Is it OK to mock ideas and idealogies?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Considering the Danish photos and the broad amount of interent culture devoted to mocking religion: do you think freedom of speech can be taken too far, and that it can cause grave offense.

Here's a fictional situation.

An art gallery decides to put up some art by contraversial Danish artist, Daniel Ingmarsen. This depicts Christ in a gay and erotic relationship with one of the disciples, it is graphic and obviously intended to shock, after showing the art for a few days there is so much furore from various relligious groups that the Art gallery decides to remove it?

Are they right to do so, or is freedom of speech beyond the laws of a civil society?

 

[vanesch]

As far as I'm personally concerned, I think the freedom of speech should be absolute. That said, we don't live in a society with many enlightened beings. As such we have to take into account that certain expressions which might be considered provocative by a certain lot of narrow-minded or brainwashed individuals, or worse, demagogues who cannot stand that one hurts the levers of their rhetorical techniques (such as religion) to help them gain power over the masses, might induce them to do bad things, and so it is probably a good idea to put up some auto-censure if we want to have our little peaceful existence.

 

[ZapperZ]

But what exactly is "freedom of speech"? The freedom to say what you like, whenever you like?

So you should be given the freedom to spew lies about me whenever you want, no matter how inaccurate?

What about yelling "fire" in a movie theater, or making jokes about hijacking at airports?

Can I just walk into a public school classroom and say whatever I like?

You could say "oh, there's a few exception", but then that is the whole issue, isn't it? It isn't absolute, and that for safety and well-being, you have to start imposing rules and laws. It is this balance that is at the heart of all this. It is not easy, and people who claim to want this "freedom of speech" have not thought it through to when this "freedom" creates harm and disruption.

As with any human activities, freedom of speech has its boundaries. It is where to put these boundaries that every society struggles with.

Zz.

 

[Kurdt]

One persons mocking is another persons criticism.

 

[vanesch]

But what exactly is "freedom of speech"? The freedom to say what you like, whenever you like?

Yes, as long as they are an expression of OPINION. Stating things as facts, when they aren't, and when it is clear that you know they aren't, with the idea of deceiving, is not "freedom of speech".

Your examples fall all into that category.

So you should be given the freedom to spew lies about me whenever you want, no matter how inaccurate?

Saying, for instance, that you are a fraudulent scientist, that you have written 20 bogus articles and so on, is NOT freedom of speech, but a well-known lie on my part, with the only idea to deceive others into disliking you for one or other reason.

What about yelling "fire" in a movie theater, or making jokes about hijacking at airports?

The first, no, the second, yes. I think it should be allowed to make jokes about hijacking at airports, as long as it is clear that you are joking, and not with the purpose of causing troubles with the security.

Can I just walk into a public school classroom and say whatever I like?

Almost. You should be allowed to say about all your opinions (and I know that will shock quite a few). However, you should not be allowed to state things as facts, when they aren't (and you know it).

You could say "oh, there's a few exception", but then that is the whole issue, isn't it? It isn't absolute, and that for safety and well-being, you have to start imposing rules and laws. It is this balance that is at the heart of all this. It is not easy, and people who claim to want this "freedom of speech" have not thought it through to when this "freedom" creates harm and disruption.

The freedom of speech is about the freedom to say what is your opinion. Not about deceiving, lying and purposely misleading people.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Technically this would be illegal in the UK, there is no constitutional right to free speech, but there are laws against inciting religious intolerance.

I tend to agree that some people are just so deranged and deluded that they should either be locked up for their views or deported. In the same way as marching down the street with signs saying god hates *ags would get you put in prison here; you shouldn't be allowed to incite hatred and or intolerance against gender/colour/sexuality or creed in anyway, and in this country at least you can face jail time for doing so. I have no problem with this, it enables us to deport terrorists too.

Obviously I voted other.

 

[vanesch]

I didn't mean to imply that in many (western or other) countries, freedom of speech is legal. I just think it should be (under the conditions I pointed out to ZapperZ: freedom to express one's OPINION, no matter how depraved, shocking, politically uncorrect and unthoughtful).

I am seriously disappointed by western democracies who seem to have adopted, for political correctness reasons, a whole bunch of laws repressing the statement of opinion. I think one should be allowed to state one's opinion, even if it is politically incorrect, such as racist, religious/anti-religious, fascist, revisionist, maoist or whatever. That said, one should not be allowed (or at least, one should bear the consequences of) INSULTING people on the road or anything. Freedom of speech doens't mean that one can put up anyone with one's conversation ! But one should be entitled to express one's opinion, no matter how "shocking", as long as it is clear that it is an expression of opinion.

In other words, I would be tended to defend the right to march into the street with a note saying that "god hates *ags", or even far worse statements, which I cannot even give examples of, given that it is illegal to write it ! This doesn't mean that I AGREE with such statements of course. But one should be allowed to make them. Because it is the only guarantee that one day, against all opinion, we might not make illegal a GOOD IDEA. As in the times of the inquisition.

 

[Panda]

I personally think that you should be able to say and do what ever you want providing it does not physically affect another person.

e.g. If I want to wear a T-Shirt saying people with green skin who have sex with fruit are subnormal and stupid then I should be allowed to, as I am not physically affecting either people with green skin or people who love fruit.

If however I stood up and said people with green skin who have sex with fruit must die and rallied those listening to act on my words, that would be physically affecting either people with green skin or people who love fruit.

I personally think that the more you are offended by an attack on you beliefs wether it be life belief or belief in your scientific work, the less strong that belief must be. If your belief is strong surely it can weather a few storms!

p.s. Any body reading this forum who has green skin or may sleep with fruit, I was using you as an example, I don't really hate you and please don't come round and campaign outside my house...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

p.s. Any body reading this forum who has green skin or may sleep with fruit, I was using you as an example, I don't really hate you and please don't come round and campaign outside my house...

You were that close then buddy

I know Vanesch I just wanted to express my opinion and point out technical illegality in most of Europe. Barring Russia and some non EU countries.

Anyone know what Daniel means in Hebrew

 

[humanino]

Although I consider myself religious, I think freedom of speech prevails. The situation described above is not close to the most shocking situations one can actually encounter in modern art museums (I can provide a list upon request). I actually find it funny (and I was raised in a christian family) !

We have a quote from a famous french humorist : "one can laugh about anything, but not with anyone"[/color]. That could support the principle that we must be careful not to recklessly exhibit provocative ideas, in order to protect sensitive characters. Yet, once we give up on self-derision and take ourselves too seriously, we risk fanaticism which is one of the most dangerous current tendency in our societies. Religious fanaticism is especially not tolerable. So overall, I understand the opinion that we must restrain provocative behaviors, but feel it does not apply to the precise case at hand.

As for Zz's intervention

what exactly is "freedom of speech"?

I feel this is exactly provocation here I agree with Vanesch's post #5.

You may think that, as a french citizen, I do not like political correctness anyway

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, as long as they are an expression of OPINION. Stating things as facts, when they aren't, and when it is clear that you know they aren't, with the idea of deceiving, is not "freedom of speech".

The freedom of speech is about the freedom to say what is your opinion. Not about deceiving, lying and purposely misleading people.

But I don't believe it is THIS clear-cut. Many people confuse "opinion" with "facts". I'm sure I don't have to bring out any examples to illustrate this "fact". You may think that saying "god hates *ags" is an "opinion", but for those who have no shame to shout it out in public, that is a FACT to them, not an opinion. And there are many who are influenced into thinking that it is a fact because such-and-such is "in the bible".

Furthermore, the categorization of things being not being deceiving, lying, or misleading are also highly subjective and not that clear all the time either. This again comes back to the point that I made that we struggle with the boundaries of "freedom of speech" all the time.

I personally think that you should be able to say and do what ever you want providing it does not physically affect another person.

e.g. If I want to wear a T-Shirt saying people with green skin who have sex with fruit are subnormal and stupid then I should be allowed to, as I am not physically affecting either people with green skin or people who love fruit.

If however I stood up and said people with green skin who have sex with fruit must die and rallied those listening to act on my words, that would be physically affecting either people with green skin or people who love fruit.

I personally think that the more you are offended by an attack on you beliefs wether it be life belief or belief in your scientific work, the less strong that belief must be. If your belief is strong surely it can weather a few storms!

p.s. Any body reading this forum who has green skin or may sleep with fruit, I was using you as an example, I don't really hate you and please don't come round and campaign outside my house...

Still, verbal communications cannot prevent emotional distress and, more importantly, can incite physical violence! What if the lies you are telling people about me causes me to lose my job? We have seen many instances of people being wrongly accused of sexual harassment or worse, child molestation, only to be found innocent. The stigma of that accusation continues for a long time. Such lies did not physically harm the person, but it damn well caused a lot of hardship of varying degree. We can't just say "oh, you or your belief were too weak in the first place to weather that storm". That's unacceptable! A person simply cannot go around irresponsibly affecting the lives of others with no consequences simply by using the excuse of "freedom of speech" that does no physical harm.

Zz.

 

[marlon]

You may think that, as a french citizen, I do not like political correctness anyway

Don't say that. Americans are just as bad . Anyhow, i do NOT think that freedom of speach is an absolute value in our societies. For example, opinions that can harm our democracy (eg denying holocaust, neo nazism etc etc) should be banned. Also, mocking the church should be banned because too many people care about religion (too much, but we NEED to respect that).

marlon

 

[Astronuc]

ZapperZ expresses my thoughts well.

