Free Speech In Europe

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Dante do you think you could stop posting now?

Not while people are directing questions towards me, no.

[Yahwe]

given that all you do is repeat the same answers i'm sure they'll manage.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

given that all you do is repeat the same answers i'm sure they'll manage.

There is the ignore function if it bothers you, as I'm sure you know.

Or you could just ignore the thread entirely since you have already termed the thread "silly".

[JonnyBGood]

If we want the government to do something useful maybe instead of spending taxpayers' money on trials and prison sentences for david irving and his jovial bunch of crusading gits it could send out that point by point rebuttal of irving's book to every household in the country!

Personally I think banning holocaust denial adds a dangerous level of credibility to it all. I'd far rather see him laughed at in the streets than martyred for the good of the state. It might be entertaining to see how zhukov would react to the banning of the espousal of marxist principles considering the delightful history of the Soviet Union though. In fact I'm rather sure I read a denial of the supposed scale of the atrocities committed under dear Uncle Joe by zhukov quite recently. Considering that he's rather in the minority on this one I shall henceforth be deleting all posts by our dear norwegian friend which downplay any, and all, massacres, murders and events of much mayhem carried out by the Soviet Union. Good day.

[Yahwe]

might I suggest a slight tweaking to this commendable policy?

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I shall henceforth be deleting all posts by our dear norwegian and dutch friends

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"Could"? What does that mean? Obviously it could lead to another holocaust - so could the banning of Cheese and Onion crisps, but it's to do with what's realistic / probable.

obviously i mean that a reasonable person would conclude that such speech was making a non-trivial contribution toward a movement in a significant ethnic-cleansing direction.

which is soon made irrelevant because you make clear that

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"But I support free speech regardless, if that's what you mean.

you would favor free speech either way.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"No, it's wrong because it's fundamentally wrong. It also just happens to be a waste of time / counter productive. Similarly, randomly shooting Muslim youths would be incredibly evil and wrong but would also fail to reduce terror. Things can be bad for more than one reason.

so it's bad because it's bad, and it's wrong because it's fundamentally wrong. and you go on to cite three specific reasons which you then make clear are irrelevant to your opinion because if the opposite case were true, your belief wouldn't change.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"Freedom is a desirable end in and of itself.

why? even if in the specific case it makes a negative contribution?

it's easy to defend free speech so long as the effect of the speech is purely good ("I will defend this man's right to publish cures for cancer!"), and it's easy to make a quasi-defense based on the argument that there isn't a viable way to prevent free speech without creating a 'free speech black market'. but taking away the easy outs. that's my question.

i believe that it's impossible for someone to truly believe something unless they have considered the possibility that the opposite is true. but that's just me.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by acropolis

it's easy to defend free speech so long as the effect of the speech is purely good ("I will defend this man's right to publish cures for cancer!")

Nah dude intellectual property rights tell us that you can be horribly in the wrong if you start publishing cures for cancer

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Nah dude intellectual property rights tell us that you can be horribly in the wrong if you start publishing cures for cancer

PLEASE IGNORE THIS POST

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

PLEASE IGNORE THIS POST

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Personally I think banning holocaust denial adds a dangerous level of credibility to it all.

[s|k]

I can't for the life of me imagine what went on in peoples heads when they made that law. What were they thinking? Suppressing ideas is not a good idea. Sometimes we're not happy because some ideas challenge us, or they don't reflect on us positively, or we don't agree with them. Perhaps they may ruin our career - imagine if you were a researcher and a discovery you've made destroys your life's effort by precluding any possibility that you were on the right track. Some ideas may even be inimical, but it is the burden of reason to always consider whatever information we can and to reflect on all sides to the best of our abilities. If we willfully ignore voices for arbitrary, personal, or any other non rational purposes we are not reasoning at all. It all leads to arbitrary decision making, and that always leads to selfish choices, and that leads to bad governance, abuse of power, violation of rights, destruction of dignity, and all sorts of other things many of us despise.

