Denying The Holocaust~~ Free Speech?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:07 pm

Holocaust denier Irving is jailed

British historian David Irving is jailed for three years in Austria after pleading guilty to Holocaust denial.

Denying the Holocaust

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:15 pm

Man. LC, I read "denier" and think THREAD!

I think people should be able to say it. Jewish descent makes me hate

the fact that they do, but I still think they should be able to!

Blackjack · Post by **Blackjack** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:20 pm

I disagree with his being arrested. I think free speech should mean free speech no matter what. But the reason they have laws like that in Austria is to suppress Neo-Nazis.

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:53 pm

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust welcomed the verdict. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website.
I agree with that. There is overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust occured and the only reason a historian would deny it would be to insite hatred of the Jews. They have laws in Austria against that kind of thing, so they were right to arrest him.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:59 pm

I have no real problem with another nation's laws. I would have a serious problem if they tried such restrictions on speech in the USA.

Ruth · Post by **Ruth** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:03 pm

Fools should be laughed at, not imprisoned.

Free speech has to be defended, even that of fools. The limit should only be incitement to attack or kill, like the Muslim demonstrators who called for the massacre of those who insult Islam in london last week and got away with it. Like the Imam in Amsterdam who called for gays to be taken to the highest tower in the city and thrown from it. He got away with it too.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:14 pm

he did, however, break existing Austrian law.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:16 pm

This man should have been behind bars years ago....freedom of speech or no freedom of speech...

A poem composed by Irving for his daughter. It was supposed to be recited whenever "half-breed children are wheeled past".

I am a Baby Aryan

Not Jewish or Sectarian

I have no plans to marry an

Ape or Rastafarian.

"Irving may not have a hook, but there is not much else to distinguish him from other hate preachers who are being put behind bars. His intellect, his Britishness, his right to play the fool are not the issues. What counts is the malice that lurks behind his twisting of historical truth." (New Statesmen)

Ruth · Post by **Ruth** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:22 pm

Blackjack wrote: I disagree with his being arrested. I think free speech should mean free speech no matter what. But the reason they have laws like that in Austria is to suppress Neo-Nazis.

This law was understandable in 1945, but not today. Are we going to imprison members of the flat earth society?:)

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:25 pm

Public denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences.

Ruth · Post by **Ruth** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:27 pm

Bez wrote: This man should have been behind bars years ago....freedom of speech or no freedom of speech...

A poem composed by Irving for his daughter. It was supposed to be recited whenever "half-breed children are wheeled past".

I am a Baby Aryan

Not Jewish or Sectarian

I have no plans to marry an

Ape or Rastafarian.

"Irving may not have a hook, but there is not much else to distinguish him from other hate preachers who are being put behind bars. His intellect, his Britishness, his right to play the fool are not the issues. What counts is the malice that lurks behind his twisting of historical truth." (New Statesmen)

There should be no laws against hatred or malice. I have a right to these emotions, however much others may disapprove of them. You cannot eradicate people's emotions and beliefs by fiat; if you cross the line and advocate violence toward or the murder of those you hate, then yes, this should be considered a crime.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:30 pm

Ruth wrote: This law was understandable in 1945, but not today. Are we going to imprison members of the flat earth society?:)

Not relevant...I don't see the Flat Earth Society spitting racial hatred and bigotry

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:39 pm

Ruth wrote: Fools should be laughed at, not imprisoned.

Free speech has to be defended, even that of fools. The limit should only be incitement to attack or kill, like the Muslim demonstrators who called for the massacre of those who insult Islam in london last week and got away with it. Like the Imam in Amsterdam who called for gays to be taken to the highest tower in the city and thrown from it. He got away with it too.

Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi amin, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh , Pinochet...figures of fun that were NOT taken seriously....go research them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:42 pm

Bez wrote: Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi amin, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh , Pinochet...figures of fun that were NOT taken seriously....go research them.
Would you support restrictions of speech in England?

