Deny the Holocaust, Go to Jail

Status
Not open for further replies.
El Tejon said:
Democracy does not equate to liberty.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

A lot of libertarians forget that!

BTW my Cousin sits on the Austrian Constitutional Court, as well as the EU Court. They're all about control. Any talk Europeans spew about freedom is frighteningly Orwellian.
 
Ditto.

Growing up in a farming community where half the old timers were either holocaust survivors, others displaced by the war or U.S. Vets, I have no doubt the holocaust happened. However, it should not be a crime to be a fool. If I start spouting Klan rhetoric, I may be an idiot, but should not be labeled a criminal. If thought and speech made a crime, we'd all get the chair at some time.
 
Armed, well, the European perspective is the freedom "from". An authoritarian state is necessary to protect you "from"--the Nazis, starvation, criminals, corporations, your neighbor, yourself, El Tejon, inter alia.

After two horrific wars that left the flower of European manhood as fertilizer on its fields, it is understandable that Europeans are hesitant to grant liberty to anything or anyone. Control it and then control some more until it stops moving, and then susidize it.:D
 
1911 guy said:
Growing up in a farming community where half the old timers were either holocaust survivors, others displaced by the war or U.S. Vets, I have no doubt the holocaust happened. However, it should not be a crime to be a fool. If I start spouting Klan rhetoric, I may be an idiot, but should not be labeled a criminal. If thought and speech made a crime, we'd all get the chair at some time.
Click to expand...


I've always felt that the best antidote for stupid ideas is to give those ideas maximum exposure. The Klan is a good example.

Bob

 
Robert J McElwain said:
There is a law in Austria, a democracy, that forbids anyone from denying the Holocaust. And now, a man is going to jail for doing just that.
Click to expand...


David Irving is suppose to be a historian(!)... he should know better... whether or not his stupidity is covered by free speech really isn't the issue here...
 
I've always felt that the best antidote for stupid ideas is to give those ideas maximum exposure. The Klan is a good example.

Bob
Click to expand...

And to spread good ideas, maximum exposure through use of a large font ?
:p
 
Camp David said:
David Irving is suppose to be a historian(!)... he should know better...
Click to expand...

Where have YOU been for the last 40 years?:p

Reading Howard Zinn or something?
 
From what I've read he didn't deny the Holocaust happened, he just denied that gas chambers specifically were used in the holocaust.

Absolutely ridiculous that he was sent to jail for three years.

There is a slow slide in this country to the abolition of free speech Bob - just look at "Hate Speech" laws.

Hell I don't care if somebody wants to call me a "cracker." That's their 1st amendment rights, but if a white guy says a racial slur against somebody else, it's a "hate crime."

Hate crimes are only the beginning. These laws like Holocaust Denial are on their way.
 
"He went on, "Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS." "

I say lock him up until he sobers up. He's a repeat offender who has had his second, third and fourth chances already. Offender of what, you say? Being stupid in public. :)

John
 
Robert J McElwain said:
Let's hope such a law never comes to these shores.
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt it will.

*THIS* law is in direct response to the citizenry of the Axis Powers in Europe that flat out didn't believe that this had happened.

Essentially, after WWII, the citizens of Austria/Germany et al refused to believe that the Holocaust had occurred. IIRC, they had to FORCE the citizens around the camps to visit them, and view the bones, the gas chambers, the mass graves. There is a World At War episode that covers the post-war years where folks had to tour the camps. People were becoming visibly ill, and Allied troops just stood there, stonefaced, refusing the help them. Very powerful.

Anyway...this law was passed to discourage those naysayers. There are similar laws in most of the countries in Europe. All date to pre-1950s, if I remember correctly. I am unaware of any legislative attempts in the USA.

Oh, and there is also the fact that the Allies felt that Germany wasn't prosecuted sufficiently after WWI, giving rise to denials and disbelievers regarding culpability in THAT war, so they might have gone overboard in their "speech laws". Research Hindenberg and WWI war crimes trials if you have interest in this.

Not excusing the law. Just giving some historical context.

Edited: forgot the WWI reference the first time 'round...sorry
 
In thinking about my last answer, it should also be pointed out that after WWII Western Europe imprinted on mother hen, USA, when the US was under the heel of the FDR/Truman welfare state. Thus, Western Europe, in looking for someone to emulate, choose FDR. *shudder*

Thus, Western Europe's worldview today mirrors that of FDR.:uhoh:
 
No. Font size has more to do with the need for optical assistance and old eyes.:)

Bob
Click to expand...

I'm gettin' there myself! :)

You know that you can change font settings in your own web browser so that all the text is bigger for you to read easily on your own computer?

Then you can post your messages in the boring default THR font size like all the other folks here.
:D
 
Civil disobedience has different meanings in different countries. His (Irvings) rights as a British citizen do not extend to foriegn countries. Irving attempted to commit an act of civil disobedience and affirm his right to freedom of speech, in a country that did not recognize his rights. His mistake. It's folley to travel to a country where there is a standing arrest warrant, and not expect to get arrested.

Having and enforcing laws against the freedom of speech is stupid and lends credibility to Irving and his followers, but he knew better than to go to Austria and expect to stay out of prison.
 
The biggest problem I see here is that he was convicted under a 1992 law, for a speech he gave in 1989. 3-4years later. Guess there's no such thing as Ex Post Facto in Euro.
 
Robert J McElwain said:

No. Font size has more to do with the need for optical assistance and old eyes.:)

Bob
Click to expand...


LOL.

