Is it OK to mock ideas and idealogies?

[russ_watters]

I never said me, are you not getting it, I said by the courts ie not me, by a jury of peers, by the legal system, by the European courts if necessary, by the rule of law, Jesus H Corbett. What have I got to do with that? Apart from my democratic right to vote? Did I make the law, do I enforce it? Am I the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong, no society is and parliament who passes laws based on the ethical consideration. Good gravy that's what they have think tanks for. To weight the social moral and ethical concerns of society and to consider the repurcussions of passing laws. Honestly I had no say in this law, I just happen to agree with it.

What you are missing is that the courts are made up of individual people with individual points of view, biases, prejudices, etc., so it works exactly the same as if it were you. Heck, if you had the aspirations, motivations, and intelligence to, you could be on the Supreme Court too!

Either way, what you are saying is that there needs to be a body designated to judge propriety. Moreover even if you are right, that isn't the courts, its the legislature because it is the legislature's job to make laws. The court's only job is to judge if they are Constitutional. So if the power exists to regulate morality of speech, it is the legislature that exercises it. The courts can only rule that 'yes, this law regulates the morality of speech' and is therefore constitutional.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What you are missing is that the courts are made up of individual people with individual points of view, biases, prejudices, etc., so it works exactly the same as if it were you. Heck, if you had the aspirations, motivations, and intelligence to, you could be on the Supreme Court too!

Either way, what you are saying is that there needs to be a body designated to judge propriety. Moreover even if you are right, that isn't the courts, its the legislature because it is the legislature's job to make laws. The court's only job is to judge if they are Constitutional. So if the power exists to regulate morality of speech, it is the legislature that exercises it. The courts can only rule that 'yes, this law regulates the morality of speech' and is therefore constitutional.

Pretty much, and there is in every country anyway, it's called the government, I have no problem with a government making laws that protect people from violence, if I did I'd probably be voting for the BNP, or some other facist group like the conservatives .

 

[russ_watters]

But wait, the problem is much bigger than that. There is far too much unregulated speech going on for the legislature to be able to handle monitoring it. Agencies need to be created to monitor and censor all media for appropriate content. The FCC already exists, so we could just expand its powers for wireless media, but we'll also need an agency to monitor all print media, you know, to approve books and magazines before they are published.

S-D, what you are suggesting is precisely what freedom of speech exists to protect us against.

 

[russ_watters]

Pretty much, and there is in every country anyway, it's called the government, I have no problem with a government making laws that protect people from violence, if I did I'd probably be voting for the BNP, or some other facist group like the conservatives .

Wow, ok, well, I guess there we have it - you don't believe in the concept of freedom of speech. That's a rarity these days in the west, but ok. Ironically, though, freedom of speech exists to protect your right to say things that are so far from the mainstream.

 

[vanesch]

Yes obviously, our laws mean we now live under a 1984 style government, a slippery slope fallacy if ever I heard one.

Not yet, completely. But we are on our way, with all that legalize banning the non-politically-correct-of-the-day. A French satirical magazine (Charlie Hebdo) is right now in court for having reproduced the Danish caricatures, because it "has insulted the good honor of muslims"... (which brings us back to the OP).

EDIT: if I had it my way, I would rather impose laws which OBLIGE every citizen to ridicule at least one ritual-imposing religion per week, to avoid the "poisoning of the minds" with such ideas, which have been the single most important source of suffering (together with greed) throughout history

As I said I "will defend the right to free speech no matter how much crime it fosters"

All depends on HOW it "fosters crime". If it *directly* fosters crime, by calling to illegal action, then, as I said, this is not "the free expression of one's opinion", but rather the "organization of illegal action" and should be punished. However, if vaguely, it illustrates similar motives as those who commit crime, then the only way in which it "fosters crime" is that those who committed the crime saw that their kind of thinking was shared by others. If that's just what they needed, then I think anything else could have convinced them to act.

When will persecution of minorities ever become a positive?

When they become a nuisance.

No it isn't or morons like this wouldn't be allowed to poison the minds of people.

"Poison the minds of people", heyhey ! Who said 1984 ?
Inquisition talk ?

Next I supose we should support the right of people to class women as inferior, and of course black women are nothing short of apes. And gay people are diseased and sinfull, so in essense the worse kind of person or should I say animal is a black lesbian. You'd support the right to march against all minority groups spewing hatred essentially no matter how much crime it caused?

