|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
The other side of freedom of expression
I'm going to assume that just about everyone believes David Irving was factually wrong (especially as he himself now admits it). But does anyone want to protest the German law that makes it illegal to express his previously held beliefs? Should there be more such laws to prevent historical revisionism (cf. the recounting of WWII in Japan vs China). http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02 … index.html Holocaust denier: 3-year jail term David Irving pleads guilty, concedes 'I made a mistake' VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Right-wing British historian David Irving pleaded guilty Monday to charges of denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to three years in prison after conceding he was wrong to say there were no Nazi gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Feb 20 06 04:32 pm Link It's obvious to see that the majority of people in Austria agree that the holocaust should not be denied or covered up, especially in a forum where Irving's lecture would be considered fact (a school), thats why the law exists there. You kind of have to take it into context about how sensitive European countries are over the holocaust. I havent heard too many exact facts on the case but it happened in 1989 so there must have been some red tape trying to prove Irving's intent was anything other than just not knowing any better. It's hard for me to make an opinion without knowing the details of the case or the law. Feb 20 06 05:47 pm Link Irving's propaganda is a driving force behind international and especially American white supremacist movements. His "belief" was nothing more than revisionist history to support racist and ultra right wing neonazi agenda. It was hatemongering at it's finest... and, in my opinion is not the same type of religious beliefs that deserves the same protection of freedom of expression. Feb 20 06 05:48 pm Link I think the holocost deniers are funny. I think its kinda like people who don't believe cancer is real. We have all this documentation but nope, aint real. Survivers, nope. The germans are kinda funny about ww2. Like all the blood rayne and wolfenstein games had to be edited, as was call of duty and danm near every other ww2 game. But being jailed for that stuff is kinda far fetched, there is probly more to it. Feb 20 06 06:28 pm Link "... most of those who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution." Yeah, a few thousand people per day/week all died of natural causes at the same time, while taking a warn, soapy shower. I can accept that, no problem, OK, uh huh. And it's easy to accept that all of those skin and bone eye witnesses lied as part of the vast Jewish conspiracy. No problem! But I find it interesting how many 'find Jesus' or at least find the error of their ways when facing a rather pissed off jury. Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing, but when speech is intended to inflame hatred and to rewrite well documented history, well maybe we could use a law like that here. There is also a growing movement of those who believe Attila the Hun was just misunderstood as a youth and Stalin didn't really kill more millions of his own people than Hitler and the French are really a tough people with the best interest of the world at heart. Feb 20 06 06:33 pm Link Hey, white supremacists should be able to spread their bullsh*t, people should be able to post cartoons of muhammad ali, it should be legal to make fun of the president, and you should be able to post pictures with naked b(0)(o)bies if you want to. The problem with freedom of expression is a debate that really is all about: my right to swing my fist ends at your nose -or- my right to swing my fist ends where you say it does Personally I think that if you aren't p*ssing people off, you're probably not tryin' hard enough. So these d0rks are trying to claim Hitler never happened. They otta go arrest the president of Iran, too - he's sayin' the same smack!! GWC! Feb 20 06 06:35 pm Link DAF Productions wrote: Well, based on the history of the past 80 years in Germany, they are VERY sensitive about issues of right wing activities etc. Feb 20 06 06:37 pm Link Doug Lester wrote: Naw, freedom of speech is an absolute. You should be able to speak your mind as long as you're willing to stand the consequences. Those nazi revisionist idiots are just lucky that the survivors of the death camps are getting too old to hand 'em an as*-whuppin'! Feb 20 06 06:38 pm Link I don't know...as the son of a German immigrant and the grandson of a Japanese immigrant, and also the great great grandson of a freedman slave, I feel that freedom of speech needs to be absolute. Who's to say it is revisionist history? Then again, who's to say it's not? Absolute freedom of speech allows for things to be said that are