|
|
| Author |
Message |
fudge
|
|
Freedom of speech??
| 
Feb 21 11:16 UTC 2006 |
David Irving, a British right-wing historian, has been sentenced to three
years in jail by an Austrian court for having claimed the holocaust never
happend in speeches held there 16 years ago. He was arrested upon entering
the country and charged according to an Austrian law that prohibits denying
the holocaust. The public opinion and the media seem to applaude the outcome
of the trial, while I for one am appalled at such heavy handed censorship,
regardless of the ideology and ideas that have been squashed.
Many countries that were under Nazi control during the war, such as Germany,
Austria and Italy that I know of, have specific laws that forbid the
expression of favour, justification or apology of the National-Socialist or
Fascist rule.
Anyone else think this is a case of double standards?
|
| 137 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 1 of 137:
|
Feb 21 13:39 UTC 2006 |
I can understand why they did it, but it's still wrong.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 2 of 137:
|
Feb 21 14:33 UTC 2006 |
Apparently there are no statutes of limitations in Austria? Or was he
actually charged 16 years ago?
|
fudge
|
|
response 3 of 137:
|
Feb 21 15:19 UTC 2006 |
no idea when he was charged...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 137:
|
Feb 21 16:31 UTC 2006 |
I think it is wrong too. People should be entitled to hold whatever opinions
they want about anything. Laws apply when those opinions are translated into
illegal actions.
It sounds analogous to claims Galileo stated, which the Church found wrong
and seditious. The fact that Galileo was right and Irving was wrong is
beside the point.
|
tod
|
|
response 5 of 137:
|
Feb 21 17:37 UTC 2006 |
Let's see if I can put this into perspective:
Should it be against USA laws to preach that no Native American was ever
harmed? I think so. I think Native Americans at least deserve that much
respect.
So, is this about fascism of a double standard? I don't think so. I think
its about human decency and the will to not desecrate history with fiction.
Disney would have had its ass kicked a long time ago with John Wayne if we
had a law barring them from their fact skewering.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 6 of 137:
|
Feb 21 17:53 UTC 2006 |
Freedom of speech includes saying things that are completely false.
|
tod
|
|
response 7 of 137:
|
Feb 21 18:08 UTC 2006 |
David Irving never existed. He's a myth created by neonazis. There is no
one being held by the Austrian government and never was.
|
mary
|
|
response 8 of 137:
|
Feb 21 18:16 UTC 2006 |
Who decides what's the truth? Those in power? No thanks.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 137:
|
Feb 21 18:26 UTC 2006 |
Re #5: I disagree. Anyone should be free to assert that no Native
Americans was ever harmed, and anyone is free to rebut this assertion
(which is easy to do). "Respect" should not be a legal constraint on
freedom of expression. Telling falsehoods do not "desecrate" history
(history is not sacred, so cannot be desecrated).
It is not *admirable* to intentially make false claims, but it should not
be illegal unless it has significant consequences. The standards for this
vary: for example, public figures have less standing to sue for libel than
private figures, and some libelous proclamations might result in injury or
property destruction, for which the libeler holds some responsibility. But
unless an injury can be shown to result from libeling, say, Native
Americans, there is no basis for legal action.
|
tod
|
|
response 10 of 137:
|
Feb 21 18:34 UTC 2006 |
re #9
I think Disney and John Wayne libelled Native Americans in the worst way.
This neonazi historian in Austrian is just as evil.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 137:
|
Feb 21 18:48 UTC 2006 |
Your opposition to the libel is well justified, but what remedy is appropriate
for the libel?
This is a very current question with respect to the question of
Affirmative Action. Affirmative action is a redress for a form of libel.
It can be shown that discrimination still exists even if illegal, and that
discrimination is libelous. Many individuals libeled by this
discrimination are unable, however, to seek redress, because the libel is
indirect, insidious, and often unprovable (it is difficult to make legal
claims against intentions). Therefore Affirmative Action is offered as a
general redress for a class due to libel against that class.
There exists considerable affirmative action with respect to Native
Americans in recognition of the general libel to which they are subject,
though this libel becomes less significant as the social rights and
economic circumstances of Native Americans improve. They can, for example,
largely laugh off libel concerning their operation of casinos unless they
can show damages.
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 137:
|
Feb 21 19:02 UTC 2006 |
re #11
I think profits from the sale of hate speech should be redirected to a
settlement fund of survivors of the holocaust. They did it for their banks,
they can do it for the evil their countrymen still spew.
Wouldn't hurt my feels any if the same thing happened in the USA. Take
50% of all profits from any corporation that uses an indigenous label or logo
and give it to the survivors of the American Holocaust. We can start with
Pontiac Motors, Atlanta Braves, and Cleveland Indians and then even maybe tap
A2's Huron High School.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 137:
|
Feb 21 21:23 UTC 2006 |
a lot of these countries in europe have never had constitutionally protected
free speech, why do you think the u.s. of a. was formed
|
tod
|
|
response 14 of 137:
|
Feb 21 21:29 UTC 2006 |
Cuz the food in France stunk?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 15 of 137:
|
Feb 21 22:23 UTC 2006 |
Because a bunch of disunited former colonies would not have been viable
as separate sovereign states?
|
keesan
|
|
response 16 of 137:
|
Feb 22 01:37 UTC 2006 |
Re 12, the Huron High School is probably named after the Huron River, near
which it is located. Would you rather rename it after some other local
feature?
|
drew
|
|
response 17 of 137:
|
Feb 22 02:40 UTC 2006 |
I do consider "Judaeism prohibited on penalty of death" to be way excessive
on the do's-and-don'ts. But I also find "Thou shalt not say it didn't happen"
to be equally odorous.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 18 of 137:
|
Feb 22 03:04 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
i
|
|
response 19 of 137:
|
Feb 22 03:17 UTC 2006 |
Throwing someone in jail for what amounts to "peeing on OUR sacred
notions" after (i've read elsewhere) he's gone out of his way to
get arrested strikes me as rather small and foolish, but a lot of
what central European governments have done strikes me as small
and foolish.
The more interesting angle is how this looks little incident looks
to much of the Muslim world - insults against some pet ideas that
are popular in parts of Europe gets the offender thrown in jail,
while insults against their Prophet are A-okay.
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 137:
|
Feb 22 03:54 UTC 2006 |
You can't send mixed messages.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 21 of 137:
|
Feb 22 04:04 UTC 2006 |
it's a hard job in dubai
|
scholar
|
|
response 22 of 137:
|
Feb 22 05:01 UTC 2006 |
AHAHA I SAW THAT ONE
I LIKED IT WHEN SHE HAD ANAL SEX ON A CAMEL
|
sholmes
|
|
response 23 of 137:
|
Feb 22 05:07 UTC 2006 |
This brings us back to the cartoon issue.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 137:
|
Feb 22 09:08 UTC 2006 |
MIXED SIGNALS
|