Ok, since we're going back to page one, do I have to quote my own entry as well? (As it was written in reply to that notion, among other things.)

So we take lessons from our buddy Staline and limit free speech? Swell.

I don't think it's how you settle things on long term, no.

Sorry, I actually totally missed your post from the beginning. It's actually quite revealing of what nonsense this whole debate is, since no one actually knows what he's talking about. No one can define the exact laws towards Holocaust of all countries, nor can anyone tell what this conference actually is and what's actually been discussed in it, since we don't have transcripts. I'm withdrawing for now, anyway. (zzz)

Considering that it would indeed be hateful to deny the events (And I say "deny", because questioning is rather useless considering that the answers are already in full view of those who want to know.), it should be made illegal. That, of course, depends on what your foundation for morality is, though.

Thank you.

You may not have realized this, but it's rather useless to question when all the answers are laid out in front of you. So logically, it would have to be denial. Plus, what does it matter whether 100,000 Jews died in the Holocaust of 1,000,000 (Or 6,000,000)? Does this change the fact that there was a Holocaust? No.

To be fair, niki, a lot of people in the US say that they are merely questioning the safety of abortions, for example, and then bust out a bunch of bullshit about how abortions will give you cancer. The same thing happens with evolution, with global warming, lots of things. Basically that's the reason for the cynicism, well that and

Ifs speak louder than other words. Call me pedantic if you want, I'm just having a hard time believing that they won't come to some startling revelation that only a few hundred thousand jews died if anything.

As I said, but you people are deftly ignoring, the whole point is to piss you off. I'd say it's a glorious victory to Iran so far. Iranians are amongst the most highly educated populations in the world, and they inhabit lands where human civilisation first took root after thousands of years of nomadism; a country that was a seat of learning and scientific advancement for centuries. Their leader is a wily schemer who knows how to push your buttons. Do not make the mistake of assuming that they're stupid, because they are not. It is a (frankly not that subtle) attempt to get you riled up, and it succeeded.

If you are going to have laws that limit one's freedom of speech, let's play fair about it and restrict the freedom for people to say other inflammatory or obviously incorrect things, or not at all. Let's not play favourites when it suits us.

Consider an internet forum socially engineered, then. That Iran is always out to get Gamingforce!

oh my god, that explains devilgobox!

Do you really give a shit? You obvious KNOW that it occurred. This president is at best only going to be able to convince a minority of idiots in his own country that it didn't happen, if that. These people are inconsequential to you. It shouldn't bother you, just like it apparently doesn't bother you that the KKK in your own country continues to spread hatred, or that the Neo Nazis in Germany spout utter bullshit about homosexuals.

We won't go back to lynchings not because there are laws in place to specifically stop an organisation intent on commiting those acts, but because there are already in place very old laws. MURDER IS A CRIME. That is more than enough to be able to lock these bastards up. The argument changes into whether or not a person should get a longer sentence for a "hate-crime". That has been up for debate here in the past, so I won't dredge it up again.

Double Post:
I'm not the propaganda minister, obviously. Isn't the US the same country that is going, cap in hand to its two greatest enemies, asking that they intervene in Iraq to bring order to it? A country the US has failed to subjugate despite their having no weapons of mass destruction at all? Has any nuclear power yet been invaded that recently acquired that capability (hello Pakistan - probably harbouring Bin Laden himself)? Posturing is fine and dandy, and so are big impressive words. Talk is cheap; actions speak louder.

I in no way ADVOCATE the decision of the Iranian government to question the holocaust, but if we claim to be so much better than them, let them mess around and have their fun. As I have said, their decisions whatever they turn out to be, are utterly inconsequential to the world at large.

Weren't governments made to protect the rights of the minority?

A stupid debate in the Palace? Surprise surprise, and I wondered why nobody posts here any more.

You guys do know that this meeting is being attended by anti-Zionist Jews, right? Basically the biggest motive behind holocaust denial is to establish that the actual impact of the Holocaust doesn't justify Zionist agendas and the continued support of Israel. More specifically for Ahmadinejad, as Ulysses has pointed out, it's to raise the ire of Westerners, and it's worked well enough to start this retarded thread over a :whocares: event. I mean, christ, David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK and Louisiana politician attended the convention, and CNN is reporting it as if it's some kind of big deal. David Duke a Holocaust denier? I would've never thought!

Nevermind here, that Rock is German, and attempting to atone for the sins of his Jew-gassing grandpa by convincing us very loudly that the Holocaust happened, or that several Western countries have strong Zionist lobbies which regardless of any central organization are nonetheless loud enough to get measures like the French censorship laws put into place.

When Devo said "Your rights stop where my feelings begin" (go spacemoose), it was quite poignant, because I don't think you guys understand just how many "hurtful" opinions regarding the past there are to minority groups. If Radical Feminists controlled the country they'd probably outlaw any assertion of Universal Patriarchy, or if say, blacks became a vocal censorship lobby, then you could say bye-bye to Gone With the Wind and The North and South for their portrayal of the Plantation Myth.

Nobody has the right to dictate what is and what isn't open for discussion, irregardless of how much imperical evidence is stacked against an opinion. It's the same reason I'm not closing this thread instantaneously for sheer retardedness, because it's more beneficial for the community to see you guys weep from your vaginas for all the poor Jews and Gypsies and Fags and Rubber Duckies that might get their feelings hurt because of what a couple of douchebags in Iran said about the Holocaust.