unpopular, but...if we didn't allow people to say things that very few are willing to believe then we wouldn't know about the American concentration camps in WWII, we wouldn't have some semblance of racial equality, and we wouldn't be able to protest the things that make us upset about even our own country. Feb 20 06 06:43 pm Link is it legal to scream "movie" in a firehouse?... Feb 20 06 08:16 pm Link Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing... As an American living in Australia, I notice that there is no 'Bill of Rights' here... The constitution here alludes to free speech. It IMPLYS free speech... it bloody well sounds like there is free speech, but it is not necessarily adheared to. State laws differ from Commonwealth 'country-wide' laws... causing confusion... especially in relation to whatever is deemed 'political communication' What IS 'political communication' ??? Well... it depends on what you're saying, and who your sayin' it to... There is no firm definition. It was only in 1992 that the idea of 'free speech' was deemed to be necessary for this socalist democracy. It is still a novel political concept. There are crazy laws: it's illegal to sell (but not to own) pornographic videos & DVDs in the Australian states, but in the Australian Territories it's not only legal to sell, but they can run a porn mail-order business that you can LEGALLY buy from in the Aussie states... soo... the Territory of Canberra, which is like the Aussie Washington DC, can (and DOES) sell porn to the rest of the nation. But you can't buy porn locally in a legal manner. Are you inciting racial hatred or are you defaming a group or individual? Is it 'free speech?' Depending on which state or terratory you are in, you will get treated differently. Also concider which political party is currently in office.... I see no limit to my personal freedom of speech so far... neither do MOST people, so it's not an issue. One day it may become an issue though. Perhaps I'll have my own terrorist cell that throws tea into the Port Adelaide Harbour in protest against government decisions. Perhaps that action will go past 'art' or 'freedom of speech' and fall into the grey, murky catagory of 'political communication' Who knows.... Feb 20 06 10:31 pm Link James Jackson wrote: ...so...with that understanding...we should only believe and accept as factual that which we oursleves have seen, touched, or experienced, everything else is subject to debate? Feb 20 06 10:38 pm Link I think free speech must be an absolute; it allows people to be called on for their words (leaders and politicians). If we start censoring where does it stop? We also need to be responsible for what we say; perhaps if someone get's decked for saying something increiblt insensitive and stupid the proper response could be "well, you know... maybe you shouldn't have said that" and move on. Part of freedom is having the responsibility to practice it. And so, we also need to educate the people - the most dangerous thing to a lier is a well educated person. Let's concentrate on educating our children and teach them how to think independantly and appreciate the differances we as people all have. It's a beautifull thing, and this should be celebrated and not vilified. So yeah, freedom of speech all the way. But let's also throw in some education to give people the ability to understand the responsibility of their words. And now, a pet peeve: As a former student of history, I know what revisionist history is. And it sure as hell isn't what these lunatics are saying; those are simply lies and B.S. designed to rally (stupid) people behind their "cause." Revisionist history is simply the concept of revising history when new primary documentation or evidence is released or discoverd. It has nothing to do with the rewriting of history to cater to a small segment of the population. Those saying the holocost never happened are not revisionist historians - they are liars. History is about the truth, not lies. And like any other discipline, it does need to be revised (updated) from time to time. -P- Feb 20 06 11:18 pm Link QuaeVide wrote: Why would someone want to revise history? History is the tool people use to understand people as people in the past and in the future, as a society, as a country, nation and what have you. It's a record of how we chose to live and conduct ourselves. And, I see it as a document work-in-progress of many milestones to review and measure how we are progressing as a human race. Feb 20 06 11:34 pm Link Doug Lester wrote: yikes! if we followed your advice, we would inflame hatred further, and destroy our well-documented history and be set back 200+ years. Feb 20 06 11:45 pm Link Pat Thielen wrote: IT should be...but people prefer it not to be so long as hey can still use the title. "Personally constrained pseudo-unbridled speech" isn't as catchy a phrase. Feb 21 06 03:44 am Link |