It is a goal of an organized society to protect or provide security to its members - that is why people collect in groups.

When speech threatens that security, limits on speech are necessary.

What about hate speech that is designed to motivate hatred or threaten the safety of others? Can someone stand next to another and scream insults and threats because it is one's opinion that the person should or must be treated that way?

I certainly think that one should be able to express disagreement or dissent. While I might disagree with various political leaders and I might express the opinion that they should resign or be 'legally' removed from office, I do not advocate that they should be violently removed.

Concommitant with freedoms, isn't there some responsibility on the part of an individual to agree to certain norms or conventions while living within a society or community?

 

[humanino]

What is unacceptable to me it to claim that people are too stupid to deserve fundamental rights. It is an opinion, which somehow I share, but we cannot apply it. Remember John Cleese's message to the citizens of the United States of America. That was a joke. That was incorrect and very funny.

I could agree with you Marlon that denial of holocaust should be banned. I fear however this is not the correct way to deal with this problem, because then you turn dangerous individual into martyrdom.

 

[Kurdt]

Also, mocking the church should be banned because too many people care about religion (too much, but we NEED to respect that).

marlon

You can't ban mocking the church because people care about it too much. Whatever religion may be its inherently irrational and its pronouncements on things that affect our lives should therefore be scrutinised.

 

[humanino]

Please ignore this message. Sorry !

 

[Panda]

Still, verbal communications cannot prevent emotional distress and, more importantly, can incite physical violence!

That is why I both specifically stated physical harm, and used in my example the case that inciting physical harm which is then acted out is causing actual harm

What if the lies you are telling people about me causes me to lose my job?

Then I would have inflicted physical harm. If the people you work with feel that your arguments against the lies are stronger then no physical harm is caused.
I frequently say that the student sitting next to me is obviously inferior because he is Ginger. As far as I know this has not so far inhibited his career. As the argument that his work says different is stronger.

As soon as you bring in the subjective area of feelings then you are open to the ridiculous litigation exercises that are spreading from the US into UK and Europe. You hurt my feelings so give me £10,000. The death of this person who earns £15k/year was unjust so give me £1m in cash.

Why is it OK to hurt the feelings of Catholics in order not to hurt the feelings of Gays?
Surely it is easier to say the Catholics can do as they please providing they cause no physical harm to the Gays and vica versa.

 

[vanesch]

opinions that can harm our democracy (eg denying holocaust, neo nazism etc etc) should be banned. Also, mocking the church should be banned because too many people care about religion (too much, but we NEED to respect that).

I think that the fact that denying the holocaust is illegal is one of the worst things that happened to a "free society". I think far more damage is done to our society by denying that species evolved, than by denying the holocaust, for instance. What's the point in forbidding its denial ? This is one of those "politically correct" attitudes which do more harm than anything. The holocaust is a historical fact, as accepted by most mainstream historians. What could we care that a few freaks want to say that it didn't happen ? Imagine that they are admirerers of Hitler's politics. Then it would be quite silly to deny the result of his main "life achievement", wouldn't it ? Imagine they want to be apologists for Hitler, and tell us that he wasn't such a bad guy after all. What could we eventually care ? If their purpose is to do it all over again, holocaust included, then there's no point in denying the first one. If they want to do it all over again, except for the holocaust, then they are going to be different in any case and there's no point denying what happened. So what good could be suppressing any such denial ?

Should we also include laws concerning the denial that Julius Caesar invaded Britain or something ?

Imagine me, as an MWI-proponent, denying that in some branches of the wavefunction, the holocaust did happen, going to jail for that !

I find this kind of law more dangerous than anything else, because last year it made quite some upheaval when the same kind of argument was used in France to try to forbid the denial of the good Western colonization brought to African countries ! In fact this law was even voted, and only after some hesitation, president Chirac intervened to stop it.

It is a slippery slope when the law tells you what are allowed opinions!

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I think that the fact that denying the holocaust is illegal is one of the worst things that happened to a "free society". I think far more damage is done to our society by denying that species evolved, than by denying the holocaust, for instance. What's the point in forbidding its denial ? This is one of those "politically correct" attitudes which do more harm than anything. The holocaust is a historical fact, as accepted by most mainstream historians. What could we care that a few freaks want to say that it didn't happen ? Imagine that they are admirerers of Hitler's politics. Then it would be quite silly to deny the result of his main "life achievement", wouldn't it ? Imagine they want to be apologists for Hitler, and tell us that he wasn't such a bad guy after all. What could we eventually care ? If their purpose is to do it all over again, holocaust included, then there's no point in denying the first one. If they want to do it all over again, except for the holocaust, then they are going to be different in any case and there's no point denying what happened. So what good could be suppressing any such denial ?

Imagine me, as an MWI-proponent, denying that in some branches of the wavefunction, the holocaust did happen, going to jail for that !

I find this kind of law more dangerous than anything else, because last year it made quite some upheaval when the same kind of argument was used in France to try to forbid the denial of the good Western colonization brought to African countries ! In fact this law was even voted, and only after some hesitation, president Chirac intervened to stop it.

It is a slippery slope when the law tells you what are allowed opinions!

It is an understandable reaction though I'm sure most Germans do not want to assosciate with neo-nazism and so the law in context is perhaps not right in terms of freedom of speech but it is understandable.

Imagine me, as an MWI-proponent, denying that in some branches of the wavefunction, the holocaust did happen, going to jail for that !

In one of those realities Hitler was probablly a hero or won the war anyway, does that mean it would have been both legal and illegal to do it according to which MWI you happened to be in at the time? Or that my head hurts? Or that my ears have just leaked blood? Tell me what is happening with the wave function again

 

[Astronuc]

One could also consider the 'freedom to live in peace or security'. Is there such a freedom, even if it is not written in some legal document?

Let's assume such a freedom exists. What happens when one freedom conflicts with another - which one supercedes?

Coincidentally, I hear a discussion about the Four Freedoms yesterday.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrthefourfreedoms.htm

 

[vanesch]

I certainly think that one should be able to express disagreement or dissent. While I might disagree with various political leaders and I might express the opinion that they should resign or be 'legally' removed from office, I do not advocate that they should be violently removed.

Except if you are the president of the US ? You may not say so, but you may do it ?

You see, for each "limitation of free speech" there is always an example where exactly this kind of limitation is fundamentally unjust. And we have more examples in history where it was the suppression of the expression of opinion that was the "bad thing" than the expression of opinion itself. Oppression STARTS with suppressing the freedom of expression of opinion. The only absolute guarantee we have to limit oppression, is to make the expression of opinion absolutely free. Now, as it goes, many opinions are worthless, stupid, of extremely bad taste and everything you want. But it is up to the listener to make up his mind about the quality of the spoken word, and not up to the law.

In the eyes of the Inquisition, they were also doing politically correct things. They also wanted to avoid the "spoliation of the masses" with "bad ideas". Their purposes were sincere, and for the "good" of society. Denying the word of the Pope was the worst thing that could happen, because it would bring doom and misery.

 

[Kurdt]

One could also consider the 'freedom to live in peace or security'. Is there such a freedom, even if it is not written in some legal document?

Let's assume such a freedom exists. What happens when one freedom conflicts with another - which one supercedes?

I don't think any society could support the right to 'peace and security' to all members because that is not how a society works.

Coincidentally there was a documentary on channel Five in the UK recently that covered this subject by my hero Stewart Lee which is in the defence of free speech and kind of links with this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn2NMzb0OXU&mode=related&search=

for anyone interested. I couldn't find any programs against or leaning toward censorship to balance it out so if somebody knows of one they can post it

 

[Panda]

I think that the fact that denying the holocaust is illegal is one of the worst things that happened to a "free society".

What makes this law worse is that it is not targeting people who deny it ever happened, I'm pretty sure even the deniers admit that something happened. It is also covering people who say that the published figures may not be true.

Therefore if you are doing legitimate historical research into the holocaust and discover evidence that shows that a source quoting victim numbers was politically influenced it is illegal to publish that information. But conversely if you discover a source that under estimated the numbers you are allowed to publish.

Technically if I declare that the actual figures were 10% higher than previously believed, anybody who argues that I made the figures up is breaking the law in Germany and possibly soon the whole of Europe if the new law gets through.

This is a most unscientific law and should be ammended.

 

[ZapperZ]

That is why I both specifically stated physical harm, and used in my example the case that inciting physical harm which is then acted out is causing actual harm

Then I would have inflicted physical harm. If the people you work with feel that your arguments against the lies are stronger then no physical harm is caused.
I frequently say that the student sitting next to me is obviously inferior because he is Ginger. As far as I know this has not so far inhibited his career. As the argument that his work says different is stronger.

As soon as you bring in the subjective area of feelings then you are open to the ridiculous litigation exercises that are spreading from the US into UK and Europe. You hurt my feelings so give me £10,000. The death of this person who earns £15k/year was unjust so give me £1m in cash.

Why is it OK to hurt the feelings of Catholics in order not to hurt the feelings of Gays?
Surely it is easier to say the Catholics can do as they please providing they cause no physical harm to the Gays and vica versa.

But "feelings", whether we ignore them or not, can be the root cause of MANY atrocities between human beings. I'm not saying it is right or not. I'm stating what HAS transpired. In fact, you invoke such a thing yourself by telling me that if I've been lied to, I have to defend myself. This means I have to argue my case in front of people. Let's face it, in MANY situation, one argues not only based on facts, but also on "feelings". I have way too many examples here simply based on science decision policy alone that it isn't funny.

