Holocaust Deniers Gather in Iran

Originally Posted by Bradylama

But it's not fair.

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

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The logical conclusion to Holocaust denial is that Holocaust survivors are either liars or wrong. [...] doesn't constitute libel or slander unless the claim is being made that Holocaust survivors are dirty liars.

Well, there you go, then.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

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

Shouting fire in a theater falls in line with inciting riots, and could constitute conspiracy to commit manslaughter. We have no criminal slander or libel laws. Libel suits are made in order to extract compensation for damages caused by malicious misrepresentation.

Quote:

Well, there you go, then.

Yeah, if you edit my post that way it falls into line real easy like, however what one can conclude from Holocaust denial, and what is being claimed in Holocaust denial literature are seperate. People could conclude that Republicans are all a bunch of corrupt pedo-protectors after the page leaks, but it didn't make every reporter in the country guilty of libel against the Republican Party.

That's the precise problem that comes up when libel and slander apply to groups of people. There's no danger of misrepresentation because being a holocaust survivor isn't like wearing a yellow star or purple rectangle.

By enforcing criminal libel you're making a form of expression illegal, and that doesn't fly with me at the very least.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Shouting fire in a theater falls in line with inciting riots, and could constitute conspiracy to commit manslaughter. We have no criminal slander or libel laws. Libel suits are made in order to extract compensation for damages caused by malicious misrepresentation.

Either you have limits on free speech or you do not. You cannot have it both ways.

Quote:

Yeah, if you edit my post that way it falls into line real easy like, however what one can conclude from Holocaust denial, and what is being claimed in Holocaust denial literature are seperate.

There is no just sayin' in genocide.

Quote:

People could conclude that Republicans are all a bunch of corrupt pedo-protectors after the page leaks, but it didn't make every reporter in the country guilty of libel against the Republican Party.

That's because although people could conclude that, most people did not, because that is not a reasonable logical leap. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.

Quote:

There's no danger of misrepresentation because being a holocaust survivor isn't like wearing a yellow star or purple rectangle.

Quote:

By enforcing criminal libel you're making a form of expression illegal, and that doesn't fly with me at the very least.

Then vote someone in to change the laws.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Either you have limits on free speech or you do not. You cannot have it both ways.

I've just given you legal definitions of inciting public unrest and the actual function of libel and slander.

Without criminal prosecution of slander and libel, there is no limitation to the freedom of speech at the governmental level.

Quote:

There is no just sayin' in genocide.

Like the disputes concerning the Armenian Genocide, which are causing debate in France because of Armenian lobbies, or the reluctance of Western Powers and the UN to intervene in Rwanda because "it's not like we don't want to help, I'm just sayin we don't know if there's a genocide or not yet."

Bitch please.

Quote:

That's because although people could conclude that, most people did not, because that is not a reasonable logical leap. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.

You could've fooled me considering everything I heard from people I see at school and from my own family.

Irregardless of any logical leap, if a party isn't directly being misrepresented in a literature, then you have no grounds for a libel case, and no, body tattoos aren't like wearing the yellow stars, because Holocaust survivors wear the very long-sleeved clothing the fellow in your picture wear to hide them, in order to live normal lives without people pitying them all the time.

Quote:

Then vote someone in to change the laws.

I couldn't. I'm not German. So what if I'm making ethnocentric value judgements? I'm the one advocating freedom of expression here.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I've just given you legal definitions of inciting public unrest and the actual function of libel and slander.

Without criminal prosecution of slander and libel, there is no limitation to the freedom of speech at the governmental level.

Again, inciting riots due to speech is still a control on freedom of speech. Just because it isn't a very large one doesn't negate its existance.

Quote:

Like the disputes concerning the Armenian Genocide, which are causing debate in France because of Armenian lobbies, or the reluctance of Western Powers and the UN to intervene in Rwanda because "it's not like we don't want to help, I'm just sayin we don't know if there's a genocide or not yet."

Bitch please.

Like to see you point out where I said any of that was good or dandy, nigger.

Quote:

You could've fooled me considering everything I heard from people I see at school and from my own family.

Personal ancedotes aren't very good statistical evidence.

