The default rule is that people go through life at their own risk, each one responsible for bearing the cost of his own losses and misfortunes. Tort's role is to sanction occasions when it is appropriate - when it makes sense as a policy matter - to shift the loss from the person harmed to someone else.

You raise duties. True, that the defendant owed plaintiff a duty, and that defendant breached the duty, must in most (but not all) tort cases be proven before a civil litigant can recover damages. But to point to those duties as evidence that something given countour by the law is being violated, and therefore the law is being broken, and therefore it is illegal, and therefore a crime is being committed, is to distort the role that duty plays in a tort case. A better view is that they are there to help ensure that we limit deviation from the default rule that everyone bears the costs of their own misfortunates to those cases where it makes sense as a policy matter.

Incidently, what happens in the US if a libellor is unable to or refuses to pay?

Commonly, their wages get garnished and their assets get seized. A willful failure to pay can result in criminal liability, but that typically requires proving that the person had the money to pay, but chose not to, an act in contemptuous disregard of a court order. The conduct punished and sought to be deterred is disrespect for the court, an intolerable act in a system which maintains order by the rule of law.

Surely, being responsible for a libel is "being culpable for a 'lesser breach of regulations' that carries a legal penalty"? And libel is certaily being responsible for committing an offence.

I think the word regulation is being used in its special legal sense, that is, a rule made by a governmental agency that is enforceable as a regular law. The definition further designates not just any regs but regs that carry a legal penalty (so a response intended to punish). An example is IRS regulations that carry a penalty for failure to pay your taxes. As I've highlighted, the ordinary role of tort is not to penalize, but to compensate.

Ace42X

02-27-2006, 05:31 PM

It is more than semantic trickery that sets tort apart from criminal law.

So far there has been no practical difference shown.

Tort is best understood from the perspective of economic theory.

Hardly, the origins of tort law predate any sort of formalised or modern economic theory by several centuries. The origins of libel or slander laws involve damage to reputation, especially among the aristocracy, way before economic and mercantile factors were significant.

But to point to those duties as evidence that something given countour by the law is being violated, and therefore the law is being broken, and therefore it is illegal, and therefore a crime is being committed, is to distort the role that duty plays in a tort case. A better view is that they are there to help ensure that we limit deviation from the default rule that everyone bears the costs of their own misfortunates to those cases where it makes sense as a policy matter.

Which, if you boil it down, means very little. Semantic wrangling aside, what they "are there to help ensure" is beside the point. You can define and redefine the goals as much as you want, the practical upshot of it is that there are laws in place which curtail your free speech. Whether you pay a fine imposed by the government, or reparations (presided over by the government in form of the court) to another civil entity, the hit to your wallet, the "penalty" (non-legal sense of the word) is the same. The deterrant is the same. And no matter how it looks on paper, or how you square it away, the result on free speech is the same.

Whether the government prosecutes me for saying George Bush molests children and fines me $x, or he brings a civil case which obliges me to pay $x, the result is the same.

A willful failure to pay can result in criminal liability, but that typically requires proving that the person had the money to pay, but chose not to, an act in contemptuous disregard of a court order. The conduct punished and sought to be deterred is disrespect for the court, an intolerable act in a system which maintains order by the rule of law.

I thought that might be the case, and I was hoping you'd point out that distinction. I put it to you that if the person is refusing to pay as a matter of principle (because they believe in their right to 'free speech') and are thus imprisoned, the fact that the statute is for "contempt of court" is irrelevant to the argument. It is a legal nicety, but the practical upshot is the same. The speech is curtailed, and unless you are willing to accept the penalty (effectively paying for the right to say / think whatever you want in the face of evidence) it can result in jail.

I can see how the logic runs circles around this, but if you put the writs and niceties of the legal system to one side, the actual material effect is the same. Someone holding incorrect beliefs goes to court, through a series of legal precedings, and has to pay for it, either in jail or (more commonly) financially.

The argument "he could've paid them" of course doesn't hold water, any more than "Irving could've recanted his beliefs" or "he could've just not gone to Austria" does.

I think the word regulation is being used in its special legal sense, that is, a rule made by a governmental agency that is enforceable as a regular law.

Possibly, and given your usage of the terms above, it is certainly compelling. However, its use in a plain-English dictionary would suggest otherwise. We can wrangle the semantics of it all the time, and without some more legal experts onboard to clarify it, I certainly wouldn't feel confident saying for certain either way. I'd like to think that the dictionary is using the terms less formally.

The definition further designates not just any regs but regs that carry a legal penalty (so a response intended to punish).

Does it? I must've missed that part. However, if we then look at "penalty":

Something, especially a sum of money, required as a forfeit for an offense.

That is not necessarily as a response intended to punish, and would certainly apply to damages.

Incidently, it is nice to see an additional poster who is willing to put some thought into their posts. Certainly refreshing. Keep it up.

Ace42X

02-28-2006, 12:03 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1720139,00.html

For those interested in the Red Ken affair.

franscar

02-28-2006, 01:00 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1720139,00.html

For those interested in the Red Ken affair.

McCarthyite?

I have to say, he's lost me on that one. That and the newts, I could never understand his fascination with newts. I think he's gone mad.

2sweet2Bsour

02-28-2006, 04:26 PM

Incidently, it is nice to see an additional poster who is willing to put some thought into their posts. Certainly refreshing. Keep it up.

The respect is mutual; I dig your tenacity, and you handle these concepts better than I could've prior to law school, and going on three years of practice. I'd also be interested in what others think. I've argued for my view (and simplistically at that) but competing theories are out there.

I don't have much to add but to respond to your comment that so far no practical differences have been shown. While I of course deny that, here's two more:

First, if you are found civilly liable for conversion, you pay money. If you are found criminally liable for theft, you pay money and/or go to jail, and you get a criminal conviction placed on your public record that may affect how people treat you and your ability to enjoy certain privileges such as decent employment for years to come. What I reference is the stigmatizing effect of a criminal conviction. I'm not saying it's never a factor in the civil context, but it's much less of a factor, and an informal one at that (where in the criminal context, the stigmatizing effect is formal and deliberate).

Second, currently only private citizens have the power to bring libel suits. Criminalizing it would extend the power to the government. Especially if you view even civil defamation suits as a practical restriction on our right to free speech (which I have never denied), we have reason to be much more fearful of the government's potential to abuse such power than we are of our fellow citizens': in part because the government has more power to abuse, in part because speech can be such a powerful tool of political control. Some torts overlap with crimes (e.g., wrongful death and murder); very little overlap exists here in the area of harmful speech, and that's no accident.