My point in all of this is that it is wrong to think we can set clear and definite boundaries of what "free speech" is. This is especially true when we set a set of 'rights' to people. When one right infringes on the other, then it becomes very difficult to sort things out. It is certainly not clear cut on when so-and-so can be applied. It just isn't that simple if you think a bit more.

Zz.

 

[vanesch]

Technically if I declare that the actual figures were 10% higher than previously believed, anybody who argues that I made the figures up is breaking the law in Germany and possibly soon the whole of Europe if the new law gets through.

Hahaha, that's funny, I didn't know that. I'm going to hurry and quickly publish that Hitler killed of 60 BILLION Jews, by his own hand, with a single razor blade, more than 10 times the current world population! And anybody (including the referees of the journal) who argues with it will then go to jail

 

[marlon]

I think that the fact that denying the holocaust is illegal is one of the worst things that happened to a "free society". I think far more damage is done to our society by denying that species evolved, than by denying the holocaust, for instance.

So denying holocaust is not one of the worst...

What's the point in forbidding its denial ?

To forbid thoughts that harm our free and peaceful society. We have the luxury that the nay-sayers are a minority, but what are you going to do when their group makes up 30 % of the people ? Your freedom of speach thing is a luxury problem.

This is one of those "politically correct" attitudes which do more harm than anything.

Like what ?

The holocaust is a historical fact, as accepted by most mainstream historians. What could we care that a few freaks want to say that it didn't happen ?

Because of my first answer.

Imagine that they are admirerers of Hitler's politics. Then it would be quite silly to deny the result of his main "life achievement", wouldn't it ? Imagine they want to be apologists for Hitler, and tell us that he wasn't such a bad guy after all. What could we eventually care ? If their purpose is to do it all over again, holocaust included, then there's no point in denying the first one. If they want to do it all over again, except for the holocaust, then they are going to be different in any case and there's no point denying what happened. So what good could be suppressing any such denial ?

What the ...

Look, if people grow up in a society that denies historical facts and that does not present a clear overview of what happened in history, we are in real danger. Banning holocaust denial is one of the measures to protect our way of living, our luxury of living in peace. If you allow every opinion that violates our fundaments, we risk that a certain group of people really starts thinking like that. History illustrates very well and several times what happened then.

Should we also include laws concerning the denial that Julius Caesar invaded Britain or something ?

This is rubbish because of a very simple reason : the second world war is just behind us. It's influences on our way of thinking are still very present. What Caeser thought when he invaded Britain has absolutely no influence on our society. THAT is the big difference.

Imagine me, as an MWI-proponent, denying that in some branches of the wavefunction, the holocaust did happen, going to jail for that !

MWI is crap and useless to the true nature of the QM formalism, but that is another discussion.

I find this kind of law more dangerous than anything else, because last year it made quite some upheaval when the same kind of argument was used in France to try to forbid the denial of the good Western colonization brought to African countries ! In fact this law was even voted, and only after some hesitation, president Chirac intervened to stop it.

I don't see how that is related to our discussion. This is an entirely different situation.

It is a slippery slope when the law tells you what are allowed opinions!

So ?

marlon

 

[vanesch]

When one right infringes on the other, then it becomes very difficult to sort things out. It is certainly not clear cut on when so-and-so can be applied. It just isn't that simple if you think a bit more.

I agree with that, in that one is still responsible for what one claims. But there shouldn't be any law forbidding you a priori to say your opinion. Again, not claiming facts which aren't true! That's not an expression of an opinion. But saying your opinion, no matter how distasteful, should be your a priori right. If, by saying so, you hurt someone else objectively - which is difficult to imagine ! - then that person's right might be fought over in court. But how could expressing your opinion hurt somebody, while having that opinion but not expressing it, not? Because it might bring others to the idea that you are right in fact ? Because others might also express their opinion, which might be influenced by yours ? But you can't stop EVERYTHING which might influence others to make up their minds ! So my expression is just part of the whole which influences others. By expressing publicly my opinion, I take a risk. I take the risk of others finding my opinion quite silly and hence lower their esteem of any further expression of opinion on my side. I take the chance that others might actually agree upon what I think. If the balance swings out in my advantage, and in the disadvantage of somebody else, then so be it. Maybe there's a good reason !

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree with that, in that one is still responsible for what one claims. But there shouldn't be any law forbidding you a priori to say your opinion. Again, not claiming facts which aren't true! That's not an expression of an opinion. But saying your opinion, no matter how distasteful, should be your a priori right. If, by saying so, you hurt someone else objectively - which is difficult to imagine ! - then that person's right might be fought over in court.

But that in itself is an admission that there is a limitation to one's opinion, if your words have hurt me somehow, then you are liable to be sued because you just don't have that freedom to say such things.

But how could expressing your opinion hurt somebody, while having that opinion but not expressing it, not? Because it might bring others to the idea that you are right in fact ? Because others might also express their opinion, which might be influenced by yours ? But you can't stop EVERYTHING which might influence others to make up their minds ! So my expression is just part of the whole which influences others. By expressing publicly my opinion, I take a risk. I take the risk of others finding my opinion quite silly and hence lower their esteem of any further expression of opinion on my side. I take the chance that others might actually agree upon what I think. If the balance swings out in my advantage, and in the disadvantage of somebody else, then so be it. Maybe there's a good reason !

Note that when I came in this thread, it was based on your assertion that such freedom of speech has to be absolute. You then clarified that you are only covering freedom of speech as based on "opinions" only. But I think you haven't address the issue that one person's opinion is another person's fact! Many people accept religion as a fact, but many also consider them to be nothing more than "opinions". After all, if religion is a fact, then how come there are so many of them offering widely different versions? But you go to someone who thoroughly believe in one, and I'll challenge you to convince that person that what he/she believes in is nothing more than an "opinion".

My point in all of this is that even when we apply your boundaries, it is STILL not clear cut. And that has been the issue that I have been trying to point out from the very beginning. "Freedom of Speech" isn't the whole story. We can't just end it there and think that the rest is easy and should fall into place spontaneously. I'm not preventing anything, or arguing for any form of restrictions. I'm arguing that those who have some simple-minded scenario for this need to think it through a little bit more and see how the boundaries that you set is really nothing as clear as you have made it. If you dig deeper, then it is as similar as the struggles we have right now in deciding who has the right to do what and when.

Zz.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

.

MWI is crap and useless to the true nature of the QM formalism, but that is another discussion.

We already had it, should of joined in

You can't forbid someone from expressing an opinion you can sue them if they go public; but you can and should IMO: stop someone who is trying to incite hatred and descrimination from having a voice, that is what the law seeks to do here, to silence the BNP, radical muslims, homophobes, religious bigots, irreligious bigots,anti gingerists(I tend to agree with them gingers are freaks but I won't say it in public ) Etc,etc,etc; essentially it means that anything which is considered purely for the use of inciting violence and or hatred is illegal.

 

[vanesch]

So denying holocaust is not one of the worst...

Of course not. Its significance is rather relative. What could one really care whether, long ago, a warrior lord organized an industrial process with the purpose of destroying a particular ethnic group of people or not, and what were the particularities and scale of the process ? Whether he used gas or a meat grinder ? And how long it took, and other gory details. What is the particular importance of this, so that it must be written in law ? I'm not saying that it is not a historically important fact, but there are many others, and it doesn't have much influence on what goes on today. So what could be the importance of it to turn it into a law ? Our history is full of attempts to eliminate other ethnic/cultural groups - that's no news ; the only difference with the Holocaust is the industrialization of the process. And that in the end it didn't work, because said ethnic group still exists ? I mean, what specific importance does this holocaust thing have over other important historical facts ? Why are there laws concerning the holocaust, but not about the historical atrocities committed by Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or the French revolution or the Inquisition, the invasion of the Vikings or whatever ? What's so specific about this single historical fact, that it must be turned into a law, and a law that DESTROYS our most fundamental protection against oppression, which is that one should be able to express one's opinion without risking punishment ? Why not a law concerning the almost genocide of the native indians by the Spanish invaders in south America ? And about the hypothetical genocide of the Neandertals by Homo Sapiens ?

To forbid thoughts that harm our free and peaceful society. We have the luxury that the nay-sayers are a minority, but what are you going to do when their group makes up 30 % of the people ?

If 30% of the people are convinced that the holocaust didn't happen, well so what ? And if 60% is convinced that it didn't happen ? And they vote a law that it is now forbidden to suggest that anything like the holocaust happened ? Because they have a precedent, and you can't argue anymore that one should be able to express one's opinion, even if it is contrary to what the majority thinks ? In the US, even more are convinced that evolution is not a fact. So what ? Should a law be voted in the US - to the model of the holocaust law - that evolution proponents should go in jail ?
Are you going to make a law for all "facts" believed by a majority, to freeze them once and for all, so that even expressing one's doubts over it becomes punishable ?

Like what ?

The harm with writing into LAW what are, and what aren't, politically correct ideas is what has been the basis for oppression in all of history. The precedent is dangerous. The small gain isn't worth the big loss.

Look, if people grow up in a society that denies historical facts and that does not present a clear overview of what happened in history, we are in real danger. Banning holocaust denial is one of the measures to protect our way of living, our luxury of living in peace. If you allow every opinion that violates our fundaments, we risk that a certain group of people really starts thinking like that. History illustrates very well and several times what happened then.