Quote:

Irregardless of any logical leap, if a party isn't directly being misrepresented in a literature, then you have no grounds for a libel case, and no, body tattoos aren't like wearing the yellow stars, because Holocaust survivors wear the very long-sleeved clothing the fellow in your picture wear to hide them, in order to live normal lives without people pitying them all the time.

wow

Quote:

I couldn't. I'm not German. So what if I'm making ethnocentric value judgements? I'm the one advocating freedom of expression here.

That's really tough titties that you can't do anything about another country's laws.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Again, inciting riots due to speech is still a control on freedom of speech. Just because it isn't a very large one doesn't negate its existance.

Speech is only a method seperated from the actual crime being commited, which is conspiracy to cause public unrest. The speech, shouting "fire" is only a method being used to commit the infraction.

If you wanted to point out legitimate limitations to the freedom of speech in the United States, then you could talk about the use of the Miller test for obscenity by the FCC to censor broadcast media or the use of the DMCA to silence criticism by offended minorities claiming their primary literature as intellectual property.

That's what I have a beef with concerning freedom of speech in this country.

Quote:

Like to see you point out where I said any of that was good or dandy, nigger.

It doesn't have to be. That's the whole point of freedom of expression. "Good" and "bad" are subjective judgements, and determining whether or not an opinion is good, bad, harmful, or even proper is dependant on perspective.

Quote:

Personal ancedotes aren't very good statistical evidence.

Of course not, but then Holocaust denial literature doesn't cause logical conclusions that Holocaust survivors are liars, it simply means that Holocaust survivors are wrong, something that is, believe it or not, debateable.

Quote:

wow

Yeah, wow, Holocaust survivors don't turn their ordeal into their primary status.

Quote:

That's really tough titties that you can't do anything about another country's laws.

Shaking my fist makes me feel good enough.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It doesn't have to be. That's the whole point of freedom of expression. "Good" and "bad" are subjective judgements, and determining whether or not an opinion is good, bad, harmful, or even proper is dependant on perspective.

That's not what I'm saying, and that argument makes no sense when what I"m saying is that there is no just sayin' in genocide. Why don't you show me some other groups of people who just say re: genocide so I can tell them that they are wrong to as well?

Quote:

Of course not, but then Holocaust denial literature doesn't cause logical conclusions that Holocaust survivors are liars, it simply means that Holocaust survivors are wrong, something that is, believe it or not, debateable.

You would be comfortable saying that all holocaust denial accuses jews of merely being mistaken, and not accusing them of any wrongdoing?

Quote:

Yeah, wow, Holocaust survivors don't turn their ordeal into their primary status.

Are you suggesting that only black people can be libeled, I'm not sure where exactly you're going with this yellow star argument.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

That's not what I'm saying, and that argument makes no sense when what I"m saying is that there is no just sayin' in genocide. Why don't you show me some other groups of people who just say re: genocide so I can tell them that they are wrong to as well?

Now I'm not sure what you mean by "just sayin'."

Quote:

You would be comfortable saying that all holocaust denial accuses jews of merely being mistaken, and not accusing them of any wrongdoing?

No, only that the nature of Holocaust denial: that a Holocaust didn't really happen, doesn't implicate Jews in any wrongdoing, only that they are mistaken. A writer of Holocaust literature would have to expressly accuse Jews of wrongdoing in order to make a case of it, yet even then I've already established why accepting cases of libel on behalf of groups is unsound law.

Quote:

Are you suggesting that only black people can be libeled, I'm not sure where exactly you're going with this yellow star argument.

That concerning this specific case, claiming that Holocaust survivors are wrong, doesn't cause damages concerning libel or slander. One could argue emotional damages for certain individuals, but you can't accept cases like that on behalf of a group of people, or even if a judge would even accept a case based on emotional damages concerning a statement that applies to a group and not the individual in question.

It's really immaterial, though, because the French and German laws are cases of criminal libel, where any opinion on the matter other than the one that is state-sanctioned is considered illegal.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a lurker

That's not what I'm saying, and that argument makes no sense when what I"m saying is that there is no just sayin' in genocide. Why don't you show me some other groups of people who just say re: genocide so I can tell them that they are wrong to as well?