There should never be limits to freedom of speech, period. Limiting one's entitlement to an opinion works sort of like the point/counterpoints to abortion. If you abort a baby you could be aborting the guy who cures cancer, consequently you could also be aborting the guy who kills 15 families with a bayonet in their homes. Draconian infringements on free expression didn't work forever for the Church, and there's nothing to suggest that outlawing Holocaust-denial actually suppresses discourse regarding the subject in any clear way. In fact, eliminating its discussion in the public sphere does more to help its survival, since there's no intellectual discourse that can use the imperical evidence you jerks keep yelling about against Holocaust-denial literature. Instead you've got sub-cultures sharing their views on the internet and festering outside the scrutiny of society at large. Has it ever occurred to you filthy Germans that outlawing the Nazi Party is the very reason Germany has such a problem with Neo-Nazism? Of course not, though, because prohibition works for drugs, right?

Dumbasses.

According to Locke, governments were made to protect people in exchange for their freedom. Constitutions are made to protect minority rights. (usually)

Might be more of the latter, actually. I was merely posting here because niki sounded like that meeting in Iran was some sort of a good and objective thing that should have been allowed to take place in Europe.

Also note that Holocaust deniers aren't actually prosecuted as criminals here, but rather kept from publishing books and holding public speeches about the issue. According to German law, these people are charged with slander or libel or something like that. I think it's only fair.

Interestingly, the "Nazi Party" (NPD) isn't even outlawed in Germany. I think that's a good thing.

For BigHairyFeet :

You sir, are a moron. Did you even read what i said?

Anything is subject to debate. What i'm advocating is the freedom to discuss anything. Do not twist my words.

And what i said meant that i think THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE for the deaths REGARDLESS of wether it was by burning, toxins, or just because of imprisonment. The Nazis ARE responsible. So in effect i was arguing AGAINST trying to locate the "real" reason for their death, because regardless of that reason, the nazis ARE responsible.

I just hate exaggeration, and there's a possibility of exaggeration. It's not as flat-out proven as the earth being round, it's debatable. THE NUMBERS are debatable.

Double Post:
Well fucking said.

Brady is basically saying what i have in mind but in greater detail. How anyone could take another point of view is beyond me. Aren't you all FOR freedom of speech?

And why shouldn't it have been? If they had the money to support the thing, and could find an institution willing to host the convention, there shouldn't be any good reason to stop the convention from taking place in Europe. Do you really think they're going to be able to convince more people than what have already been drawn to the movement that the Holocaust didn't really happen? If the prospect of Holocaust denial is so impossible to fathom to Europeans, then how does it justify legislating against it?

I forget, of course, that Libertine values don't apply to Europe, just the populist ones.

But it's not fair. Holocaust denial doesn't damagingly misrepresent anybody, because the character of Holocaust survivors aren't being called into question. What is being called into question, is whether or not the Holocaust actually happened, or was severe enough to justify the creation of a Jewish nation-state and its continued support. The only affront Holocaust denial perpetrates is the assault on your white guilt and Zionist interests. Surely Holocaust survivors have nothing to prove.

The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei is outlawed in Germany. The Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands can only be considered an ideological predecessor to the outlawed organization, which is the very reason you morons have tried to outlaw the thing for decades and turn it into a counter-culture.

The NSDAP doesn't even exist anymore, Brady. And what sense would it make to form such a party if you can just join the NPD instead?

Also, most Germans agree that outlawing them is wrong. So don't sound like "we" Germans are to blame for it.

The logical conclusion to Holocaust denial is that Holocaust survivors are either liars or wrong. Holocaust denial doesn't represent survivors, however. Holocaust denial is an opinion regarding an historical event, and doesn't constitute libel or slander unless the claim is being made that Holocaust survivors are dirty liars.

I am, of course, making this value judgement based on American laws where the Supreme Court established that the plaintiffs must prove malicious intent, and that no states accept libel cases on the behalf of groups. It may be ethnocentric, but then we're the country that respects freedom of expression the most on this planet, despite the hiccups, so I feel confident in saying that American perspective of libel is the most respectful of the freedom of expression.

If Holocaust denial counts as libel in Germany, then it stands to reason that the same would apply to anti-semitism and political radicalism, since making derogatory remarks about Jews or SPD voters could constitute untruthful malicious statements concerning a group of people.

That doesn't change the fact that the Nazi Party is illegal, and that it is impossible for any kind of Nazi movement to acquire political legitimacy. You can effectively remove Neo-Nazism from members of the NPD, because at the time of its destruction, the Nazi Party was a cult of personality centered around Hitler, and Neo-Nazis tend to emulate the late Nazi period and deify Hitler.

You elected the government that attempted the ban, therefore by extension people like Shcroeder who have proposed the possibility of another ban represent their constituents, being German voters.

That's wonderful. Did I mention lynching jews? Because I didn't. I just said that it's reasonable to be offended at something you yourself said was intended to be offensive.

shouting fire in a theater, slander/libel, etc.

also lol

There is a western law precedent that you can limit free speech, where doing so protects the ability of others to speak freely. i.e. you can limit horribly racist demonstrations, so that minorities do not feel so set-upon by the majority that they are afraid to speak their mind.

Therefore, a Holocaust-discussion bill might have made sense decades ago, where the temptation still existed to blame the Jews for every damn thing. It doesn't really matter much anymore. If Iran wants to play tit-for-tat for some newspaper cartoons like a little baby, and invite some number-crunchers from Mel Gibson's phonebook, whatever. I think* in the countries that are democratic enough to consider an anti-holocaust bill, anti-semitism is so dead that you don't need it anymore.

I still agree with putting anti-holocaust gradeschool history teachers in jail, though.

*feel free to correct if I'm wrong

That's really a shame, isn't it? Yep, a cryin' shame.

Double Post:
Well, there you go, then.

There is no just sayin' when it comes to genocide.