[Cuddley_Battleship]

It looks like most people here have a skewed view of these guys (and their opinions) being imprisoned thanks to the media. Revisionists aren't a bunch of Nazis, a couple are actually concentration camp survivors. Read through it, keep an open mind. You may be surprised.

Here's a preview.
What does Holocaust Revisionism claim?
it does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;
it does not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights;
it does not deny that Jews were deported;
it does not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos;
it does not deny the existence of concentration camps;
it does not deny the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps;
it does not deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons;
it does not deny that other minorities were also persecuted such as gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and political dissenters;
and finally, it does not deny that all the above mentioned things were unjust.

http://vho.org/Intro/GB/Flyer.html
http://vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ba.../nutshell.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ba...es/inside.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ba...iff_views.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ba...cles/myth.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/101/101toc.html

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Cuddley_Battleship

It looks like most people here have a skewed view of these guys (and their opinions) being imprisoned thanks to the media. Revisionists aren't a bunch of Nazis, a couple are actually concentration camp survivors. Read through it, keep an open mind. You may be surprised.

Here's a preview.
What does Holocaust Revisionism claim?
it does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;
it does not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights;
it does not deny that Jews were deported;
it does not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos;
it does not deny the existence of concentration camps;
it does not deny the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps;
it does not deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons;
it does not deny that other minorities were also persecuted such as gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and political dissenters;
and finally, it does not deny that all the above mentioned things were unjust.

http://vho.org/Intro/GB/Flyer.html
http://vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ba.../nutshell.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ba...es/inside.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ba...iff_views.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/ba...cles/myth.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/101/101toc.html

i tried to keep an open mind, but it didn't last long. they're claiming there was no central policy to kill jews (there was, it's documented) and that there were no execution gas chambers (sup, freely given confessions), and that six million is far too high a number (sup, population!)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

why? even if in the specific case it makes a negative contribution?

I think the point is that in the general formula you've got for working out for if something is good/bad you've got to include freedom as one of the variables.

So the news "Less people are being murdered this year compared to last" is a good thing, period. We don't need to say "And less people being murdered is a good thing because..." unless we're trying to appeal to some sort of self-interest model of ethics (which I'm not). However, some news like "a better type of seat belt has been invented" is only 'good' because it would lead to desirable consequences (less people dying in accidents).

But people dying isn't the only criteria for whether something is good or not. If ecstacy was legalised and the amount of people who died from it increased slightly I wouldn't necessarily consider the policy a failure, there are other factors.

I see what you're saying however. Yes, if I knew that banning a specific book would definitely 100% stop all murders then sure yeah I'd consider banning it - but those sorts of scenario's (like the one Nod ridiculed in the link I posted) are deliberately designed to come to extreme conclusions.

As I say, we're not robots and there's no need to design ethical systems so complicated that we never have to use judgement. There are always going to be exceptions. You might say "I'd never hit a woman", but what if you suddenly appeared in Austria, in 1888 and saw a pregnant Mrs Hitler standing in front of you, and you only had ten seconds before you died? Maybe a punch in the old stomach might not be such a bad thing. Does that mean you should go round saying "Well, yeah I'd hit a pregnant women given the right circumstances". Maybe. But personally I'm willing to cut people a bit of slack when they give absolute statements, I'm presuming there's a bunch of small print in the background.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by Cuddley_Battleship

It looks like most people here have a skewed view of these guys (and their opinions) being imprisoned thanks to the media.

You ever read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial ?
Or even heard about stuff like the Lipstadt affair?

Nevertheless this isnt a thread about the holocaust but about free speech. If you want to defend Zündel and others, please do it in a seperate thread.

The wikipedia link also contains sections refering to the free speech problem regarding the holocaust topic.

ps: yes i know your thread about Irving and Zuendel was closed - obviously most people thought it was too much of a duplicate of this thread which i find sad because completely different topics where thouched there and i would have liked to reply :O

[ComradeRob]

Free speech is essential because it is often the only means by which our assumptions can be challenged and falsified. Challenging and falsifying popularly-held opinions is always going to be unpopular (hence the temptation to ban it). However, it is not always (perhaps ever) possible to determine a priori which opinion is true. The expansion of human knowledge works by a process of falsifying incorrect beliefs and affirming correct ones in the face of challenge.