Then ANY denial of a historical fact should be punished! And every form "moral truth" (our fundamentals) should then be frozen in law, and any expression of a different opinion should be punished. In that case, we don't allow "every opinion that violates our fundaments". If you had done that 50 years ago, then it would now be a crime to say publicly that "it is not a bad thing to have sex outside of marriage" or "that one should consider abortion" or something. Because back then, that was part of morality, and hence one shouldn't allow for the expression of a dissident opinion. We should send those people who try to say so to re-education camps, right ?

Your arguments are EXACTLY the same arguments the Inquisition used, if you change some words. "If people grow up in denial of the truth of the Holy Church ... etc..."

This is rubbish because of a very simple reason : the second world war is just behind us. It's influences on our way of thinking are still very present. What Caeser thought when he invaded Britain has absolutely no influence on our society. THAT is the big difference.

I don't think that the holocaust has any influence on our way of thinking. I know that the politically correct idea is that it isn't nice to think about ethnicity based elimination. It was a just a recent example of it. But that didn't stop other similar events to happen ! It is a recurrent historical process, to try to eliminate other ethnicities. Has been, and always will be. No angelical law about a single historical fact will change that. And whether or not the holocaust happened, it is STILL not a nice thing to eliminate other ethnicities. So I really don't see the fundamental importance of this single historical fact, which ought to be so important that we DESTROY for that our freedom of expression, and go back a few hundred years, back to the time of the Inquisition.

I don't see how that is related to our discussion. This is an entirely different situation.

It is exactly the same thing: by law, one wanted to impose a single way of thinking, and the expression of the opposite made punishable.

 

[vanesch]

But that in itself is an admission that there is a limitation to one's opinion, if your words have hurt me somehow, then you are liable to be sued because you just don't have that freedom to say such things.

Well, it is to the charge of the plaintiff to demonstrate that he objectively suffered damage from the fact that you were having an unjustified opinion, which is IMO almost impossible to do.
It would be only in some kind of case where I state that, based upon all the material I've seen, and after mature reflection, I came to the conclusion that ZapperZ is a fraudulent scientist (which is strictly speaking an opinion, but unjustified, because I couldn't possibly have seen relevant material etc...), and you got professional troubles because of that, that you could attack me.

But if I say something like "I think that god doesn't like *ags", and the next day a gay person is stabbed, and the author says that he was influenced by my words, then that should still only be HIS problem, and not mine. I have the right to think that god doesn't like *ags, and if that stimulates an idiot to go into action, that's his problem.

However, if I call for violence, by itself, I should be allowed to say so, but THEN I do bear some part of responsibility in the consequences.

You then clarified that you are only covering freedom of speech as based on "opinions" only. But I think you haven't address the issue that one person's opinion is another person's fact! Many people accept religion as a fact, but many also consider them to be nothing more than "opinions". After all, if religion is a fact, then how come there are so many of them offering widely different versions? But you go to someone who thoroughly believe in one, and I'll challenge you to convince that person that what he/she believes in is nothing more than an "opinion".

I should be allowed to express MY OPINION concerning certain opinions/facts. I should be allowed to say whether or not I believe any fact/opinion. So I should be allowed to say that I THINK that Jesus was, I don't know, a terrible warlord who killed millions of innocent citizens. I should be entitled to my opinion, and the right to say so. Nobody can suffer direct objective loss by my saying so.

My point in all of this is that even when we apply your boundaries, it is STILL not clear cut. And that has been the issue that I have been trying to point out from the very beginning. "Freedom of Speech" isn't the whole story. We can't just end it there and think that the rest is easy and should fall into place spontaneously. I'm not preventing anything, or arguing for any form of restrictions. I'm arguing that those who have some simple-minded scenario for this need to think it through a little bit more and see how the boundaries that you set is really nothing as clear as you have made it. If you dig deeper, then it is as similar as the struggles we have right now in deciding who has the right to do what and when.

Well, I still do think that expressing my opinion should be A PRIORI my absolute right, no matter how distasteful it may be. But given the scope of the subject, there may always be expressions of opinions which have consequences, and in that case, it's up to justice to make up whether or not I have any responsibility in it - as is the case with EVERY act.

 

[Moonbear]

You can't forbid someone from expressing an opinion you can sue them if they go public...

Say what you want, but you're going to have to accept responsibility for the consequences of it. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you don't want to deal with the consequences of what you say, then you should choose not to say it. Having the freedom to say anything you want doesn't mean you should say anything you want.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

In essence what people are asking here is, is there any responsibility inherent in the right to free speech or should it be absolutely and arbitrarily a right all should be able to express with no reservations;or should our right to speak be governed by civility and morallity? And if it should, should those who we consider morally bankrupt be allowed to have the right of free speech?

Should we have the power to make a decision on whether or not such a person is allowed to express such views, ie take it before the courts? Personally, this places the right of free speech in the remit of the court or ultimately the European courts in our case.

Some would say this is a bad thing, I personally think it is the best way to approach the situation, some people just shouldn't be allowed to open their mouths, as their vile hatred is an affront to all moral sensibilities, those who ultimately make an ethical decision on whether the person in questions views breech moral codes of conduct, should be the governing bodies. I have no problem with this. As long as it's clear that only v,x,y,z fall into this category. For example I could say I hate turnips and seek that all righteous people everywhere should discriminate against them and they should be wiped off the face of the Earth like the ginger haired people. But to be honest I'd expect only to be jailed for the latter

Say what you want, but you're going to have to accept responsibility for the consequences of it. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you don't want to deal with the consequences of what you say, then you should choose not to say it. Having the freedom to say anything you want doesn't mean you should say anything you want.

Precisely.

 

[vanesch]

Say what you want, but you're going to have to accept responsibility for the consequences of it. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you don't want to deal with the consequences of what you say, then you should choose not to say it. Having the freedom to say anything you want doesn't mean you should say anything you want.

Indeed, that's the point. One needs to bear the responsibility of one's acts, and expressing one's opinion is an act as any other. If somebody thinks that he has suffered unjust disadvantage because of that, then he can go to court. However, A PRIORI, one shouldn't deny you the right to express your opinion. And, as I stated, simply expressing your opinion should rarely cause objective harm to anyone.

But of course, you might not make friends that way, and - especially when it comes to irrational beliefs such as religion - you might get yourself in trouble. Not legally, but in the fact. But I think it is not the LAW's purpose to stop you from choosing to express your opinion. Sometimes it is not a SMART THING TO DO. But it should be allowed for.

 

[ZapperZ]

I should be allowed to express MY OPINION concerning certain opinions/facts. I should be allowed to say whether or not I believe any fact/opinion. So I should be allowed to say that I THINK that Jesus was, I don't know, a terrible warlord who killed millions of innocent citizens. I should be entitled to my opinion, and the right to say so. Nobody can suffer direct objective loss by my saying so.

But I think you're missing my point. You made a distinction that one has no freedom to lie, or deceive, etc.. but one has the absolute freedom to state one's opinion. My point here has nothing to do with "objective loss", but rather the issue that what one considers to be an opinion, another would consider it to be a fact. So someone who believes in "A" is stating a fact when he based it on what "A" has stated. Thus, it is then subjected to be scrutinized and see if it is unverified and thus, a deception, which is not covered by your umbrella on what is considered to be a "freedom of speech". In fact, the words of "A" themselves is subjected to such scrutiny to see if it is an "opinion" or stated as facts that can be construed to be deceiving or outright lies.

But then, someone could easily come in and throw in a wrench and say to the effect that, according to him, "A" is an opinion. Using your rule, it should be covered.

So now you have issues that require that some formal way to decide. We go to the courts then? But hey, this was exactly my point in the very beginning! We draw up boundaries to this so called "freedom of speech", at that boundary includes deciding what is in and what is out, what is libel and what isn't, etc.. etc. It isn't as simple as one makes it out to be, not if people with different background, priorities, believes, etc. want to live with each other.

Zz.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

But I think you're missing my point. You made a distinction that one has no freedom to lie, or deceive, etc.. but one has the absolute freedom to state one's opinion. My point here has nothing to do with "objective loss", but rather the issue that what one considers to be an opinion, another would consider it to be a fact. So someone who believes in "A" is stating a fact when he based it on what "A" has stated. Thus, it is then subjected to be scrutinized and see if it is unverified and thus, a deception, which is not covered by your umbrella on what is considered to be a "freedom of speech". In fact, the words of "A" themselves is subjected to such scrutiny to see if it is an "opinion" or stated as facts that can be construed to be deceiving or outright lies.

But then, someone could easily come in and throw in a wrench and say to the effect that, according to him, "A" is an opinion. Using your rule, it should be covered.

So now you have issues that require that some formal way to decide. We go to the courts then? But hey, this was exactly my point in the very beginning! We draw up boundaries to this so called "freedom of speech", at that boundary includes deciding what is in and what is out, what is libel and what isn't, etc.. etc. It isn't as simple as one makes it out to be, not if people with different background, priorities, believes, etc. want to live with each other.

Zz.

I think we just had some sort of psychic episode, as you just pretty much stated what I did in my post spooky huh

 

[vanesch]

In essence what people are asking here is, is there any responsibility inherent in the right to free speech or should it be absolutely and arbitrarily a right all should be able to express with no reservations;or should our right to speak be governed by civility and morallity? And if it should, should those who we consider morally bankrupt be allowed to have the right of free speech?