But we are ALL APES, primates, mammals

Ok, should we be allowed to say bad things about "muslim self-sacrificing defenders against the western imperialism", "organizers for successful people with money of parties with very very young boys and girls to have fun with ", "defenders of the word of god" ... or is saying negative things about these people "hate talk", which "fosters crime against minority groups" ?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Wow, ok, well, I guess there we have it - you don't believe in the concept of freedom of speech. That's a rarity these days in the west, but ok. Ironically, though, freedom of speech exists to protect your right to say things that are so far from the mainstream.

No I believe in it as much as any European does, and how is it rare, if the entire EU is under this law? If you ask me it's pretty common?

You simply fail to grasp that promoting violence in any form by it directly or indirectly against minorites cannot - and most likely hopefully - will not ever be acceptable, for the record that's why America exists, but instead of fostering a nation that accepts all creeds colours and sexualities, it seems more ruled by loud mouth bigots who foster so much biterness and hatred for their fellow human beings and so little regard for the tennants of freedom of speech that even the most hateful crap is allowed? Is this logically consistant, or are you like most Americans guilty of taking and Idol and placing it up so high that even reason cannot touch it? What's the population of the EU? What's the population of the US, how does that make it unusual? I don't here people marching against breeches of their civil liberties, or maybe if they are they're just the minority biggots who lost out?

In essence the philosophy is discrimination against x minority are never acceptable morally, but in order to sustain it we must have some rules. Remember this only applies to certain groups and they are rarely expanded on so you slippery slope fallacy is not relevant.

 

[vanesch]

Huh ? These "near-laws" (which do not even exist ) have NOTHING to do with the ban on holocaust. Nor were ther "triggered" by its existence. Again, what harmful things did the ban do specifically ?

These situations were of a similar kind: legal action (or the intention to have) against people who expressed certain ideas.

But there is NO restriction. Look at Belgium, you can say ANYTHING you want here AND we have the ban ! Look at reality and stop speculating in fear of "what may happen if ...".

Well, the law itself is of this kind: "what may happen if we allow people to say something about the holocaust". It is all about "what if"s.

TRUE, but i am sorry to say that this is all irrelevant. I already explained how the holocaust ban fits perfectly into a free society LIKE WE KNOW !

As personally, I have no special desire to say anything about the holocaust as it is not a subject that interests me in any particular way, the specific contents of this law doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the CLASS of laws it belongs to: to put legal interdiction upon expressing my opinion. But I could imagine a hypothetical situation in which I got convinced, say, that the holocaust was just some kind of american/british propaganda for whatever political reason I could think of (in the same way as there are conspiration theories about the moon landing, aliens visiting us, and what other strange ideas). The idea that I could go to jail JUST FOR SAYING WHAT I THINK in that case, makes me sick, because I can also imagine VERY SIMILAR and real situations in which I could be convinced of something, and having the powers that are forbidding me to say exactly what I think. I *do* have some politically-not-correct ideas which I do think make sense (and no, they are not of the hate-speech kind), and the very idea that one day, I might go to jail for that, is repugnant.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Not yet, completely. But we are on our way, with all that legalize banning the non-politically-correct-of-the-day. A French satirical magazine (Charlie Hebdo) is right now in court for having reproduced the Danish caricatures, because it "has insulted the good honor of muslims"... (which brings us back to the OP).

Well since the law says you shouldn't foster hate towards or against a religion, or incite violence and that's precisely what these cartoons did tough **** I never had any sympathy for the Danish Cartoonists anyway, childish people with no consideration for religious beliefs, just like the guy who painted Jesus having gay sex, Idolotry is akin to this to a Muslim.

EDIT: if I had it my way, I would rather impose laws which OBLIGE every citizen to ridicule at least one ritual-imposing religion per week, to avoid the "poisoning of the minds" with such ideas, which have been the single most important source of suffering (together with greed) throughout history

That's just silly

All depends on HOW it "fosters crime". If it *directly* fosters crime, by calling to illegal action, then, as I said, this is not "the free expression of one's opinion", but rather the "organization of illegal action" and should be punished. However, if vaguely, it illustrates similar motives as those who commit crime, then the only way in which it "fosters crime" is that those who committed the crime saw that their kind of thinking was shared by others. If that's just what they needed, then I think anything else could have convinced them to act.

Come on we both know if your exposed to communities and social environments were such hate is common place your more likely to be hatefull and more likely to be prompted towards violence, an 80% rise in hate crime is a consequence of this religious war.