Holocaust denial is a case where we would be tempted to dismiss the deniers out-of-hand, because their views are "abhorrent". But abhorrent to whom? If the government takes the view that holocaust denial is wrong and shuts down the debate, it excludes the rest of us from the decision-making process. It gives the deniers the right to claim that their views are being suppressed - this is undeniable. Instead of the truth-affirming rejection of their views by society, we merely have a dissent-denying suppression by the state. Which is more desirable in a healthy society?

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Which is more desirable in a healthy society?

What kind of healthy society do you talk about? One which wouldnt ever lead to people mass killing other people anyway?

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

What kind of healthy society do you talk about? One which wouldnt ever lead to people mass killing other people anyway?

I'm suggesting that if we let governments take decisions about morality, we lose our own ability to decide on what is moral. If we trust the government to get it right every time, perhaps that's the right way to go. Personally, I don't trust the government that much. A healthy society is, in my view, one in which people take decisions (especially moral decisions) for themselves and do not rely on authority to tell them right from wrong.

That the holocaust was morally wrong should, nevertheless, be obvious to everyone. We require only the most basic principles of human rights to see this. I think we gain more from having our assumptions challenged and affirming our principles than we do from having contrary views censored out of existence.

Holocaust denial is certainly one of the most difficult cases for advocates of free speech to defend. But holocaust denial is, ultimately, absurd. Claiming that it didn't happen at all is a ridiculous position and is easily debunked by anyone in position of some basic facts and a suitable moral framework in which to judge those facts. The smaller claims, such as over the numbers of dead, are issues of historical debate but do not detract at all from the fact that the holocaust was morally wrong. Even if the holocaust had involved the dead of six thousand people instead of six million, it would have been morally wrong.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

What kind of healthy society do you talk about? One which wouldnt ever lead to people mass killing other people anyway?

The choice isn't between "having a holocaust" vs "not having a holocaust" though. Pretending these laws will definitely stop the holocaust, and that not having them will definitely lead to one is a dangerous over-simplification.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The choice isn't between "having a holocaust" vs "not having a holocaust" though. Pretending these laws will definitely stop the holocaust, and that not having them will definitely lead to one is a dangerous over-simplification.

I know and agree - thats not what i meant and i havent stated my personal opinion about the topic yet anyway

What i meant to point out is the inherent problem with any discussion about free speech in the real world - we dont have a fluffy rational society where everybody just wants peace and good luck to everybody else. There are people who are basically willing to do anything for their personal good and there are quite a few people who are either not capable of understanding some things, arent willing to go to the length of understanding certain things or are simply taking the easy road of not questioning a ideology which gives them severe benefits above their current life. To a certain amount i can even understand to 2 of those 3 groups.

On a purely theoretical discussion about perfect societies it wouldnt be difficult to vote for radical/absolute free speech, but this thread is about the real world with real world restrictions and atrocities which are btw. pretty common in history and not completely unlikely events. My comment was just to avoid the discussion drifting away into a purely theoretical debate detached from the real world.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

I know and agree - thats not what i meant and i havent stated my personal opinion about the topic yet anyway .

Well please do. While I am interested in how the legal system operates in Germany (or elsewhere) I am more interested in what people think should happen. I can go read a few text books if I want to know the ins and outs of the German legal system.

And we don't need to talk about perfect societies - politics is (or should be) what we want given the circumstances (i.e. an "imperfect" world).

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

and 5 years for beeing a shit "historian", Vermillion.

I don't even understand what that means, though I gather it was supposed to be insulting...

Clarify?

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

In re Zhukov: paedophiles are not banned from working in schools.

People who are even accused (ie that the police has charged them with) or convicted of beeing involved in child molesting in any form or way, is prohibited from working with children in Norway.