I'm for the first option (as you figured out probably ). One should NOT BE LEGALLY RESTRICTED in the expression OF ONE'S OPINION. That means that A PRIORI, you may say your opinion (and state that it is your opinion of course). It doesn't mean that you may utter all thinkable phrases! You may not present as FACT something that is visibly going to hurt anyone. You may at best state your opinion that you believe said thing as a fact.

But it is not because you shouldn't be legally restricted, that you are not responsible for your statements, and if someone can show in court that he/she suffered objective and unjustified damage because of it, then you are responsible for your statements.

Some would say this is a bad thing, I personally think it is the best way to approach the situation, some people just shouldn't be allowed to open their mouths, as their vile hatred is an affront to all moral sensibilities, those who ultimately make an ethical decision on whether the person in questions views breech moral codes of conduct, should be the governing bodies. I have no problem with this.

I'm of the opinion that this is a terribly dangerous idea, because what seems to be a "morally correct idea" right now, may not be considered as such any later. However, these laws are IRREVERSIBLE, because even PROPOSING their abolishment would be illegal, and the precedent is too dangerous.

I think that it is even a good idea to let someone spout all his hatred, so that people can judge him on his unrestrained words.

 

[siddharth]

Is it OK to mock ideas and idealogies?

If you rephrase that as "Is it OK to openly question the validity of any ideas/ideologies?", then I would say, yes.

An art gallery decides to put up some art by contraversial Danish artist, Daniel Ingmarsen. This depicts Christ in a gay and erotic relationship with one of the disciples, it is graphic and obviously intended to shock, after showing the art for a few days there is so much furore from various relligious groups that the Art gallery decides to remove it?

Are they right to do so, or is freedom of speech beyond the laws of a civil society?

IMO, the gallery should have a legal right to display the art because they are essentially questioning the faith or beliefs of the religious group.

 

[ZapperZ]

Indeed, that's the point. One needs to bear the responsibility of one's acts, and expressing one's opinion is an act as any other. If somebody thinks that he has suffered unjust disadvantage because of that, then he can go to court. However, A PRIORI, one shouldn't deny you the right to express your opinion. And, as I stated, simply expressing your opinion should rarely cause objective harm to anyone.

But of course, you might not make friends that way, and - especially when it comes to irrational beliefs such as religion - you might get yourself in trouble. Not legally, but in the fact. But I think it is not the LAW's purpose to stop you from choosing to express your opinion. Sometimes it is not a SMART THING TO DO. But it should be allowed for.

But see, this is where we differ in interpretation.

Here, in the US, if you are simply "exercising your rights", you cannot be sued for anything because you have that right to do it. However, if you have libeled against someone, then you can be sued, because then you have infringed into the rights of someone else.

So you cannot separate out the "ceiling" of free speech by saying that you can say anything you like but you are responsible for it. Being sued for it means that you CANNOT say those things in the first place. That's is the whole point of such lawsuits. It means that your "freedom" has limits, which are the "boundaries" that I've mentioned earlier. It is saying that "you can say so and so and so.. but if you say that and that, then that is no longer covered by the "freedom of speech" and you can get sued".

I think in most ethics classes, you start by giving everyone all the freedom in the world, and then you start taking that away one by one in trying to figure out the absolute minimum amount freedom that needs to be taken away. You start adding that one cannot do physical harm to another, one cannot intrude on the personal property of another, etc... etc... and you realize that this is a struggle as the society get larger, more complex, more diversify, etc. The boundary of "freedom of speech" shifts, and in many cases, get very fluid.

Again, it isn't easy, and I certainly don't see a simplified, definite boundary that one can apply to such a thing.

Zz.

 

[marlon]

Of course not. Its significance is rather relative. What could one really care whether, long ago, a warrior lord organized an industrial process with the purpose of destroying a particular ethnic group of people or not, and what were the particularities and scale of the process ? Whether he used gas or a meat grinder ? And how long it took, and other gory details. What is the particular importance of this, so that it must be written in law ?

Again, just like your Julius Caesar example, these examples are not of any relevance because they did not happen within a context that 1) happened just recently, 2) has a clear influence on our contemporary society.

Sorry, this is just too easy. The holocaust was a result of a regime that was elected in a democratic way. Ofcourse, this regime did not defend the holocaust from the beginning so people did not know. But, if you analize the way this regime looked at "others" one could already see that bad things were waiting to happen. My point is that, from history we know how to recognize such regimes or political parties from the early stage on. If, in our day and age, we see similar ways of thinking appearing at the horizon, WE CAN ACT AGAINST THAT. By banning "holocaust support" we are doing just THAT.

I mean, what specific importance does this holocaust thing have over other important historical facts ?

Banning holocaust is just one aspect of banning the regime that was responsible for it. Killing ethnic groups and defending such policy is banned from public fora all around for the very same reasons. So it is NOT JUST the holocaust we publicly condem, but also the regime. You need to look at the bigger picture, which is not so difficult to detect

Why are there laws concerning the holocaust, but not about the historical atrocities committed by Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot,

These people were leaders of regimes that killed many people, but there is a difference between them and NAZIS. One of the key fundaments of NAZISM is the hate against Jews and thus, the holocaust. If you condem holocaust you condem NAZISM by banning one of their fundamental ideas. I would say that is a pretty strong and effective signal ! Stalin, had not such ideas against one group of people. Also, the xenofobia which is still very present in our societies and which is a basic idea of extreme right wing parties needs to be forbidden. That is exactly what we are doing and saying when we publicly condem holocaust. These concepts are closely connjected and if i talk about "the influence of holocaust on our society" i mean just THAT.

The "leaders" you mention did not have such clear-cut ideas against one single group of people and extreme right win parties are much more powerful and influential than extreme left wing parties. THAT, and only THAT, is why we talk about NAZISM, holocaust, etc more than what Pol Pot did.

or the French revolution

?
What was the holocaust "variant" in the French Revolution ? Besides, though this revolution shaped our society, it's emotional influence and dangers for democracy are ZERO. So again this is an irrelevant example.

or the Inquisition, the invasion of the Vikings or whatever ?

Same answer as above.

Though i assure you that if somebody would repeat the words of Thomas de Torquemada now, he would be thrown into jail because of violations against SEVERAL laws of human rights.

and a law that DESTROYS our most fundamental protection against oppression,

How does this law destroys anything ?

Besides, you said that this law does more harm than good. I asked you to clarify that in my previous post yet you did not answer. I am still waiting for examples that illustrate "your point".

Why not a law concerning the almost genocide of the native indians by the Spanish invaders in south America ? And about the hypothetical genocide of the Neandertals by Homo Sapiens ?

Ok, this is gettin' a bit stupid. Are you going to regurgitate all histrical facts that ever happened ? I clearly explained to you what it is that makes "holocaust" so special. Though, people got killed in every age, one cannot just say "because the result is the same, the cause should be treated in the same way". This is a very, euuhh, robotic way of thinking. Open your eyes and notice that society does not work that way.

If 30% of the people are convinced that the holocaust didn't happen, well so what ?

Vlaams Belang does have an influence on our Belgian society. Just because a group is in the minority does NOT mean their ideas cannot have any influence. Don't be so ignorant for reality man.

And if 60% is convinced that it didn't happen ?

Is this a joke ?

And they vote a law that it is now forbidden to suggest that anything like the holocaust happened ? Because they have a precedent, and you can't argue anymore that one should be able to express one's opinion, even if it is contrary to what the majority thinks ?

If that were the case, our society is run by NAZIS or people that affiliate with that way of thinking. Well, in that case, we are no longer living in a peaceful and equal society. I am very glad you are no politician.

In the US, even more are convinced that evolution is not a fact. So what ?

C'mon, are you really convinced of the fact that "evolution" and "holocaust" are comparable in the way we should look at them. The former does not even have casualties . This is irrelevant. But again, i already answered to this because this example is just the same as the Stalin or Pol Pot stuff...

Your arguments are EXACTLY the same arguments the Inquisition used, if you change some words. "If people grow up in denial of the truth of the Holy Church ... etc..."

No, because my arguments protect our democracy. Because "holocaust" is a result of a regime that is racist. Holocaust should be banned because of that. "Not living according to the truth of the church" is a concept that is 1) NOT the result of a regime that is racist, 2) not equal to a process in which millions of people got killed.

The Inquisition said : let's ban people that do not live according to the church, or let's kill them. Well, banning holocaust is not equal to killing holocaust believers. Again, this analogy is stupid. You are also forgetting about the justice system that deals with holocaust deniers, this system did not exist in the day and age of the Inquisition.

I don't think that the holocaust has any influence on our way of thinking.

It is not ONLY about the holocaust. This is the ESSENTIAL error you are making.

I know that the politically correct idea is that it isn't nice to think about ethnicity based elimination. It was a just a recent example of it. But that didn't stop other similar events to happen !

Yes but NOT in Western Europe. Not every country in the world bans holocaust you know

And whether or not the holocaust happened, it is STILL not a nice thing to eliminate other ethnicities.

Ofcourse not, but what does this have to do with banning holocaust ?

It is exactly the same thing: by law, one wanted to impose a single way of thinking, and the expression of the opposite made punishable.

But did the opposite refer to an analoguous event like the holocaust ?

marlon

 

[vanesch]

So someone who believes in "A" is stating a fact when he based it on what "A" has stated. Thus, it is then subjected to be scrutinized and see if it is unverified and thus, a deception, which is not covered by your umbrella on what is considered to be a "freedom of speech". In fact, the words of "A" themselves is subjected to such scrutiny to see if it is an "opinion" or stated as facts that can be construed to be deceiving or outright lies.