When they become a nuisance.

Define that?

"Poison the minds of people", heyhey ! Who said 1984 ?
Inquisition talk ?

True though, it does.

But we are ALL APES, primates, mammals

Yeah but we distinguish apes into few teirs above us so that's not true, we are on a technicality of self righteous superiority basically not apes? No I don't understand why either.

Ok, should we be allowed to say bad things about "muslim self-sacrificing defenders against the western imperialism", "organizers for successful people with money of parties with very very young boys and girls to have fun with ", "defenders of the word of god" ... or is saying negative things about these people "hate talk", which "fosters crime against minority groups" ?

Yes, you are over here? What's your point? Did I not explain earlier on that it is only in a universally agreed democratic framework of what we find socially acceptable, and terrorism and paedophilia are not acceptable. Your kind of saying people have no ability to discriminate between right and wrong, and for the idiots your probably right, but for the vast majority that simply isn't the case? I don't see your point here?

When you get people smashing up the homes of suspected paedophiles then you have a problem, but if the media choses to sensationalise the issue so much people are driven into a frenzy that's when the law steps in. Brasseye did an absolutely brilliant send up of sensationalising peadophillia, luckilly the papers took heed.

 

[whatta]

like the guy who painted Jesus having gay sex

...with himself. Oh yeah, that was Jesus f***ing Christ, man, and I loved it!

I have unsubscribed but this thread is popping up in "New Posts" all the time, and I just had to.

Did I npt explain earlier on that it is only in a universally agreed democratic framework of what we find socially acceptable, and terrorism and paedophilia are not acceptable.

Well so your point is that majority should vote to shut whoever they don't like up. Ok. Fine. Nice opinion of yours which I (and apparently few other people here) do not agree with. What's to discuss, again?

Your kind of saying people have no ability to discriminate between right and wrong, and for the idiots your probably right, but for the vast majority that simply isn't the case?

Well he's kind of saying that what is right for one, is wrong for other one, and vice versa. Such a concept of values relativity appears to be something new to you, because you seem to believe there is one and only Right and Wrong approved by God, government, "vast majority" and you, and all the people who think otherwise have to be exterminated. Well. Good for you, I guess. As I sais, nice opinion.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I see so your against democracy now are you, since the people hold the power to vote in governments based on the sort of ideologies they present?

The rule of the majority is wrong? Is that what you mean?

around 493 million people seem to be fine with it? There certainly isn't rioting in the street. I say it passes the majority test...

All the other people have to be exterminated, no that's exactly what I meant

 

[vanesch]

Well since the law says you shouldn't foster hate towards or against a religion, or incite violence and that's precisely what these cartoons did tough **** I never had any sympathy for the Danish Cartoonists anyway, childish people with no consideration for religious beliefs, just like the guy who painted Jesus having gay sex, Idolotry is akin to this to a Muslim.

And, as I said, I think one should IMPOSE every adherent to an organized religion to publicly ridicule it at least once a week. And consider that this very statement brings me on the borderline of going to court for that, while I'm seriously convinced it cannot do anything but good! Laughter and ridicule are the best weapon against any form of mind control (which, I'm convinced, is the essential purpose of any ritual-imposing religion), and nevertheless it is what is borderline ILLEGAL now (while I would like to see it enforced!). This is just an illustration of the harm that do all these forbidden-to-say-what's-not-politically-correct laws.

Come on we both know if your exposed to communities and social environments were such hate is common place your more likely to be hatefull and more likely to be prompted towards violence, an 80% rise in hate crime is a consequence of this religious war.

If "such hate is common place" then it is democratically part of society, and if you think that such laws will stop people telling in their backyard during private gatherings what they REALLY think, then these laws just make you "close your eyes".

Define that?

A minority is a nuisance when a majority considers it a nuisance. That's democracy.

Yes, you are over here? What's your point? Did I npt explain earlier on that it is only in a universally agreed democratic framework of what we find socially acceptable, and terrorism and paedophilia are not acceptable. Your kind of saying people have no ability to discriminate between right and wrong, and for the idiots your probably right, but for the vast majority that simply isn't the case? I don't see your point here?

But IF the majority of people have the ability to discriminate between right and wrong, then what a few lunatics say in public will not "poison their minds" will it ?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I got to love the US, bigotry and intolerance are acceptable but homosexuality is not, no wonder it took 250 years for blacks to get the vote, are you still living in the 18th century morally? Or are you still ruled by puritans or something?

