Is it OK to mock ideas and idealogies?

[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

 

[radou]

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

 

[radou]

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).

In practice, communism/socialism has nothing good, so we don't have anything to ban.

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.

I agree, but it's only a smaller part of the motivation of the extreme-right wing political parties (which, btw, I don't believe exist, i.e. the ones that exist aren't really begin paid any attention by anyone, thank god). Hatred is far more complex than we think it is. It primarily rises up because of general frustration and economic disorder. The 'stick to your own group' factor is only one which contributes to the effectiveness of that hatred.

- 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)

Where did you get these numbers from?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

In practice, communism/socialism has nothing good, so we don't have anything to ban.

Except kibutz's but then I personally think those places are evil. Can anyone tell me if that's hippiest,raccist or communistist Or a wonderful melange of all three j/k

That video is just hilarious, Michael Moore's a showman even if he is a contraversial one

 

[Bladibla]

It is up to those who have their ideas/ideologies attacked to defend it; No law should absolutely constrict the freedom we have to criticize others.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It is up to those who have their ideas/ideologies attacked to defend it; No law should absolutely constrict the freedom we have to criticize others.

No law does, not in Europe not in the free world, that's why ultimately the courts should decide IMO, are we infringing on their right to free speech or is what they're asying so without merit that it does not belong in the public domain?

 

[Anttech]

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 i

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.

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 :

The ban is not supposed to "cure" people from right wing ideology.

Etc etc... Just to clarify, this argument is not about a law that makes Genocide Illegal, rather about the denial of the Holocaust as a historical event... Right? Because when you talk about "banning of the Holocaust, it reads as tho you are arguing that The event should be banned, which it already is, under the umbrella of Genocide not being allowed.

 

[Gokul43201]

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

I mostly agree with this.

At the same time, I'm aware of the reality - most people are nutjobs (recent example: the soccer rioting in Italy). There's a cost-benefit analysis to be performed at every stage. If you factor in the pretty heavy costs that are asociated with curtailing freedom of expression, do the benefits still outweigh the alternative?

Given the reality of finite funds, election cycles and human lifetimes, the restrictions in special cases are a natural outcome. It's cheaper to disallow certain freedoms that may be abused than to deal with the prosecution of the abuses themselves. Where the line is drawn depends on the costs that the "decider" allocates for loss of freedoms. A dictator, for instance, sees very little cost (essentially, the extra effort it takes to quell uprisings) to curbing freedom of expression. A liberal democracy, on the other hand, measures a fairly high cost, and will apply restrictions only in the rare cases it associates with returns that exceed the costs.

This is essentially the same kind of reasoning as is applied to the prosecution of victimless crimes (another form of restricting individual freedoms). There is no good philosophical reason (that I've come across, at least), to prosecute such crimes, but there is a good economical reason. Finally, that's what counts.

Unfortunately, it takes a far more evolved society (than we've got today) before we see moronic, knee-jerk (emphasis on 'jerk') laws like the holocaust denial nonsense become completely unnecessary.

 

[marlon]

I mostly agree with this.

Why do you think that this holocaust law is one of the worst things that happened to a free society which is still living in peace and equal human rights ?

Vanesch keeps saying this and i asked him for a few examples as to why this law is so harmful. I am still waiting...


Also, you say "most people are nut jobs". I say : that is NOT your call to make. Besides, the rioting in Italy is an illustration of stupid behaviour of a minority of people. What about the 59.9 million others ?


marlon

 

[marlon]

It is up to those who have their ideas/ideologies attacked to defend it; No law should absolutely constrict the freedom we have to criticize others.

The ban on defending holocaust is not the same as restricting others to criticize. Denying an historical fact and using that for certain political propaganda is NOT the same as criticism.

marlon

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It is up to those who have their ideas/ideologies attacked to defend it; No law should absolutely constrict the freedom we have to criticize others.

You don't live in a country where the right to free speech is without limitation anyway, no one does and rightly so, if I go out and start saying all gays are evil and should be attacked and killed or burnt at the stake, within roughly 45 minutes I'd be sitting in a police station having my rights read to me and being prosecuted, and IMO rightly so. I see no problem with making acts of free speech that promote violence illegal. You can march saying gay people are x, but the moment you say God hates f*** aids is the cure for being gay, you will burn in hell, you've crossed a line. And frankly I wouldn't mind seeing someone that full of hate deported. That's not Christianity at all, love thy neighbour,if a man strikes you on one cheek offer him the other, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, judge not lest ye be judged etc,etc, in fact the whole of the sermon on the mount in Matthew

With liberty comes responsibility which is why most men fear it so much

George Bernard Shaw.