If you clearly state that it is YOUR OPINION, then you're safe, no ? It is only in the case when I state things AS FACTS, and which, when taken as facts, hurt others objectively or have at least that potential, and when the so-called fact cannot be clearly demonstrated, that I'm outside of the scope of freedom of expression.

Some "facts" can indeed only be opinions, but what is clearly stated to be an opinion can never be considered a fact, no ?

So a clearly stated opinion should always be a priori legal. That's my point. It doesn't lift your responsibility from it, of course. If it is such that it objectively caused undeserved harm, then one is still responsible for it.

 

[vanesch]

Sorry, this is just too easy. The holocaust was a result of a regime that was elected in a democratic way. Ofcourse, this regime did not defend the holocaust from the beginning so people did not know. But, if you analize the way this regime looked at "others" one could already see that bad things were waiting to happen. My point is that, from history we know how to recognize such regimes or political parties from the early stage on. If, in our day and age, we see similar ways of thinking appearing at the horizon, WE CAN ACT AGAINST THAT. By banning "holocaust support" we are doing just THAT.

And I think it is a bad idea. It is not some silly law about some historical fact which is going to STOP any xenophobic reaction. You cannot know what way a democracy will go, and you cannot plan it with laws, unless you abolish it from the start. If there are reasons (good or bad) to be xenophobic, and people start adhering to them, it is not some chart that will forbid it, that will stop the tendency. It will only make it slightly more invisible.

These people were leaders of regimes that killed many people, but there is a difference between them and NAZIS. One of the key fundaments of NAZISM is the hate against Jews and thus, the holocaust.

The Jews have, historically, often been the target of hatred, and the Nazis weren't the first, and aren't the last (look at the daily news bulletin from the middle-east!). So there is nothing particular about the Nazi's hatred for Jews. What WAS peculiar, was their industrialization of the process.

History is FULL of ethnic/xenophobic conflicts, with the often clearly pronounced desire of one side to completely eradicate the others. The Nazis didn't invent this either.

Stalin, had not such ideas against one group of people. Also, the xenofobia which is still very present in our societies and which is a basic idea of extreme right wing parties needs to be forbidden.

You can't do that by simply "forbidding" it ; and again, this has nothing to do with the holocaust per se. If society evolves in such a way that many people get convinced that they should become xenophobic, then no law is going to stop that. In fact, forbidding them to express this publicly, makes the process more underground and hence less controllable.

?
What was the holocaust "variant" in the French Revolution ? Besides, though this revolution shaped our society, it's emotional influence and dangers for democracy are ZERO. So again this is an irrelevant example.

Yes, your "ethnic group" (from aristocratic descend or not) decided whether or not your head was going to be cut off. Also on an almost-industrial basis.

How does this law destroys anything ?

It creates the precedent for introducing other laws that forbid any criticism of a "politically correct" idea, such as the idea that I should be the supreme leader for life

Besides, you said that this law does more harm than good. I asked you to clarify that in my previous post yet you did not answer. I am still waiting for examples that illustrate "your point".

I just gave you the explanation: it creates the precedent. And with some modification, you turn it into a law which acts like the Inquisition.

I clearly explained to you what it is that makes "holocaust" so special.

And as I pointed out, it is not so special, nor concerning the Jews, nor concerning ethnic hatred, which is a red guiding line throughout most of history. The only originality was in the industrialisation, and even there, there is competition from the French revolution.

Vlaams Belang does have an influence on our Belgian society. Just because a group is in the minority does NOT mean their ideas cannot have any influence.

And how come that they got up to 30% or so, with all these nice laws protecting us ?

Is this a joke ?

Well, 51% of all Flemish people said recently that they do not want to declare that they'd never vote for the VB. So there's at least 51% POTENTIAL electorate for them. Nevertheless, everything (too much) is being done to keep all argumentation politically correct. The condemnatation of the dissolution of the Vlaams Blok because of racial hate, and the immediate setup of the Vlaams Belang, didn't do ziltch to it.
So open your eyes: it is not because there's a law against this kind of discourse, that people do not have these "forbidden" opinions, and such laws are even counter-productive, because they smoothen out all the speeches of these party leaders, which would become way more gory if they were legally not constrained.
Add some more economic difficulties and one or two terrorist attacks, and the VB can rise to 51%. So 60 % is also possible. Despite the nice anti-holocaust law - which does zilch to confine the "bad thinking".

No, because my arguments protect our democracy. Because "holocaust" is a result of a regime that is racist. Holocaust should be banned because of that. "Not living according to the truth of the church" is a concept that is 1) NOT the result of a regime that is racist, 2) not equal to a process in which millions of people got killed.

1) hahaha ! The church was not "racist" or xenophobic against those with other religions ? Including the Jews ?

2) Any idea how many people died by the hands of the church ?

The Inquisition said : let's ban people that do not live according to the church, or let's kill them. Well, banning holocaust is not equal to killing holocaust believers. Again, this analogy is stupid. You are also forgetting about the justice system that deals with holocaust deniers, this system did not exist in the day and age of the Inquisition.

I'm saying that putting people in jail because of their ideas is exactly what the Inquisition did. And they did it because they were convinced that these ideas were bad and dangerous. In the same way you think that racism is a dangerous idea. But who's to say that tomorrow, somebody doesn't consider other ideas as "dangerous", and, by using the example of racism, puts in place other laws forbidding these other ideas ? ANY ideas ? I consider the idea that one might NOT want me as supreme leader, a dangerous idea, for instance

So the point is: by making it possible to put people in jail for "dangerous" ideas, you open the gate for Inquisition-style laws.

 

[Kurdt]

Free speech as I see it is the right for a member of society to criticize particular aspects of that society, including moralities, laws, subcultures etc. Basically anything to do with how we all live. It is also the right to propose new ideals or guiding principles for the society as a whole. The goal of this criticism is to engage in debate the usefulness of the subject in that particular society (for example the artist in the original post has chosen to criticize the views of christianity on homosexuality). The purpose of this is so that society can evolve and leave behind those aspects which are no longer considered correct and bring in new concepts that progress us all. Unfortunately rational debate about ideologies tend to bring out strong feelings in some people and they retaliate with anger and hatred.

The problem most people have is thinking it is the right to say whatever you wish in the context of anything but of course this could not work and is why libel is an offence to name one example. Other examples are fraud or deliberately misleading people to your own ends. This is not free speech because the motive is for personal gain rather than criticism of social values. I have always thought in threads like this that to many the definition of free speech was not defined clearly enough.

 

[Anttech]

What WAS peculiar, was their industrialization of the process.

Although I agree with your stance in its entirety.

I don't think it (The Holocaust) was peculiar for that, as the Turks did the same, to Christians. When one "race" starts systematically killing another it tends to be done in an industrialised way.

Denial of the Assyrian Genocide by the Turks is now Law, but I think this is a Political tool more than anything else to allow The powers of Europe to Say no to Turkey to enter the EU, without actually saying NO.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Either there are no religious people on this forum or they are very discrete about their beliefs

Although I agree with your stance in its entirety.

I don't think it (The Holocaust) was peculiar for that, as the Turks did the same, to Christians. When one "race" starts systematically killing another it tends to be done in an industrialised way.

Denial of the Assyrian Genocide by the Turks is now Law, but I think this is a Political tool more than anything else to allow The powers of Europe to Say no to Turkey to enter the EU, without actually saying NO.

Aye what about the extermination of the Canaanites by the Israelites? Almost achieved genocide.

When Rome took Carthage not only did they slaughter most of the population but they raised the city to the ground and then salted the Earth so nothing would ever grow there. This was a mark of respect in a Romans eyes though, and showed how much they feared Carthage wonderful race the Romans

 

[marlon]

And I think it is a bad idea. It is not some silly law about some historical fact which is going to STOP any xenophobic reaction. You cannot know what way a democracy will go, and you cannot plan it with laws, unless you abolish it from the start.

Again, i never said the ban is the ONLY way to battle racism etc etc...What you state here is pure speculation. We LIVE in a society that respects this ban and just look at how this society works. THAT is proof. Also, when did i claim i know how a society will evolve ? What is that all about ?

The Jews have, historically, often been the target of hatred, and the Nazis weren't the first, and aren't the last (look at the daily news bulletin from the middle-east!). So there is nothing particular about the Nazi's hatred for Jews. What WAS peculiar, was their industrialization of the process.

Irrelevant. The holocaust is NOT equal to ther crimes against the Jews. You are trying to rationalize a concept that has some much influence on our society as i explained in my previous post. I am not going to repeat all of that again. You just refuser to talk about that.

History is FULL of ethnic/xenophobic conflicts, with the often clearly pronounced desire of one side to completely eradicate the others. The Nazis didn't invent this either.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING. Look, i answered to this point many times. You just rewrite the same opinion in different ways. Again, this is irrelevant for the very same reasons that i have been quoting over abd over again.

You can't do that by simply "forbidding" it ;

YES WE CAN. LOOK AT REALITY!

and again, this has nothing to do with the holocaust per se.

WRONG. It has everything to do with holocaust. I suggest you read the actual law for a change.

If society evolves in such a way that many people get convinced that they should become xenophobic, then no law is going to stop that.