Vermillion:
Irving should also get 5 years extra for beeing a shitty "historian", and therefor giving the disipline bad reputation.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Vermillion:
Irving should also get 5 years extra for beeing a shitty "historian", and therefor giving the disipline bad reputation.

I agree entirely. Lots of reasons why the man should spend a long time in a small cell.

Originally Posted by Cuddley_Battleship

Read through it, keep an open mind. You may be surprised.

Here's a preview.
What does Holocaust Revisionism claim?
it does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;
it does not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights;
it does not deny that Jews were deported;
it does not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos;
it does not deny the existence of concentration camps;
it does not deny the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps;
it does not deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons;
it does not deny that other minorities were also persecuted such as gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and political dissenters;
and finally, it does not deny that all the above mentioned things were unjust.

And here comes Cuddley_Battleship to defend the holocaust deniers.

Holocaust deniers also do not deny that the sun rises in the East every morning. What they do deny, is the Holocaust. Before I bother spending any further valuable time addressing this, did you actually have a point here?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Irving should also get 5 years extra for beeing a shitty "historian", and therefor giving the disipline bad reputation.

I know we all like to make extreme half-serious comments on the internet (like "that album was so bad the song writer should be killed") but do you honestly believe that someone who is a shitty historian deserves to go to prison for it? Is that the sort of world you'd honestly like to live in?

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yes, we should attack the fascists. But *we* are not the state.

Certainly. But I want to use the ban to discredit nazism and to build a popular front (like Dmitrov and Mao wrote about) against nazism, fascism and racism.

Zhukov, what has this got to do with the thread? We are talking about a specific legal restriction on denial of the holocaust.

Yes, nazi'ism is bad. Is that the point you wanted to make?

Yes fascism needs to be fought (often physically). But that is completely different from putting a rather pathetic academic in prison for writing some terribly written books that most of these thugs you mention have probably never read.

When nazism are allowed to spread its propaganda, it usually leads to more nazists and more violence. NSDAP wasnt just a mob of brown-shirted young men who assaulted jews and political opponents in the streets. They were also a conventional political party in form, handing out leaflets on the streets, arranging mass meetings, having youth organisations and so forth.

Notice how BNP have started wearing suits? It is becouse they want to gain legitimacy, and you dont get that when standing in the streets wearing army boots and bomber jackets. Revisjonism plays its part in the nazi quest for legitimacy. Thats why David Irving is loved by nazis, just browse some nazi webpages. He might not be a legitimate source, but how many percent of the population knows that? People like Irving gives nazist a shin of intelectual legitimicy, which they use as much as they can.

It is not possible to seperate speach from action. And I dont feel that nazism is destroyed in Europe, the last years have seen growing nazi activity in countries like Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Russia and the UK.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I know we all like to make extreme half-serious comments on the internet (like "that album was so bad the song writer should be killed") but do you honestly believe that someone who is a shitty historian deserves to go to prison for it? Is that the sort of world you'd honestly like to live in?

No, but just admit it would have been cool. Preferbly forcing him to eat his own books while in prision.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

People who are even accused (ie that the police has charged them with) or convicted of beeing involved in child molesting in any form or way, is prohibited from working with children in Norway.

The same is true in England.

However there is no ban on Paedophiles working in schools.

[G.K Zhukov]

Call it ban on peados who have been cought then.
Semantics are so interesting.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Call it ban on peados who have been cought then.
Semantics are so interesting.

Semantics from your political view point perhaps.

From mine it is a distinction of the most fundamental importance. If there were ever a ban on paedophiles working in schools I would oppose it. vehemently.

I didn't correct your mistake because I expected you to understand. I corrected your mistake because I consider the matter to be an incredibly important one.

[s|k]

Cuddley_Battleship, why? Are you serious or are you trolling? I can't tell anymore.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by s|k

If we willfully ignore voices for arbitrary, personal, or any other non rational purposes we are not reasoning at all.