Ruth · Post by **Ruth** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:44 pm

Has he done that, Bez? Did he publish the poem he wrote for his child? I haven't read any of his stuff, but I do not consider holocaust denying to necessarily be an expression of racial hatred and bigotry, just pig-headed and stupid, like the flat earthers.

Man is a natural racist to some extent, and bigotry is rife everywhere. I find freedom of speech too important to sacrifice it for the sake of locking up fools. A few decades ago, in the hey-day of Dutch ultra-liberalism, there was a politician in Holland who went to prison for 3 months for saying, "Holland is full!" He died last year. Today all the mainstream political parties, even the socialists, are saying the same thing. Have they all been corrupted, or have they simply decided he was right and they were wrong? It's all relative, ain't it?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:48 pm

Accountable wrote: Would you support restrictions of speech in England?

If it was hurtful to someone else? Absolutely. Isnt it against the law to call someone a "nigger"? Isnt that a hate crime? Two teens were arrested here in Virginia for racial epithets on a black person last week.

I would want to eradicate hate. I dont care if I hear, "just because you dont agree, blah blah blah." Its hate period. Nothing can justify it.

And yes, I am the one who decides what is wrong and right!:guitarist

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:48 pm

Ruth wrote:

Man is a natural racist to some extent,

I disagree.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:51 pm

Accountable wrote: Would you support restrictions of speech in England?

if the speech incites violence, hatred and killing then yes. My concern is that it drives this kind of thing 'underground', at least of it's public you can keep 'tabs on it'. Are people in the US allowed to publicly stand up and advocate the thoughts and practises of the Klu Klux Klan ? Sorry i'm not familiar with your 'dos' and 'donts' over there.

Ruth · Post by **Ruth** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:52 pm

Bez wrote: Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi amin, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh , Pinochet...figures of fun that were NOT taken seriously....go research them.

Why should I do research on such historical figures, Bez? Some of these men were democratically elected and some were military dictators. They all took it into their heads to commit mass murder. This is hardly relevant to the issue of free speech in democratic nations. Or do you think that by locking up barmy pseudo historians and banning swastikas we will prevent such tyranny from ever occurring again?

PS: "if the speech incites violence, hatred and killing then yes." Well I go along with you on this, Bez, with the omission of the word "hatred", which would bring us into very dodgy territory indeed: football chants can get pretty nasty too, you know!:)

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:54 pm

Bez wrote: if the speech incites violence, hatred and killing then yes. My concern is that it drives this kind of thing 'underground', at least of it's public you can keep 'tabs on it'. Are people in the US allowed to publicly stand up and advocate the thoughts and practises of the Klu Klux Klan ? Sorry i'm not familiar with your 'dos' and 'donts' over there.

The only restriction or law that I know of that pertains to hate groups is that they cannot protest with masks on. The person's face has to be visible at all times during rallies and protests. Example: KKK members can not wear their hoods in public meetings/protests.

And of course, it has to be "peaceful".

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:55 pm

Ruth wrote: Why should I do research on such historical figures, Bez? Some of these men were democratically elected and some were military dictators. They all took it into their heads to commit mass murder. This is hardly relevant to the issue of free speech in democratic nations. Or do you think that by locking up barmy pseudo historians and banning swastikas we will prevent such tyranny from ever occurring again?

People who are allowed to do this could go on to be one of these people is what I think she means.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:57 pm

DesignerGal wrote: People who are allowed to do this could go on to be one of these people is what I think she means.

Oh, you did get what she said, sorry. But I do think it could cause this kind of tyranny to happen again.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:58 pm

Ruth wrote: Has he done that, Bez? Did he publish the poem he wrote for his child? I haven't read any of his stuff, but I do not consider holocaust denying to necessarily be an expression of racial hatred and bigotry, just pig-headed and stupid, like the flat earthers.