Which events trigger such a belief ? How do people get convinced of such ideas. It is exactly those "seeds" that this law is trying to outline and warn us from. This is what you obviously do not get, but it is the truth. You want proof, go into high schools and look how children are instructed in this matter. Look at how political debates are being held. There is a certain style that needs to be respected. The respect for others, etc etc, all is protected by this law. It is not just "a law" but it represents a way of living. Again, do not just rationalise the "holocaust" because it is an emotional event.

In fact, forbidding them to express this publicly, makes the process more underground and hence less controllable.

Not at all. Forbidding such ideas makes it much more easy to screen them and keep trach of them. This is exactly why neo nasism is no longer a big issue in our society. Thanks to the gradual elimination of the ideas and thanks to making people sensible to its dangers. All thanks to the law.

Yes, your "ethnic group" (from aristocratic descend or not) decided whether or not your head was going to be cut off. Also on an almost-industrial basis.

This is not true and it does not even come close to a comparison with the holocaust.

It creates the precedent for introducing other laws that forbid any criticism of a "politically correct" idea, such as the idea that I should be the supreme leader for life

That is what you say, yet this never happened in real life so far. Again, you are just speculating.

I just gave you the explanation: it creates the precedent. And with some modification, you turn it into a law which acts like the Inquisition.

No, that does not count. You said that this law does more harm than good to our society. The only thing you could come up with is your own speculative "it COULD create a prcedent"

This is not very convincing. If this law is THAT bad, surely you must be able to give me some clear indications of damage to our society because of this law. I am waiting...

And as I pointed out, it is not so special, nor concerning the Jews, nor concerning ethnic hatred, which is a red guiding line throughout most of history.

Ohh, not this again. Listen, you are WRONG when you say the holocaust ban is stupid just because the holocaust does not merit a special historical treatment. You say that it is not unique etc etc. Well, ofcourse similar events happened in the past but that is IRRELEVANT. What makes the holocuast so special TO US is :

1) it's recent place in history
2) it's direct consequence onto our society.

Like i already said, the regime responsible for holocaust has a lot of influence now as well. More generally, extreme right wing ideology is the best example. The reason that you French Revolution examples are crap is the fact that the political ideology of that period doe NOT present a thread to our society. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS DISCUSSION !

If you condem holocaust you condem NAZISM by banning one of their fundamental ideas. I would say that is a pretty strong and effective signal ! Stalin, had not such ideas against one group of people. Also, the xenofobia which is still very present in our societies and which is a basic idea of extreme right wing parties needs to be forbidden. That is exactly what we are doing and saying when we publicly condem holocaust. These concepts are closely connjected and if i talk about "the influence of holocaust on our society" i mean just THAT.

The "leaders" you mention did not have such clear-cut ideas against one single group of people and extreme right win parties are much more powerful and influential than extreme left wing parties. THAT, and only THAT, is why we talk about NAZISM, holocaust, etc more than what Pol Pot did.

And how come that they got up to 30% or so, with all these nice laws protecting us ?

I never said that the holocaust ban stops this tendency on its own. Also, keep in mind that still 70 % of the people opposes this idea. Why do YOU think we have not had a war in the last 50 years, huh ?

Well, 51% of all Flemish people said recently that they do not want to declare that they'd never vote for the VB. So there's at least 51% POTENTIAL electorate for them.

Yeah, ask them the same question tomorrow and the outcome might be 43 %. My point, such test have no value. This is speculative, again...

Nevertheless, everything (too much) is being done to keep all argumentation politically correct. The condemnatation of the dissolution of the Vlaams Blok because of racial hate, and the immediate setup of the Vlaams Belang, didn't do ziltch to it.

That does not matter, Vlaams Belang is in the opposition. THAT was the idea and that is still successful. Also, why do you think that even Filip DeWinter said that "the trees do not grow infinitely into the sky ?" Why do you think they did not rise their potential in Antwerp during the last elections ? And why do you think that still 70 % AGREES with the "politic correctness"

So open your eyes: it is not because there's a law against this kind of discourse, that people do not have these "forbidden" opinions,

No, YOU open your eyes because i never said that.

Add some more economic difficulties and one or two terrorist attacks, and the VB can rise to 51%. So 60 % is also possible. Despite the nice anti-holocaust law - which does zilch to confine the "bad thinking".

Ofcourse the ban would not be able to counter such an influence but having the ban does also NOT trigger such reactions, so your point is irrelevant. Besides, i never said that the holocaust ban was dealing with such influences. Really, this is completely not related to the discussion.

1) hahaha ! The church was not "racist" or xenophobic against those with other religions ? Including the Jews ?

2) Any idea how many people died by the hands of the church ?

Nonono, that is not going to work. YOU SAID : "Your arguments are EXACTLY the same arguments the Inquisition used, if you change some words. "If people grow up in denial of the truth of the Holy Church ... etc..."

This analogy is useless, as i said before. Let's just compare: The church says "follow our rules" and our society says "don't defend holocaust" . Now, apart from the actual difference in content you seem to miss i want to point out that this analogy is bad because of the "OR". I mean, because of the "if you do not do what we say then...". The church will kill you, but our society will NOT do that. If you defend holocaust, the penalty cannot be compared to the action of the church. Also, and this is the most important factor : the holocaust is an historical fact. The words of the church are not. There is an essential difference here. We can proof the thing we are banning. This is an important difference that proofs the uselessness of this analogy. In short : DROP IT !

I consider the idea that one might NOT want me as supreme leader, a dangerous idea, for instance

No, because you have no historical proof for what you are saying. THAT is the difference.

So the point is: by making it possible to put people in jail for "dangerous" ideas, you open the gate for Inquisition-style laws.

NO, for the above reason.

marlon

 

[Thrice]

ZapperZ expresses my thoughts well.

Yeah I don't think I've ever read any of his posts and not completely agreed. (except for when I don't understand them :p)

 

[vanesch]

Not at all. Forbidding such ideas makes it much more easy to screen them and keep trach of them. This is exactly why neo nasism is no longer a big issue in our society.

Ok, so neonazism is not a big issue (correct). So we don't need any law to protect us from it, right ?
And all the VB stuff has nothing to do with neonazism, right ? Their xenophobia (which is quite popular, but only in bars, at parties, in kitchens, at family gatherings etc... but not in public of course) has as such nothing to do with neonazism, and hence has nothing to do with any holocaust stuff, right ?(given that you claim yourself that neonazism is not an issue anymore in current society - which I think is totally correct)
As such, extreme right wing parties have no big ties with any form of nazism, but are independent of it. And hence have nothing to do with anything like holocaust related things.

Thanks to the gradual elimination of the ideas and thanks to making people sensible to its dangers. All thanks to the law.

Right. Extreme right wing xenophobia has been essentially eliminated from the European political landscape thanks to these laws which gradually educated people, had them not exposed anymore to such ideas, and hence these ideas don't thrive anymore in any significant way. Ok. I understand now.

That is what you say, yet this never happened in real life so far. Again, you are just speculating.

As I said, it ALMOST happened in France, last year. There was ALMOST a law forbidding you to say that the colonization was all bad. There was almost a law which enforced you to say that colonizing was a good thing.

This is not very convincing. If this law is THAT bad, surely you must be able to give me some clear indications of damage to our society because of this law. I am waiting...

Ohh, not this again. Listen, you are WRONG when you say the holocaust ban is stupid just because the holocaust does not merit a special historical treatment. You say that it is not unique etc etc. Well, ofcourse similar events happened in the past but that is IRRELEVANT. What makes the holocuast so special TO US is :

1) it's recent place in history
2) it's direct consequence onto our society.

It is not so recent. It happened more than 60 years ago. And it doesn't have much consequences on our society. Communism turned into dictatorship had much more influence. We should hence ban every public reference to anything good communism or socialism has, because:
1) it's even more recent in history
2) it had even more direct consequences to our society.
(and a lot of atrocities happened).

Hey, it even really happened! In fact, that's back to McCarthy's time ! Another example of doing some legalese concerning the freedom of expression of opinion.

Like i already said, the regime responsible for holocaust has a lot of influence now as well.

And you said above that neo-nazism (thanks to these laws) is no issue anymore... So is it still an issue (in which case the efficiency of those laws is 0, after 60 years still no result), or is it not an issue (in which case it is not needed) ?

More generally, extreme right wing ideology is the best example. The reason that you French Revolution examples are crap is the fact that the political ideology of that period doe NOT present a thread to our society. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS DISCUSSION !

Neo nazism, as you said yourself, is NOT an issue. Extreme-right wing political parties are NOT INSPIRED by neonazism, and have hence not much to do with the holocaust. They are simply racist/xenophobic, in the sense that they single out one or other target group as the "bad guys", and then focus on hating that group. And THIS property is shared by many many historical facts, such as the French revolution (everything was the fault of the aristocrates), Pol Pot (everything was the fault of the intellectuals),...

So the real driving force behind extreme-right wing political parties has next to nothing to do with the specific history of neo nazism, but rather with the general human tendency to stick to its group, and to demonise the "others" for everything that goes wrong. In extreme cases, they call for the physical elimination of these "others", whether it be Jews, aristocrats, blacks, intellectuals, protestants or whatever. Nazism was only one particular instantiation of this general human behavior.

If you condem holocaust you condem NAZISM by banning one of their fundamental ideas. I would say that is a pretty strong and effective signal ! Stalin, had not such ideas against one group of people. Also, the xenofobia which is still very present in our societies and which is a basic idea of extreme right wing parties needs to be forbidden. That is exactly what we are doing and saying when we publicly condem holocaust. These concepts are closely connjected and if i talk about "the influence of holocaust on our society" i mean just THAT.