It is perfectly rational to censor lies. Holocaust denial is not an 'idea' it is an incorrect factual statement. A lie.

Originally Posted by s|k

It all leads to arbitrary decision making, and that always leads to selfish choices,

this is not at all clear.

Originally Posted by s|k

and that leads to bad governance, abuse of power, violation of rights, destruction of dignity, and all sorts of other things many of us despise.

"death desolation ruin and decay"...

perhaps you should be less emotive when trying to understand other points of view.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Semantics from your political view point perhaps.

From mine it is a distinction of the most fundamental importance. If there were ever a ban on paedophiles working in schools I would oppose it. vehemently.

I didn't correct your mistake because I expected you to understand. I corrected your mistake because I consider the matter to be an incredibly important one.

So you seperate between peados and peados who act out they're sexuality?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

So you seperate between peados and peados who act out they're sexuality?

There's quite a large difference between thinking about a crime and actually doing it.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There's quite a large difference between thinking about a crime and actually doing it.

QFT

You might be surprised how relative large numbers of paedophiles there are. The number of those who actually end up in newsstories is a tiny small fraction from the best knowledge we have. I have read estimates between 1% and 5% of the population - i guess it also depends a lot on where exactly you draw the line.

If you where to ban people for just thinking about forbidden things, i assume 99.9% of us would sit in a jail for murder

[G.K Zhukov]

Might have something to do with the fact that most peados who act out, doesnt get cought?

But hey, lets forget about reality and lets employ them at the kindergartens and school!!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

So you seperate between peados and peados who act out they're sexuality?

Are you honestly saying you've never had any sexual thoughts whatsoever about someone below the age of consent? When you hit 16 (or 18 not sure about norway) did you suddenly find yourself disgusted at any thoughts about girls a few months younger than you? Don't be ridiculous, of course there's a difference between thinking about something and acting on it.


I know let's just ban anyone accused of being a paedophile from teaching in schools. I hereby accuse the people who made the five posts before this one and after it of being a paedophile.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Might have something to do with the fact that most peados who act out, doesnt get cought?

But hey, lets forget about reality and lets employ them at the kindergartens and school!!

we do employ them at schools.

there's even an argument that they might make more dedicated, caring and attentive teachers and child carers.

Paedophiles probably have very little choice over their sexual feelings. for reasons society considers nececessary we impose an age of sexual consent. people who's sexual interest falls below that arbitrary line and never the less obey the law are to my mind positively heroic.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

we do employ them at schools.

there's even an argument that they might make more dedicated, caring and attentive teachers and child carers.

Paedophiles probably have very little choice over their sexual feelings. for reasons society considers nececessary we impose an age of sexual consent. people who's sexual interest falls below that arbitrary line and never the less obey the law are to my mind positively heroic.

You would say that paedo



















Sorry, stopping now

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

I agree entirely. Lots of reasons why the man should spend a long time in a small cell.

We should burn his books too.

Nice to see that a comittment to freedom of expression is alive and well within the academic world.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

We should burn his books too.
Nice to see that a comittment to freedom of expression is alive and well within the academic world.

I like how you made two completely dissimilar things look kindof the same there in order to turn it into an insult. And the book burning comment, made as if it was somehow a logical extension of something I said and then condemned as if I had said it myself, that was equally neat.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

I like how you made two completely dissimilar things look kindof the same there in order to turn it into an insult. And the book burning comment, made as if it was somehow a logical extension of something I said and then condemned as if I had said it myself, that was equally neat.

In all fairness it's not that illogical to say that supporting someone being locked up for writing something generally implies that you'd support their books being banned. Presumably burning them we would be a solid way of removing them from the public but I suppose we could lock them all up in a big dungeon if you're anti-arson. And quite frankly nobody should ever be anti-arson. If it wasn't for arson we wouldn't have people making insanely repetitive comments about fiddling while rome burns whenever they encounter someone being indecisive and feel like being ultra mega super witty all to be squared.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

In all fairness it's not that illogical to say that supporting someone being locked up for writing something generally implies that you'd support their books being banned. Presumably burning them we would be a solid way of removing them.