Man is a natural racist to some extent, and bigotry is rife everywhere. I find freedom of speech too important to sacrifice it for the sake of locking up fools. A few decades ago, in the hey-day of Dutch ultra-liberalism, there was a politician in Holland who went to prison for 3 months for saying, "Holland is full!" He died last year. Today all the mainstream political parties, even the socialists, are saying the same thing. Have they all been corrupted, or have they simply decided he was right and they were wrong? It's all relative, ain't it?

Flat Earthers are a harmless bunch of people.

Holocaust deniers have more sinister agendas....just look at the countries that support them

Some people may be racist...it doesn't make it right

Bigotry IS rife eveywhere....isn't it the job of educated and sane people to try and change that ?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:01 pm

there is an indisputable point here, that he broke the law. a lot of people disapprove of laws i have had to arrest them for breaking , but if it is the current state of the law there is no alternative. of course i have no idea how much discretion the judge had in sentencing.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:02 pm

Ruth wrote:

PS: "if the speech incites violence, hatred and killing then yes." Well I go along with you on this, Bez, with the omission of the word "hatred", which would bring us into very dodgy territory indeed: football chants can get pretty nasty too, you know!:)

Absolutely, monkey noises etc. ...shocking...30.000 people in a football stadium.... not a very good example to our young people is it ?

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:10 pm

lady cop wrote: there is an indisputable point here, that he broke the law. a lot of people disapprove of laws i have had to arrest them for breaking , but if it is the current state of the law there is no alternative. of course i have no idea how much discretion the judge had in sentencing.

I guess the thing to tell those people then is change the law. I doubt

there are enough of them to get it changed, though, so then that would

mean he should get arrested for breaking it!

:-2

Ruth · Post by **Ruth** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:11 pm

lady cop wrote: there is an indisputable point here, that he broke the law. a lot of people disapprove of laws i have had to arrest them for breaking , but if it is the current state of the law there is no alternative. of course i have no idea how much discretion the judge had in sentencing.

The judge had full discretion and everyone expected him to get a suspended sentence or similar in view of the fact that he admitted he was wrong and that millions of jews were gassed in the gas chambers.

Of course he broke the law, we are not disputing this fact in this thread. We are discussing what we think of this law and this particular case.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:19 pm

If the law is repealed, aren't we trivialisng the fact that 10,000000 people including 6,000000 Jews were exterminated ?

How about this for crass stupidity...The worlds gone mad...and i'm sick of it.

Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons

From: Agence France-Presse

From correspondents in Tehran

February 07, 2006

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.

He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Iran's fiercely anti-Israeli regime is supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as well as other groups during World War II has been either invented or exaggerated.

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted international anger when he dismissed the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:31 pm

Ruth wrote: The judge had full discretion and everyone expected him to get a suspended sentence or similar in view of the fact that he admitted he was wrong and that millions of jews were gassed in the gas chambers.

Of course he broke the law, we are not disputing this fact in this thread. We are discussing what we think of this law and this particular case.

Uh, I thought LadyCop started the thread? What am I missing?

Ruth · Post by **Ruth** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:36 pm

valerie wrote: Uh, I thought LadyCop started the thread? What am I missing?
She did start it, but did not do so on the premise that it was to be discussed in the context of it being the law of Austria. If that had been the case, there would have been nothing to discuss: he broke the law, was found guilty and was sentenced. Full stop. No discussion.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:44 pm

Ruth wrote: She did start it, but did not do so on the premise that it was to be discussed in the context of it being the law of Austria. If that had been the case, there would have been nothing to discuss: he broke the law, was found guilty and was sentenced. Full stop. No discussion.

She TOLD you this? I know her pretty well and I think she wanted to

generate replies and thoughts about the whole thing in general. I

would never presume to know on what premise she started anything

unless I asked!

