scout26
Member
With Rights come responsiblilites. You have the right to bear arms, however you can not spray bullets randomly through your neighorhood. (The right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.)
Words/speech are like bullets. You can use them responsibly or irresponsibly. Use that right irresponsibly and you lose it. But once "fired" out of your mouth you own those words, ("thought bullets", if you will), forever. You are repsonsible for whatever effects those words have.
I can say my type of people are better then your type of people. I cannot advocate, encourage or endorse violence on your type of people. (That's how the KKK gets away with spewing their putrid crap, they just scream "White Power". The very second they say "Kill Blacks, Jews and/or Catholics.", it's off the pokey with them.)
The Europeans enacted the Holocaust denial laws to avoid the slippery slope of: 1. It didn't happen; 2. Things were better then; 3. We need to finish the job; 4. Let's put Adolf Jr. in charge !!
In Germany and Austria, you can discuss the WWII and the Holocaust all you want, you just cannot say that it did not happen.
How's this for better example, then Preacherman's "Shouting 'Movie' in Crowded Firehouse" analogy
: (I'll pick on Cosmoline)
I can say that people who live in the lower 48 whose names start with 'S' are clearly superior to people who live OCONUS and names start with 'C'. Free speech, correct ??? Obviously false, but no harm done. (I'm just swinging my arms here.)
Now if I go on to say that we "must first concentrate in camps and then come up with a final solution to the OCONUS 'C' question." (Hmmm, did your nose get in the way of my arm ??) I have clearly crossed a line and have advocated denying you your rights and/or violence to you. Whether or not any violence actually occurs, my right to free speech has impinged on your right to life and liberty as I have threatened you, nicht wahr ???
David Irving is Nazi scum of the first order. He has advocated and worked with Neo-Nazi groups as proven in his first trial. His speech has crossed that line, a line drawn by the duly elected Government of Austria, that states that denying the Holocaust is the same as advocating violence.
We can debate who and how many were killed, who participated, and the underlying anti-Semitism that existed and to a certain extent still exists in Europe. But there is no debating that Holocaust did not happen. I have met too many survivors and their liberators (to include my father), seen too many documents, photographs, contemporary films clips and have even been to some of the camps to even begin to think that a massive conspiracy to create the "Holocaust myth" could exist.
Words/speech are like bullets. You can use them responsibly or irresponsibly. Use that right irresponsibly and you lose it. But once "fired" out of your mouth you own those words, ("thought bullets", if you will), forever. You are repsonsible for whatever effects those words have.
I can say my type of people are better then your type of people. I cannot advocate, encourage or endorse violence on your type of people. (That's how the KKK gets away with spewing their putrid crap, they just scream "White Power". The very second they say "Kill Blacks, Jews and/or Catholics.", it's off the pokey with them.)
The Europeans enacted the Holocaust denial laws to avoid the slippery slope of: 1. It didn't happen; 2. Things were better then; 3. We need to finish the job; 4. Let's put Adolf Jr. in charge !!
In Germany and Austria, you can discuss the WWII and the Holocaust all you want, you just cannot say that it did not happen.
How's this for better example, then Preacherman's "Shouting 'Movie' in Crowded Firehouse" analogy
: (I'll pick on Cosmoline)I can say that people who live in the lower 48 whose names start with 'S' are clearly superior to people who live OCONUS and names start with 'C'. Free speech, correct ??? Obviously false, but no harm done. (I'm just swinging my arms here.)
Now if I go on to say that we "must first concentrate in camps and then come up with a final solution to the OCONUS 'C' question." (Hmmm, did your nose get in the way of my arm ??) I have clearly crossed a line and have advocated denying you your rights and/or violence to you. Whether or not any violence actually occurs, my right to free speech has impinged on your right to life and liberty as I have threatened you, nicht wahr ???
David Irving is Nazi scum of the first order. He has advocated and worked with Neo-Nazi groups as proven in his first trial. His speech has crossed that line, a line drawn by the duly elected Government of Austria, that states that denying the Holocaust is the same as advocating violence.
We can debate who and how many were killed, who participated, and the underlying anti-Semitism that existed and to a certain extent still exists in Europe. But there is no debating that Holocaust did not happen. I have met too many survivors and their liberators (to include my father), seen too many documents, photographs, contemporary films clips and have even been to some of the camps to even begin to think that a massive conspiracy to create the "Holocaust myth" could exist.
...these "rights" are spelled out by the U.S. constitution..a living document
..what was once true, may not necessarily be true today (amendments)....you may agree/disagree with it as a whole or with some of i's parts (amendments) but it is the LAW!!:banghead: get over it..the system's doing it's part. do your's or don't let the door hit you on the way out....i hear they love americans over in Europe