I think it is illogical to think so.

one can (austria it seems does) criminalise people for actively spreading a factual untruth.

it does not (to my mind) follow that the books in which those untruths were written should be burnt. the author (in austria at least) is himself criminalised.

criminal law exists to punish a citizen for committing or doing things which the state considers unacceptable. Austria, as a sovereign state, believes it necessary to punish david irving. but it does not follow that there is a reason to burn david irvings books.

We must (at least try) to have some basic grip on reality here.

banning books would be just as wrong as burning them.

I know of no state in the EU that bans books written about holocaust denial. (or bans any other books)

Austria (and some others) choose (as is there right and we should assume they have good reason) to punish the authors of lies.

the books containing these lies are not banned. They certainly aren't burnt.

Punishing an author for writing lies is not the same as supressing those lies. (if you go to austria you will find no difficulty in getting hold of a copy of Mr irving's lies (book). There is certainly no ban on any book in Austria).

One author is being punished for spreading lies. that is all.

EDIT: I expect I could have explained this distinction at the very beginning of this very silly (yes dante dear: silly) thread. I explain my failure to do so on behalf of my perverse curiosity. I was curious to see the depths the rest of you would sink to.

AND SO my dear Dante the answer to your question:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

the general question 'should there be a criminal punishment for those who deny the holocaust'.

is:
Publishing a denial of the holocaust is criminal in Austria. because Austria (and even you will accept that the Austrian government knows more about Austria than you). In Britain such publication is not illegal.
Speaking a denial of the holocaust is not illegal anywhere.

Freedom of speech has never been in question.

(Yes my dear dante. I let you walk right into this one. still a puncturing of your ego can do no one any harm now can it?)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Publishing a denial of the holocaust is criminal in Austria. because Austria (and even you will accept that the Austrian government knows more about Austria than you). In Britain such publication is not illegal.

Because Austria what...?

Your general line seems to be that we can't really condemn another governments actions because they know more about their country than we do, or "we should assume they have good reason" which is pretty strange. No-one is doubting Austria's sovereignty, or saying we should bomb them or give them a regime change or anything of the sort. Under the logic of "they know more about their country than we do" (which is undoubtedly true) it'd be pretty difficult to discuss any policy (in a critical way) of a foriegn nation. Should we not criticise the Americans for having the death penalty? After all, I'm sure they have their reasons...

Speaking a denial of the holocaust is not illegal anywhere.

Freedom of speech has never been in question.

Oh, don't be so foolish. When someone says "freedom of speech" it's generally safe to assume they're extending that beyond mere spoken pronouncements. The opening post of this thread is pretty clear it's talking about expression beyond speech. If someone says "Banning someone from writing that is an attack on free speech" then it's quite clear what they mean and "lol it's not speech - hahaha owned!" is not really an appropriate response. So to take a couple of random examples the Wikipedia article on 'freedom of speech' contains stuff on censorship of the press. The preamble to the UN Declaration of Human Rights references speech (but later uses the terms opinion & expression). In general use, unless there's reason to, I'd assume expression and speech were interchangable (in this sort of context)

But anyway, I'm curious that you find that banning an author from writing a book somehow acceptable (but not banning books) but hey each to his own. You will have to realise that many people value freedoms that people can write books (or make spoken pronouncements, or whatever) which contain what the state considers "lies". This is for a number of reasons already discussed.

(Yes my dear dante. I let you walk right into this one.

I laughed out loud at this. I imagined you said it in a Bond-villain-esque fashion. Or maybe the bad guy from Inspector Gadget, whose name temporarily escapes me.

[Yahwe]

i'll delay replying until we are both sober.

if you excuse me (then I excuse your reply)

[Dante Hicks]

Sadly I am sober. I have work in two hours.