I think it is just common courtesy to let the person who started the

thread sort of direct it... yeah there is thread drift and stuff but

then the OP can get back on and re-post or whatever.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:53 pm

Bez wrote: If the law is repealed, aren't we trivialisng the fact that 10,000000 people including 6,000000 Jews were exterminated ?
No. Not at all.

I missed a very meaty part of this conversation, but I'll leave it for continuity's sake.

I think it abhorrent to restrict freedom of speech, save for the kind that would cause innocents to panic and possibly cause harm (yelling fire in a crowded theatre).

I think it inappropriate to tell another nation what to do. If the people are okay with speech restrictions - even if you have to write every statement and pass it through channels before asking to pass the peas, please - then so be it and God bless 'em.

But for me, banning any thing frees it. It becomes a part of the black market and is no longer beholden to common decency. No! Bring black mold into the light and air to kill it. Let idiots speak. As long as good people do not remain silent themselves, they will be exposed as ridiculous and fade away.

Ruth · Post by **Ruth** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:02 pm

valerie wrote: She TOLD you this? I know her pretty well and I think she wanted to

generate replies and thoughts about the whole thing in general. I

would never presume to know on what premise she started anything

unless I asked!

I think it is just common courtesy to let the person who started the

thread sort of direct it... yeah there is thread drift and stuff but

then the OP can get back on and re-post or whatever.
What a remarkable message! Of course she did not tell me this, you don't have to tell people about premises that are not stated or intended!

As to allowing the thread to be directed - good heavens, this smacks of thought police. I think I adhered to the main topic quite admirably and did not go off on a frolic or instigate any unlawful or discourteous digressions. This gets curiouser and curiouser, said Alice . . .

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:14 pm

Ruth wrote: She did start it, but did not do so on the premise that it was to be discussed in the context of it being the law of Austria. If that had been the case, there would have been nothing to discuss: he broke the law, was found guilty and was sentenced. Full stop. No discussion.

"Did not do so on the premise" is you stating/deciding LadyCop's intent.

Talk about thought police. Maybe there ARE people who want to dispute

whether or not he broke the law. No full stop according to you, and more

discussion.

We quite often have lively debate around here, but for the most part

we refrain from unequivocally stating another's intent or premise

without that person's knowledge or input.

Ruth · Post by **Ruth** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:27 pm

Do I have to spell it out for you? She started the threat without stating the premise, so there was no premise, get it?

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:12 am

Accountable wrote: No. Not at all.

I missed a very meaty part of this conversation, but I'll leave it for continuity's sake.

I think it abhorrent to restrict freedom of speech, save for the kind that would cause innocents to panic and possibly cause harm (yelling fire in a crowded theatre).

I think it inappropriate to tell another nation what to do. If the people are okay with speech restrictions - even if you have to write every statement and pass it through channels before asking to pass the peas, please - then so be it and God bless 'em.

But for me, banning any thing frees it. It becomes a part of the black market and is no longer beholden to common decency. No! Bring black mold into the light and air to kill it. Let idiots speak. As long as good people do not remain silent themselves, they will be exposed as ridiculous and fade away.

I believe in freedom of speech but freedom of speech brings responsibility. I cannot stomach words that hurt, anger or incite but that's just me I guess, always wanting the world to be a better place.

Sometimes 'black mold' just won't go away ...it just gets bigger. Sometimes the 'idiots' don't fade away...they become tyrants.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:00 am

Irving had already retracted-denying there were gas ovens and a systematic policy of extermination just shows him up as being a bad historian

However, Neo Nazism is on the rise in Austria feeding off the back of prejudice against eastern european and turkish immigration and general hostility towards foreigners. giving any kind of legitimacy by letting such views be put about without beuing questioned should maybe be seen in that ligh before you rush to judgement. At least it keeps the issue n the limelight.