 

[russ_watters]

A minority is a nuisance when a majority considers it a nuisance. That's democracy.

Heh. Well said.

 

[russ_watters]

I got to love the US, bigotry and intolerance are acceptable but homosexuality is not, no wonder it took 250 years for blacks to get the vote, are you still living in the 18th century morally? Or are you still ruled by puritans or something?

We have gay pride parades here...

Ironic though, that you keep bringing up our treatment of blacks (uh, 250 years ago, we were British too, btw...), when your ideas on government are about that far out of date.

 

[marlon]

These situations were of a similar kind: legal action (or the intention to have) against people who expressed certain ideas.

Again, these examples do NOT show the bad effect of the holocaust ban onto our society. Sorry but this is just meaningless. I am still waiting for these effects onto OUR society.

Well, the law itself is of this kind: "what may happen if we allow people to say something about the holocaust". It is all about "what if"s.

No it is not. In the law, there are no "may's" etc etc. Look at our country. Look at how it works as a society that embrases this law. This is clear proof and qualifies as a specific example.

What bothers me is the CLASS of laws it belongs to: to put legal interdiction upon expressing my opinion.

I understand that but this law does not belong to that specific class. This is what you fail to see. This law prevents people from using the holocaust denial for , let's say, political advantage. The reason to do that is very clear, ie history. This is exactly what "learing from history" means because, as we all knoa, that history book on the shelf always keeps repeating itself !

The law expresses the fact that denying historical facts (ie lying) for political gain is NOT allowed in this society. This is the way it operates and the law constitues one of the "rules of the game".

Just like on PF, you cannot say ANYTHING you want because of such guidelines. It is just the same thing. The majority of our society has decided that denying holocaust for some reason (like political ideology) is not allowed. This has nothing to do with restricting one's freedom of speach. IT IS A LAW ! If you disagree that much, i suggest you go live in Iran where there is no such law.

But I could imagine a hypothetical situation in which I got convinced, say, that the holocaust was just some kind of american/british propaganda for whatever political reason I could think of (in the same way as there are conspiration theories about the moon landing, aliens visiting us, and what other strange ideas). The idea that I could go to jail JUST FOR SAYING WHAT I THINK in that case, makes me sick, because I can also imagine VERY SIMILAR and real situations in which I could be convinced of something, and having the powers that are forbidding me to say exactly what I think. I *do* have some politically-not-correct ideas which I do think make sense (and no, they are not of the hate-speech kind), and the very idea that one day, I might go to jail for that, is repugnant.

You can tell any political non correct idea. Our society does not prohibit you from saying that. You only need to take responsibility for what you are saying and you need to respect the majority vote. Those are also rules of democracy. Your "absolute freedom of speach" is an illusion because you refuse to take responsability for what you are saying and you disregard a majority vote.

marlon

 

[whatta]

The rule of the majority is wrong? Is that what you mean?

around 493 million people seem to be fine with it?

Roll X years back, to political era of your choise. Majority of people were ALWAYS fine with the system, whatever it was.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Roll X years back, to political era of your choise. Majority of people were ALWAYS fine with the system, whatever it is.

Er no I don't think so, poll tax riots, race riots, peasants revolt, civil wars, topling of governments; the french riots that went on for over a month, race riots of the 60's in America that went on for nearly two weeks leaving many dead and millions of dollars of damage to properties? The Rodney King riots? Is that happy with the system?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/6/newsid_2902000/2902487.stm

1968: United States erupts in race violence
Dozens of major cities in the United States have been rocked by an escalation in the race riots which began two days ago.

At least 19 people have died so far in the arson, looting and shootings provoked by the assassination of black civil rights leader Martin Luther King on 4 April.

Several hundred have also been injured and about 3,000 people have been arrested - most of those in Washington DC.

Curfews are in place in many areas of the country and National Guard soldiers have been mobilised to help quell the violence which is threatening to engulf the US in a race war.

Twelve thousand troops in the nation's capital were called on to help protect fire fighters tackling at least eight blazes started by rioters.

Other fires started in Chicago were accompanied by looting and sniping, and at least 20 buildings have been completely destroyed.

There have also been 38 arson attacks in Detroit, shootings reported in Pittsburgh and a four-hour gun battle at Tennessee State University.