Stalin did deport entire populations. I'm a bit less acquanted with the exact history of it.

But now you are giving me exactly my own argument! Remember that the holocaust law doesn't make you say that it was a bad thing, one is simply not supposed to dispute the scale of it. As I said, I don't see why xenophobia inspired people would like to dispute it, if they consider it a good idea !

And it targets only a very very specific form of xenophobia, which is nazism, and which - as you said - is no issue anymore in our society. The extreme right wing parties are based upon different xenophobic ideas, not related to neo-nazism per se.

Why do YOU think we have not had a war in the last 50 years, huh ?

Because we can't afford it ?

That does not matter, Vlaams Belang is in the opposition. THAT was the idea and that is still successful. Also, why do you think that even Filip DeWinter said that "the trees do not grow infinitely into the sky ?" Why do you think they did not rise their potential in Antwerp during the last elections ? And why do you think that still 70 % AGREES with the "politic correctness"

I only wanted to indicate the following points:
- the anti-denial-of-holocaust laws single out a specific historical event, related to nazism, in order to protect society from neonazism, which is no issue.
- there is a quite strong extreme-right wing tendency in Europe (20-30%) which is xenophobic, but has nothing to do with neonazism (and hence with the holocaust per se)

As such, these laws don't serve any purpose: they do not suppress xenophobic ideas with people (given that 30% makes it its main political issue), even after 60 years of holocaust-denial interdiction ; and the specific historical fact is related to a movement which is no issue (neo-nazism).

However, these laws did open the door to some dangerous attempt at "mind control", such as the McCarthy period in the US, and this recent pro-colonisation law which almost passed in France.

So these laws don't stop anything, but open the gate to legal mind control.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Legal mind control? Very 1984.

One question are there some forms of discrimination that are universally held to be intolerable? If so would it make sense to set up a law against the promotion of hate towards them, to forestall violence? Or is this ethically wrong? In a society of idiots the law is there to protect idiots from other idiots and the more shrewd from having to listen to idiots; personally I support it, I don't see why I should turn on a TV and see God hates *ags and 9/11 is God's justice. etc,etc,etc: I can switch off the TV, but homosexuals have to deal with the repurcussions of this.

My views go for the KKK,radical Islam or any of the other hate groups who I could quite happily see deported for there pointless inanity. Thankyou the law, keeping Britain safe from worthless moral vaccuums since 2005.

I knew there was a reason the Europeans got rid of all the more unconventional protestants j/k

Spoiler: warning you must be over 18 to view this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33-_9nOX8KM[/color]

Why not just deport him or lock him up, problem solved

 

[marlon]

Ok, so neonazism is not a big issue (correct). So we don't need any law to protect us from it, right ?

The reason that such theories are no longer accepted in our society is thanks to the proper instruction of the following generations after WW2. The law was therefore necessary and it still is. We continuously need to instruct our future generations and warn them for the potential dangers of xenophobia. This law, as a stated (together with the majority of our society ), serves just that purpose. Luckily...

And all the VB stuff has nothing to do with neonazism, right ?

Not directly no, but that is irrelevant. The point is that such a political party thinks and operates in an analoguous manner. Some of their ideas (maybe not always defended publically, but that does not mean they do not exist)have common roots. But aside all of that, such a party excludes people based upon...well, you know...The banning of holocaust is not directly related to this but that does not mean this law is useless and did not serve it's orignal purpose. Which it ofcourse DID !

As such, extreme right wing parties have no big ties with any form of nazism, but are independent of it. And hence have nothing to do with anything like holocaust related things.

No, you are not getting my point. I never said that the current extreme right wing parties are tied to NAZISM. What i said is this : Take a look at history starting from WW2 and the holocaust. Then, look at how the "right wing ideology" takes on different forms which are no longer connected to the German regime in WW2. Finally, look at the historical products of that evolution right now (Front National, Lega Nord, VB etc etc). One cannot deny, nor can you, that these events are linked ideologically and some of them even directly. The holocaust ban is just one step towards reasing people's minds (in which it has been very successful) and making them aware of the potential dangers of ANY version of right wing ideology. that is what i have been saying from the beginning. Your essential mistake is that you only look at "the banning of holocaust", but there is some much more that is linked to that ban.

As I said, it ALMOST happened in France, last year. There was ALMOST a law forbidding you to say that the colonization was all bad. There was almost a law which enforced you to say that colonizing was a good thing.

Well, then that is a bad evolution, i admit. But, you cannot compare the colonization with the holocaust. Both good and bad historical facts can be given about this colonization, but can you do the same in the case if holocaust ? You see ? THAT is the difference.

It is not so recent. It happened more than 60 years ago. And it doesn't have much consequences on our society.

Recent, not recent etc etc...i don't care how you want to call it but FACT is that it is the last war we knew as Western Europeans that affected us in such a strong way. Just talk to your grandparents man...

And YES, WW2 and the associated ideology still has a big influence like i told you. Now, the ideology has many different faces and is slightly adapted in fundaments depending on which party you look at.

Communism turned into dictatorship had much more influence. We should hence ban every public reference to anything good communism or socialism has, because:
1) it's even more recent in history
2) it had even more direct consequences to our society.
(and a lot of atrocities happened).

In which good socialist European country did something like the holocaust happen that affected US like the second world war ?

And you said above that neo-nazism (thanks to these laws) is no issue anymore... So is it still an issue (in which case the efficiency of those laws is 0, after 60 years still no result), or is it not an issue (in which case it is not needed) ?

Neo nazism is no longer an issue thanks the the holocaust ban. Yes that is what i am saying. However, you are wrong if you say : "ok, all is solved now, so let us abolish this law because it is no longer useful". This is wrong because of 2 reasons :

1) in your vision, you want to abolish this law because of a very different reason. NOT because it is useless, but because it violates freedom of speech. If the "current uselesness" was an issue to you, you admit that this law WAS useful some time ago when neo nazism still needed to be battled. You see ? You just want to abolish this law but you give me very different reasons that contradict with each other.

2) Point 1) is valid if we assume that the ban is no longer useful. Ofcourse i disagree with that because of the reasons i already gave (ie the different faces and historical products of neo nazism).

Neo nazism, as you said yourself, is NOT an issue. Extreme-right wing political parties are NOT INSPIRED by neonazism, and have hence not much to do with the holocaust.

Wrong, several leaders of extreme right wing parties like Le Penn, Bossi and Jörg Haider have PUBLICALLY wondered if the holocaust "was as bad as it is portrayed in history". I have seen such documentaries, so i am not inventing here. Why do you think they do that if the neo nazism is no longer an influence and has NOTHING to do with contemporary extreme right wing political parties. You are very very wrong in that. Look at history : look at how the VB was raised, look at how the Lega Nord originated. Please, don't tell me that such parties have NOTHING to do with neo nazism because you are just plain wrong !

Neo nazism is not an issue anymore means that we do not see it anymore as we know it from Hitler. But that does NOT mean that the actual ideology does no longer exist and no longer influences the minds of right wing people.

They are simply racist/xenophobic, in the sense that they single out one or other target group as the "bad guys", and then focus on hating that group.

jeeezuss, it is a bit more complex than that you know.

And THIS property is shared by many many historical facts, such as the French revolution (everything was the fault of the aristocrates), Pol Pot (everything was the fault of the intellectuals),...

True, but i already told you what the difference with holocaust is. Especially with people like Pol Pot etc etc. I KNOW there are similarities as well but that is not the point here. So, it is not necessary to start discussion these similarities.

So the real driving force behind extreme-right wing political parties has next to nothing to do with the specific history of neo nazism,

YES IT DOES ! Example, Look at Jörg Haider's party 5 years ago !

but rather with the general human tendency to stick to its group, and to demonise the "others" for everything that goes wrong.

True but that does not say anything within the context of our discussion.

Stalin did deport entire populations. I'm a bit less acquanted with the exact history of it.

True, but such actions did not influence our regions the way Hitler did.

But now you are giving me exactly my own argument! Remember that the holocaust law doesn't make you say that it was a bad thing, one is simply not supposed to dispute the scale of it. As I said, I don't see why xenophobia inspired people would like to dispute it, if they consider it a good idea !

The ban is not supposed to "cure" people from right wing ideology. I never said that. It is supposed to warn people for it's dangers from the beginning on. If young children learn about this in school, they carry this information with them. So, when they start getting confronted with right wing ideology, they are armed with historical facts etc etc. They are better armed against manipulation and demagogy. THAT is the main purpose.

Because we can't afford it ?

We are the richest region in the world man.
No, because we have learned to deal with democracy and to deal with peace and dialogue.

I only wanted to indicate the following points:
- the anti-denial-of-holocaust laws single out a specific historical event, related to nazism, in order to protect society from neonazism, which is no issue.

NO NO NO. I clearly stated what this law is supposed to protect us against. By the time you are reading this you will know those reasons (ie NOT only "fighting" neo nazism ) and you will conclude how stupid the above conclusion was.

- there is a quite strong extreme-right wing tendency in Europe (20-30%) which is xenophobic, but has nothing to do with neonazism (and hence with the holocaust per se)

Wrong again, i explained why.

PS, Besides Vanesch : I am still waiting for that list of harmful things the holocaust ban did to our society. Since i had to ask this question over 3 times now, this law maybe not so bad after all ?

greets
marlon