Assuming you're using Microsoft Internet Explorer, point to
VIEW --> TEXT SIZE --> LARGER/LARGEST

Oh, and if David Irving is a historian, then I'm a Chinese Jet Pilot. I'm much more of a fan of the American system where foolish idiots are encouraged to be publically be themselves as often and as loudly as they like.
 
LoadAmmo said:
From what I've read he didn't deny the Holocaust happened, he just denied that gas chambers specifically were used in the holocaust.

Absolutely ridiculous that he was sent to jail for three years.

There is a slow slide in this country to the abolition of free speech Bob - just look at "Hate Speech" laws.

Hell I don't care if somebody wants to call me a "cracker." That's their 1st amendment rights, but if a white guy says a racial slur against somebody else, it's a "hate crime."

Hate crimes are only the beginning. These laws like Holocaust Denial are on their way.
Click to expand...



Good point. Of course PC (Political Correctness) wants to dictate the way we should think about such issues. That kind of crap will destroy us.

I repeat, "the best cure for stupid ideas is maximum exposure to public scrutiny."

Bob

 
Robert J McElwain said:
Good point. Of course PC (Political Correctness) wants to dictate the way we should think about such issues. That kind of crap will destroy us.

I repeat, "the best cure for stupid ideas is maximum exposure to public scrutiny."
Click to expand...

I don't think PC has anything to do with this, to be honest. It has to do with national responsibility, culpability, and the *wishes* of a public to become deluded, and perhaps a bit of the Allies not wanting history to repeat itself. After all, democracy and unfettered free speech is what got them Hitler (and a second war inflaming europe withink a 50 year timespan) in the first place.

BUT, there is hope!!!! There ARE ways to counter this sort of stupid speech without putting pen to legislative paper...look what Bikers are doing to Phelps&co at their protests of military funerals:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/21/funeral.motorcyclists.ap/index.html
 
JJpdxpinkpistols said:
I don't think PC has anything to do with this, to be honest. It has to do with national responsibility, culpability, and the *wishes* of a public to become deluded, and perhaps a bit of the Allies not wanting history to repeat itself. After all, democracy and unfettered free speech is what got them Hitler (and a second war inflaming europe withink a 50 year timespan) in the first place.

BUT, there is hope!!!! There ARE ways to counter this sort of stupid speech without putting pen to legislative paper...look what Bikers are doing to Phelps&co at their protests of military funerals:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/21/funeral.motorcyclists.ap/index.html
Click to expand...

My hat's off to the bikers. However, further in the article it talks about several states considering laws to muzzle Phelps. I don't like the SOB, but if they muzzle him, someone might want to muzzle me next.

Bob
 
Robert J McElwain said:
My hat's off to the bikers. However, further in the article it talks about several states considering laws to muzzle Phelps. I don't like the SOB, but if they muzzle him, someone might want to muzzle me next.
Click to expand...

The last time I heard of any such law being considered, it was establishing noise abatement surrounding cemetaries. I don't see a problem with that. The problem hasn't ever been folks protesting at all, but rather, chanting, and disrupting the funerals with noise. Signs, fine...pamplets, fine. Chants, bullhorns and boomboxes no good. This isn't a free speech ZONE as much as a noise abatement area.

Hard to mourn when people are screaming in your ear (in the case of Phelps&co...RIGHT in your ear--trust me, I know :cuss: ).

Mourning *is* a universal need.

We ought to be able to protect *both* the free speech rights of those who wish to protest the death of a <insert group here> with those of the family who need to mourn and bury their dead. Is that a concession to common decency we should have to balance as a free society?
 
JJpdxpinkpistols said:
We ought to be able to protect *both* the free speech rights of those who wish to protest the death of a <insert group here> with those of the family who need to mourn and bury their dead. Is that a concession to common decency we should have to balance as a free society?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Free speech protects the CONTENT of speech, not the volume, timing or location.

You can say what you want, but not necessarily anywhere, any time, or at any volume.

Now I understand that this does open the door for suppression of speech. But so far, we've done okay with these restrictions. These restrictions are in place in every incorporated city in the United States.

It is vital that there are checks and balances on such laws, but so far, this has worked.

Now, if only the courts paid 1/10 as much attention to the 2nd Amendment as to the 1st...
 
JJpdxpinkpistols said:
The last time I heard of any such law being considered, it was establishing noise abatement surrounding cemetaries. I don't see a problem with that. The problem hasn't ever been folks protesting at all, but rather, chanting, and disrupting the funerals with noise. Signs, fine...pamplets, fine. Chants, bullhorns and boomboxes no good. This isn't a free speech ZONE as much as a noise abatement area.

Hard to mourn when people are screaming in your ear (in the case of Phelps&co...RIGHT in your ear--trust me, I know :cuss: ).

Mourning *is* a universal need.

We ought to be able to protect *both* the free speech rights of those who wish to protest the death of a <insert group here> with those of the family who need to mourn and bury their dead. Is that a concession to common decency we should have to balance as a free society?
Click to expand...



Someday, some mourner is going to just pound the tar out of that guy.:barf:

Bob

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Iran leader: Move Israel to Europe
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
Cousin Mike
C
2
  • Locked
A Father Is Going to Jail
Replies
17
Views
838
BOBE
B
A
  • Locked
Take a cop's picture, get arrested and go to jail...
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
143
Views
8K
Art Eatman
A
W
  • Locked
Why Britain Needs More Guns
Replies
0
Views
329
WonderNine
W
A
  • Locked
remember the Ron Dixon case in NYC??
Replies
5
Views
470
alan
A
Back
Top