Prior to hitler Germany was one of the least anti-semitic nations in Europe, incredible as that may seem, that was one reason there were so many of them there in the first place.

maybe the real lesson about the rise of the Nazis is how if you allow one section of a society to be targeted and blamed for society's ills then you leave it open for others, one after the other to get the same treatment. Prejudice becomes a habit and part of the culture and is a lot easier to encourage than tolerance.

As soon as you accept someone can be guilty just because of who they are and what they might do and therefore entitled to the same rights as you then you open the door to a police state thriving on fear.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:24 am

DesignerGal wrote: Isnt it against the law to call someone a "nigger"?
If that's true, why aren't they arrested when they call each other by that name?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:27 am

gmc wrote: Irving had already retracted-denying there were gas ovens and a systematic policy of extermination just shows him up as being a bad historian

However, Neo Nazism is on the rise in Austria feeding off the back of prejudice against eastern european and turkish immigration and general hostility towards foreigners. giving any kind of legitimacy by letting such views be put about without beuing questioned should maybe be seen in that ligh before you rush to judgement. At least it keeps the issue n the limelight.

Prior to hitler Germany was one of the least anti-semitic nations in Europe, incredible as that may seem, that was one reason there were so many of them there in the first place.

maybe the real lesson about the rise of the Nazis is how if you allow one section of a society to be targeted and blamed for society's ills then you leave it open for others, one after the other to get the same treatment. Prejudice becomes a habit and part of the culture and is a lot easier to encourage than tolerance.

As soon as you accept someone can be guilty just because of who they are and what they might do and therefore entitled to the same rights as you then you open the door to a police state thriving on fear.Well said.

WendyB4 · Post by **WendyB4** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:13 am

I think that anyone who denies the Holocaust happened is an idiot

and should be ignored. The more publicity this fool gets the bigger his silly head gets. Let him have his delusions. Lets worry about room in jails for people who commit crimes other than being stupid. Hit him in the wallet and send him home...where's he from anyway?

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:14 pm

From the legal point of view, here in the U.S. there are laws against libel and slander -- "a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation."

It could be said that spreading lies about the Holocaust are false statements that negatively affect the reputation of the Jews, not to mention inciting hatred that could lead to violence.

Sven · Post by **Sven** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:43 pm

Hello everyone!

It appears some of you are in favour of restricting free speech legally, especially if you don't like what is being said. Let's look at the law against holocaust denial. What is supposed to be achieved by penalising people for expressing this particular (ludicrous) opinion? Will it stop people holding these beliefs? I don't think so. They will just be more covert about it in countries where it is illegal which in my mind is more dangerous. I would rather know whether the person I'm dealing with is an idiot or not. Will it stop these opinions being published or made available to other people vulnerable to this sort of bullshit? Nowadays there are plenty of ways to get this stuff out there without the risk of prosecution. By making this particular opinion illegal, normal debate is closed off by pushing possible adherents into a niche where other points of view are not available. Will it stop the rise of neo-nazism? Well, if we take Austria as an example, it doesn't seem to work. Will it protect a vulnerable section of society in danger of being further marginalised and victimised? Erm, I don't think the Jews nowadays are either vulnerable, marginalised or in danger of prosecution. So I don't see what such a law is supposed to achieve. What it has done is to up the profile of David Irving and his flawed opinions (I had never heard of him beforehand and if I had, I must have forgotten) and make him a potential martyr figure to people with similar beliefs. If you still believe this law is justified, than you must also be in favour of legislating against denial of any sort of massacre or injustice against a particular race or relious persuasion like the slave trade. The thing is, if people deny the slave trade or the crusades for example, we would treat them with derision, which to me is the only response David Irving deserves. Anything more gives him a legitimacy he does not merit. And if you believe there should be laws in place against any sort of denial of historical fact, where do you stop? Should we extend it to the denial of any kind of accepted scientific fact? Should we penalise people for taking the bible or the koran literally? Because the grounds for doing so are just as valid as those used against Irving. And who decides this? The people given a mandate by the majority of society? What if these people manipulated the majority in giving them this mandate so they can use it for their own agenda? That is exactly why there is such a thing as freedom of speech. To prevent such possible abuse. Government is given this mandate with a set of preset conditions, one of which is not to restrict the freedom of speech. For me freedom of speech should be absolute no matter how offensive or vile the speech in question. Let the people speak their minds so we know their opinions and can deal with them in an open debate. When we start chipping away at this fundamental right, regardless of our good intentions, we play into the hands of the people we are trying to penalise. It seems to me that legislation is an admission of failure by government to deal with the underlying causes of the problem. To me the most important step towards resolution is education, not legislation.