For every Martin Luther King who falls, 10 white racists will go down with him

United Black Front chairman Lincoln Lynch
Dr King's immediate successor, Reverend Ralph Abernathy, has repeatedly appealed for calm.

The new head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Atlanta has appeared on television urging people to respect the murdered leader's commitment to non-violent protest.

But United Black Front chairman Lincoln Lynch said black Americans should adopt a new stance.

"It is imperative to abandon the unconditional non-violent concept expounded by Dr King and adopt the position that for every Martin Luther King who falls, 10 white racists will go down with him.

"There is no other way - America understands no other language," he said.

A national day of mourning in the US for Dr King will take place on 7 April.

 

[whatta]

and right now many badass terrorists and dictators all over the world fight against your beloved democracy. I'm sure their total number is quite compareable to any other "riots" in history.

edit: duh, we had whole world war just half of century ago.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

We have gay pride parades here...

Ironic though, that you keep bringing up our treatment of blacks (uh, 250 years ago, we were British too, btw...), when your ideas on government are about that far out of date.

We abolished slavery laws much sooner than you though. Let's face it many of your people morally are still living in the dark ages obviously if they condone bigotry towards minorities, and this in essence is what you are standing up for the right for, the right to persecute minorities. Very ethical. Good luck with that.

 

[russ_watters]

But wait, the problem is much bigger than that...

And how could I forget the biggest one?!? Since the vast majority of "anti-" speech in any free society is anti-government speech (and clearly, it can become violent), we're going to need to outlaw that too. A lot of that problem can be done away with by simply outlawing the Democratic party, but since a decent fraction of people who keep in the back of their minds (and in the back of their gun closets) the idea that we may need to overthrow the government some day are far right wing Republicans who'se ideas are close to Bush's, we'll need to carefully fiter the out by outlawing all ideas that go against what Bush believes. We can start with a questionaire to filter people, but you know people - they won't fill it out - so we'll need someone to go door to door questioning people about their ideology.

This is, of course, a huge job, so we'll need a new agency to work on it. We can call it the "Committee for State Security". Now, Bush is a compassionate conservative, so he believes that people who buy into such rediculous ideas as rights for homosexuals, abortion, and evolution aren't evil, they're just sick. So all we really need at first is to revamp our education system to teach "Bush's Struggle" [with alcoholism]. Adults who believe such things will need re-education, so we'll put up re-education centers around the country to send all these sick people. Clearly, not everyone will want to go, so we'll need these camps to be secure and run by the military.

To further cultivate Bushiism, we can set up youth camps and organizations, similar to the Boy Scouts. We can even use the Boy Scouts' brown uniforms and just add a red arm-band with a big letter B on it...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

And how could I forget the biggest one?!? Since the vast majority of "anti-" speech in any free society is anti-government speech (and clearly, it can become violent), we're going to need to outlaw that too. A lot of that problem can be done away with by simply outlawing the Democratic party, but since a decent fraction of people who keep in the back of their minds (and in the back of their gun closets) the idea that we may need to overthrow the government some day are far right wing Republicans, we'll need to outlaw all ideas that go against what Bush believes. We can start with a questionaire to filter people, but you know people - they won't fill it out - so we'll need someone to go door to door questioning people about their ideology.

This is, of course, a huge job, so we'll need a new agency to work on it. We can call it the "Committee for State Security". Now, Bush is a compassionate conservative, so he believes that people who buy into such rediculous ideas as homosexuality, abortion, and evolution aren't evil, they're just sick. So all we really need at first is to revamp our education system to teach "Bush's Struggle" [with alcoholism]. Adults who believe such things will need re-education, so we'll put up re-education centers around the country to send all these sick people.

To further cultivate Bushiism, we can set up youth camps and organizations, similar to the Boy Scouts. We can even use the Boy Scouts brown uniforms and just add a red arm-band with a big letter B on it.

Do you like make logical fallacies just for the sake of it, I have already said that the slippery slope fallacy doesn't play here, this is only for a very small minority of groups. I think you'll have to do better than that, especially considering our entire media was built on mocking the government, be it King or Parliament. Anything else you want to turn into a slippery slope argument? Or are you done now with logical fallacy for the day?

Right I see your argument has just about desolved into absurdity. Any more straw men you want to throw in there for good measure?

 

[russ_watters]

Let's face it many of your people morally are still living in the dark ages obviously if they condone bigotry towards minorities, and this in essence is what you are standing up for the right for, the right to persecute minorities. Very ethical. Good luck with that.