I don't get what you're implying. That it should be outlawed if it's a statement that can be disproven? That the deniers are allowed to say that Nazis are cool but not that the Holocaust happened, right?

Should it be illegal for me to say that clouds are neat but the sky is green? Give me a break.

Free speech IS free speech, and slander/libel laws don't have anything to do with it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Bradylama:
It doesn't have to be. That's the whole point of freedom of expression. "Good" and "bad" are subjective judgements, and determining whether or not an opinion is good, bad, harmful, or even proper is dependant on perspective.

If judgments about goodness and badness are entirely subjective, then this discussion is borderline pointless. If neither term extends beyond the confinements of our own minds, then what are we arguing about? In this case, everyone would be right: all judgments of "good" or "bad" are identical to the statements "I feel that all X is bad/good" or "In my opinion, all X is bad/good". All we are discussing is how we as individuals perceive certain actions. My preferences for strawberry ice cream are not essentially different from my preferences regarding mass murder.

If all we are arguing about is how we should feel about certain things, such as free speech or the Holocaust, then why should I even bother providing a rationality for what I feel? Why can't I just form my subjective value judgments based on how I feel on a given day if there is nothing that commits me to a rational means of determining what is morally good or bad? Call it a gut intuition or a matter of personal taste, but it strikes me as incomprehensible that the only reason the Holocaust (or restricting free speech absolutely) is wrong is because I feel that it's wrong.

Quote:

Hachifusa:
Free speech IS free speech, and slander/libel laws don't have anything to do with it.

I guess that depends on how we define free speech. If we define free speech as the right to say whatever we want without consequence, then it seems that slander and libel are clear exceptions to freedom of speech.

If freedom of speech means that we can say whatever we want, but we must pay the consequences for things that we say, then I agree that slander and libel have little to do with free speech. Roughly, we would be allowed to say whatever we want as long as we realize that we are responsible for what we say.

Perhaps this discussion would go better if we came to a common definition of what 'free speech' refers to. Perhaps someone could come up with better definitions than the ones I came up with. At least we would be sure that we are all talking about the same thing.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Blah Blah Existentialism.

The First Ammendment exists in the Bill of Rights as a means of protecting minority rights. It's because value judgements can never be objective that expression of those values require protection. Unpopular sentiments should not be silenced by a majority, because it disenfranchises minorities and harms our social and governmental institutions.

Quote:

Perhaps this discussion would go better if we came to a common definition of what 'free speech' refers to.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech here is ill-defined, but is generally interpreted as the right to say whatever you want without consequence. However, one can be penalized for the consequences of said speech, which is the danger of manslaughter and public unrest involved in yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and the damages caused to an individual in cases of libel or slander.

The government does not have the right to limit what can be said or printed, but can prosecute for crimes commited with the use of speech.

I.E., people are held accountable for the consequences of their actions, but not censured.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Bradylama:
The First Ammendment exists in the Bill of Rights as a means of protecting minority rights. It's because value judgements can never be objective that expression of those values require protection. Unpopular sentiments should not be silenced by a majority, because it disenfranchises minorities and harms our social and governmental institutions.

I agree that the Bill of Rights protects minorities, but where do you get the idea that the founders thought value judgments weren't objective? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they all natural law theorists who thought judgments about right or wrong were built into nature by an abstract providence? It seems very strange for the Declaration of Independence to speak of unalienable rights endowed by a creator, and then a mere decade and a half later our judgments of right and wrong are completely subjective. The whole scenario seems completely out of line with Enlightenment thinking.

And I don't have any idea why my thoughts are somehow "existential". I'm merely pointing out that if good and evil are completely subjective terms, then we cannot talk about them like we talk about other objective realities, such as some scientific phenomenon.

It's good to know that we agree that the First Amendment is not a good definition. And as long as free speech is defined with the caveat of having to pay the consequences for our actions, then I'd agree that slander and libel have little to do with freedom of speech.