BadDog · Post by **BadDog** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:35 pm

It is against the law to say the n word. You can be prosecuted for hate crimes for just saying the word. OJ was found innocent on the back of Mark Harman saying the n word. I know a guy that was fined for wearing a hat with a rebel flag on it.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:45 pm

BadDog wrote: It is against the law to say the n word. You can be prosecuted for hate crimes for just saying the word. OJ was found innocent on the back of Mark Harman saying the n word. I know a guy that was fined for wearing a hat with a rebel flag on it.
Where are you from BadDog? Welcome to FG, by the way.

I think you need to rephrase your wording there and say it's against the law for a WHITE person to use the "n" word. Blacks use it amongst themselves all the time and are never in danger of getting arressted for it.

I have a rebel flag on my vest, and some of the bars I go to, I'm asked to turn it inside out. I leave instead of complying.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:48 pm

BabyRider wrote: Blacks use it amongst themselves all the time .

Not all of them. Some of them detest that $h!t among their own people. THis is a stereotype, BR and you just started a thread that said you hated being stereotyped.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:56 pm

DesignerGal wrote: Not all of them. Some of them detest that $h!t among their own people. THis is a stereotype, BR and you just started a thread that said you hated being stereotyped.
Then allow me to rectify it by saying that the blacks in my area, that I know, use it all the time amongst themselves.

You're right, some of them do despise it. I've seen that, too.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:13 pm

You have some good points Sven. On the other hand, "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater," and It's illegal to urge people to murder or commit violent crimes.

Why not? Because that could get someone hurt or killed. Your rights to free speech end where my rights to life and happiness begin.

I put anti-Holocaust speech in the same category. It's more than just an opinion. It's a call to erase the memory of horrible slaughter.

Why? So that those who commit and contemplate crimes like these can make it happen again.

Isn't that the same thing as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?:rolleyes:

BadDog · Post by **BadDog** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:29 pm

Hi thanks for the welcome. Your right the n word is used alot by black people. Its used alot on TV by black people. I think if it can be so easily be thrown about by the people its supposed to hurt anybody should be aloud to use it. the same with the holocaust or any offensive thing. Many people who would execute offenders of their own thing, will with no thought offend anothers. I've heard alot lately about some newly discovered Gospel of Judas: which of course gives every shadetree historian cause to attack Christianity without fear of retribution. Why should I as a white American Christian be attacked daily, from the roots of my beliefs by every kind of hack, called names like cracker by even elected officials. The ACLU has removed God from the government although almost every American vet though our history has fought and died to put it there. I don't think 99.9% of them would have raised a hand to defend her if they had known what was to come. Yet I must suffer in silence as my world is orally raped daily by anyone with a 3rd grade education, and an opinion. I don't feel the need to defend the holocaust or any racial injustice till someone in this free world sees my right to live and breath.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:04 pm

I don't feel the need to defend the holocaust or any racial injustice till someone in this free world sees my right to live and breath.

thats masterful thinking dog

your a real humanitarian

see ya around

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:17 am

BadDog wrote: It is against the law to say the n word. You can be prosecuted for hate crimes for just saying the word. OJ was found innocent on the back of Mark Harman saying the n word. I know a guy that was fined for wearing a hat with a rebel flag on it.You never said where you were from. I know of no such law in the US.