Wow. You just completely misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech/thought. As vansesch was saying, freedom of thought means that what others believe has nothing to do with what I believe. For them to have no power over my thoughts means that I can have no power over theirs.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you like make logical fallacies just for the sake of it, I have already said that the slippery slope fallacy doesn't play here, this is only for a very small minority of groups.

How small a minority does it have to be before we outlaw their beliefs? Your position here is the slope. This is your logic I'm using.

You did say that speech that can lead to violence needs to be outlawed, right?

 

[russ_watters]

Let's get right down to it, then - if you think my argument is a slippery-slope fallacy, then define, precisely for us the criteria by which your idea would be implimented. A good place to start would be:

How would you re-write the US's 1st Amendment to include this power/responsibility of the government?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Wow. You just completely misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech/thought. As vansesch was saying, freedom of thought means that what others believe has nothing to do with what I believe. For them to have no power over my thoughts means that I can have no power over theirs.

What are you talking about, you just made perhaps the weakest argument in history for whatever it was your talking about at the moment? And now your saying it's clearly what, yeah you lost me ages ago? I obviously haven't been able to keep up with all the a leads to b nonsense?

Let's get right down to it, then - if you think my argument is a slippery-slope fallacy, then define, precisely for us the criteria by which your idea would be implimented. A good place to start would be:

How would you re-write the US's 1st Amendment to include this power/responsibility of the government?

I pointed out the problems with written constitutions ages ago, but obviously you never read it. That's why your one of the few countries that has one, because they're stupid, when written sensible, now your hog tied by it.

How small a minority does it have to be before we outlaw their beliefs? Your position here is the slope. This is your logic I'm using.

You did say that speech that can lead to violence needs to be outlawed, right?

Ah this is the Russ that likes to rewrite what people meant and said into his own reality, I forgot, right you carry on rewritting what I said all you like but I'm not going to dignify it with a response.

 

[whatta]

this in essence is what you are standing up for the right for, the right to persecute minorities.

I was under impression you were doing just that when you suggested to send f** haters (emmm "minority") to jail or out of the country.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I was under impression you were doing just that when you suggested to send f** haters (emmm "minority") to jail or out of the country.

You all just don't get it do you? Your just so brainwashed into believing the right of free speech somehow entails bigotry in any form?

Here I'll explain it simply so that even Russ can't pervert it into straw men.

Right ok if a government decides for the good of the nation that a particular minority in this case it is widely accepted that a particular discrimination is wrong, after consulting a few think tanks y law.

This becomes the norm in many countries, a Euro MP puts up the idea, in Europe you do a few polls find out the vox populi, have a few think tanks mull over the ramifications, this gets passed into EU law, now it not only takes the views of the people into account, thus is democratic but it covers and extremely small group and one that is likely not going to be added to in the near future

1)sexuality
2)race
3)creed
4)sex
5)age

That's it. So no it doesn't lead to intolerance of farmers or x and that's it ok, no persecution of people who hate mushrooms, or Kylie Minogue, or clowns, or the government, or anything else not now not likely to be, and only by majority will. Which of course some nations can veto anyway, and not have them applied. This is how it works, it's not just the government passing any laws it sees fit willy nilly, it's careful considered and ethical based judgements on what to the vast majority of people is considered unnaccepetable to them, in other words it's for grown ups.

 

[vanesch]

Again, these examples do NOT show the bad effect of the holocaust ban onto our society.

But you didn't get my arguments then. The specific contents of the holocaust ban are of course of almost no consequence (positive or negative) as it is a law that forbids you to deny a fact. The law that forbids you to say that the number pi is anything else but 3.1415... would be of the same kind and would have no positive or negative effect BY ITSELF.

What I'm objecting to, is that for such a non-sense law to have been put in place, we've BROKEN THE MOST PRECIOUS THING WE HAD.

I can of course not give you any example of a bad consequence of the contents of the law, as it is essentially content-less. I gave examples of other situations where the SIMILAR BREAKING OF OUR PRECIOUS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION by law WAS harmful (at least in my opinion).

No it is not. In the law, there are no "may's" etc etc. Look at our country. Look at how it works as a society that embrases this law. This is clear proof and qualifies as a specific example.

Well I look at the country I live in (France - which is historically a source of ideals of freedom), and I'm horrified by certain things that happen here.