On the other hand, I guess I'm tentative in regards to giving 'harm' a narrow definition. Does 'harm' extend beyond immediate physical harm or the destruction of character, or is 'harm' defined more broadly to include other types of harm i.e. moral harm or indirect harm, such as a correlation between certain types of speech and the promotion of violent behavior? Or, what about a conservative definition, where free speech is more subordinate to preserving traditional social institutions?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

From what I know of cases involving the Turner Diaries, and rock & roll censorship cases, there's never been a long-standing legislation against "indirect harm" because the writer is not considered responsible for the actions of the consumer of their literature or art.

Unlike "freedom of speech," freedom of press is fairly self-evident.

FELIPE NO

After reviewing my previous position on censorship, I have realized that it's too 1984ish. However, I do not think that particular view should be encouraged as being "objective".

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Niki never said that Holocaust denial was an objective view, only that suppressing the opinion eliminates the possibility of perceiving it objectively.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Oh, I'm not saying that Niki said this, so this time I'm not trying to be argumentative.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Bradylama:
There should never be limits to freedom of speech, period.

Quote:

From what I know of cases involving the Turner Diaries, and rock & roll censorship cases, there's never been a long-standing legislation against "indirect harm" because the writer is not considered responsible for the actions of the consumer of their literature or art.

You seem interested in law. Are you a law student?

Which are we discussing: what the law is or what the law ought to be? The existence of case law against alternate definitions of harm seems to address a different question than the one that we were previously discussing, mainly, what limits, if any, should be placed on free speech? The existence of a law does not necessarily establish the existence of an "ought" or a "should".

Most amazing jew boots

The way the law is, is reflected in the spirit of the law. The spirit being, one is entitled to say or print whatever they want.

There shouldn't be government-endorsed censorship in either America or Germany and France, irregardless of content.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

If these people were violating someone's rights by denying the holocaust, then there would be a valid reason for censoring them. However, since they aren't harming anyone by espousing this nonsense, and there is a mountain of evidence discrediting their claims, I think it's best to just let them talk their shit and let them expose themselves as the idiots that they are.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Evelyn Hall summed up my position on this issue and others like it more eloquently and neatly than I could ever have wished to have done.

Most amazing jew boots

Would you care to tell us what Evelyn Hall said, or just sit there and tell us nothing?

No matter, I've done it for you:

Quote:

She wrote the phrase, which is often mis-attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.

Namedropping doesn't suffice when dealing with an audience that may be full of neophytes.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

If they can get off saying that the Typhus wasn't intentional then the blankets we gave the Indians with smallpox was accidental, too.

Right on. If disease ran rampant in the death camps then it is still the fault of the Reich. I recall a statistic that after WWII the number of Jews on the planet decreased. It was some sort of poll taken in Europe which showed that MILLIONS had died. If I can find it again I'll post it. I don't think it was rigged and I don't think millions of people just decided to no longer be Jewish. Honestly... what is going through that sicko's head?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

There should never be limits to freedom of speech, period.

Oh yes there should. For once I agree with A Lurker wholeheartedly. You just CAN'T say some things simply BECAUSE they incite riots and the like. What if I told you I was going to shoot you wth the gun I have in my pocket and I followed you around all day? You would get the police therefore infringing on my right to say whatever the fuck i want to say. You don't KNOW if i have a gun. I smell a lawsuit coming your way if America ends up like that.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Aramaethe

You just CAN'T say some things simply BECAUSE they incite riots and the like.

Legally, yes you can.

Originally Posted by Aramaethe

What if I told you I was going to shoot you wth the gun I have in my pocket and I followed you around all day? You would get the police therefore infringing on my right to say whatever the fuck i want to say. You don't KNOW if i have a gun. I smell a lawsuit coming your way if America ends up like that.

That would be considered a death threat. Most definitely illegal.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Why do Freedom of Speech detractors always have more strawmen than Kansas?

Death threats fall under harassment, which can be met with restraining orders. I have to apply for an order, of course, and you're not actually going to be put in jail for what you've said unless you're violating a court-ordered mandate, e.g. the aforementioned restraining order.

You are punished for your actions, not for your words.

Stop being a dipshit.

There's nowhere I can't reach.