I understand that but this law does not belong to that specific class. This is what you fail to see. This law prevents people from using the holocaust denial for , let's say, political advantage.

No, the holocaust law forbids you to deny the scale on which things happened. THIS is what the holocaust denial law says. It is because at a certain moment in time, people had difficulties believing the scale of the massacre, and conspiracy theories were abound, and indeed, linked with the general anti-semitic feeling which was pan-European at that time.

Again, I'm not talking about laws that forbid to call for racial/ethnic hate. As I said, calls for illegal and violent action are not an expression of opinion, but an organization of a crime. I have nothing against laws that forbid you to explicitly call for violent action. I have something against laws that forbid you to state your opinion, no matter how lowly and disgusting it might be.

The law expresses the fact that denying historical facts (ie lying) for political gain is NOT allowed in this society. This is the way it operates and the law constitues one of the "rules of the game".

If LYING for political gain is not allowed, 80% of all politicians should go to jail!
And, BTW, that would mean that I can deny the holocaust numbers as long as I'm not running for political office, which is not true.

Just like on PF, you cannot say ANYTHING you want because of such guidelines. It is just the same thing.

There is a HUGE difference. PF is a privately owned discussion board, and the owners have the right to decide what can and what cannot be discussed. You don't go to jail for a crackpot post on PF.

The majority of our society has decided that denying holocaust for some reason (like political ideology) is not allowed. This has nothing to do with restricting one's freedom of speach. IT IS A LAW ! If you disagree that much, i suggest you go live in Iran where there is no such law.

I'm only pointing out that this is a stupid law. It is not because it is a law, that I cannot find it stupid (as for now... for as long as I still can).

You can tell any political non correct idea. Our society does not prohibit you from saying that. You only need to take responsibility for what you are saying and you need to respect the majority vote. Those are also rules of democracy. Your "absolute freedom of speach" is an illusion because you refuse to take responsability for what you are saying and you disregard a majority vote.

One is NOT allowed to say publicly politically-not-correct ideas. I'm NOT allowed publicly, to say: "I really don't like to live in the neighbourhood of <insert favorite minority here>. I would like to send my kids to a school where no <insert favorite minority here> are present, and I'm willing to pay quite a lot of money for that" for instance. Nevertheless, I know quite some people who think exactly that, who act accordingly and all that. It is not "hate speech", it doesn't call for any violence, and it is a pure expression of opinion.

As I said, I think people are responsible for what they say. But *a priori* they should have the right to say it. If somebody is convinced that he/she suffers harm because of it, that person can still go to court. Like any other "freedom": you are free to drive your car on the road, but if you hurt someone, then that is your responsibility.
You CAN drive over the crossing. Only, you have to make sure that you don't hurt anyone in doing so, and bear the responsibility. But you don't go *a priori* to jail for driving over the crossing.

 

[russ_watters]

I pointed out the problems with written constitutions ages ago, but obviously you never read it. That's why your one of the few countries that has one, because they're stupid, when written sensible, now your hog tied by it.

So you would simply repeal it? Interesting.

BTW, looking into Britain's stance on the issue some, I found this:

In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33103/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...s#Article_10_-_right_to_freedom_of_expression

Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

edit: Soon you may have a Constitution too!: http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN

And I found this gem in there too:

Article 12 provides a right for men and women of marriageable age to marry and establish a family.

Despite a number of invitations, the Court has so far refused to apply the protections of this article to same-sex marriage. The Court has defended this on the grounds that the article was intended to apply only to traditional marriage, and that a wide margin of appreciation must be granted to parties in this area.

But hey - they know best, right?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

So you would simply repeal it? Interesting.

BTW, looking into Britain's stance on the issue some, I found this: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33103/

So now you have a Constitution too.

Not a written one I'm afraid, but of course things can be written on paper, it would be pretty silly to not? Are you honestly saying that our system has a written constitution because your sorely mistaken if you believe that, the government can change pretty much any law it wants and provided it passes a vote it will.

Every country has a constitution: the difference is ours isn't cast in stone or in writing, and therefore doesn't suffer from the inevitable obselence of outmoded laws.

The European laws are no more a written constitution than any other of the myriad of European countries are, they can be changed at the whim of the majority without much fuss.

So you would simply repeal it? Interesting.

BTW, looking into Britain's stance on the issue some, I found this: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33103/

No but I might ammend it. Please stop putting words in my mouth.