On the upside I am doing OK at Risk online which everyone should play : http://www.dominategame.com

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I think it is illogical to think so.

one can (austria it seems does) criminalise people for actively spreading a factual untruth.

it does not (to my mind) follow that the books in which those untruths were written should be burnt. the author (in austria at least) is himself criminalised.

criminal law exists to punish a citizen for committing or doing things which the state considers unacceptable. Austria, as a sovereign state, believes it necessary to punish david irving. but it does not follow that there is a reason to burn david irvings books.

We must (at least try) to have some basic grip on reality here.

banning books would be just as wrong as burning them.

I know of no state in the EU that bans books written about holocaust denial. (or bans any other books)

Austria (and some others) choose (as is there right and we should assume they have good reason) to punish the authors of lies.

the books containing these lies are not banned. They certainly aren't burnt.

Punishing an author for writing lies is not the same as supressing those lies. (if you go to austria you will find no difficulty in getting hold of a copy of Mr irving's lies (book). There is certainly no ban on any book in Austria).

One author is being punished for spreading lies. that is all.

What a bizzare stance. Hay guys we'll punish you for selling drugs but if we find some drugs lying on the side of the street we'll just leave them there for people to do what they want with them!

[Opi]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I know of no state in the EU that bans books written about holocaust denial. (or bans any other books)

Actually, there is a list of books(and films/games/music) that you are not allowed to sell/distribute or buy. Possession of these items is allowed(except maybe for large quantities that hint on plans for distribution).
This includes some books about race/racism and terrorism/RAF(e.g. Anarchist Cookbook).

Mein Kampf cannot be sold because the Bavarian federal government holds the copyright and won´t allow it.


In my opinion, society (atleast in Germany) is strong enough to deal with "the Nazi threat". Banning political parties and publications only gives them some form of acknowledgement, as some people already said.

[Ramihyn]

I admit im baffled.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I know of no state in the EU that bans books written about holocaust denial. (or bans any other books)

Austria (and some others) choose (as is there right and we should assume they have good reason) to punish the authors of lies.

the books containing these lies are not banned. They certainly aren't burnt.

Thats wrong - in germany there have been several confiscations for media been ordered by courts. I only know a incomplete list of them (it can be hard - up to impossible to get this info due to recent changes in law) but i see over 40 confiscations of books and there are several based on §130 which fall under the categorie of holocaust denial books.

Media which is confiscated technically goes into a storage room at the police (Asservatenkammer) and later (in these cases) will be destroyed. For CD/DVD Media this seems to be done by crushing them - for books i dont know how they are technically destroyed.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Punishing an author for writing lies is not the same as supressing those lies. (if you go to austria you will find no difficulty in getting hold of a copy of Mr irving's lies (book). There is certainly no ban on any book in Austria).

I seriously doubt that. I know nearly nothing about austrian law, but in germany one of the main things the police is looking for during swoops on nazi organisations are printings, tapes and insignia.

Actually due to recent law developments it might be illegal for a german civil person to even review what Zuendel or Irving say. During the last 2 years one federal state started sending out notes to ISPs to block access to certain illegal sites like those from Zuendel/Irving because they couldnt take them from the net by order (and yes, they try that and surprisingly often foreign ISPs seem to follow their "request"). The responsible german agency recently stated in a report how many foreign sites they where able to close down.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Speaking a denial of the holocaust is not illegal anywhere.

Freedom of speech has never been in question.

§ 130 of the german StgB is about "incitement of the people / sedition" and §130 (3) states that anybody who approves, denies or belittles acts done by the nazi regime publicly or during a meeting which are capable of disturbing public peace, can be punished by up to 5 years of prison or a fine. §130 (3) covers speech while the other sections cover any other type of distribution by media including the internet.

Agents from government agencies seem to be regularly participating in (public) meetings of nazi groups and listen closely to what they preach there. Once they go to court to forbid an organisation, these infos are presented. This can lead to "hilarious" unwanted results like during the last time this happened where during the trial it was revealed that a significant number of high ranked persons in the party actually where spies from different government agencies not knowing of each other.

No - this thread isnt silly. Im not linking some info anymore because beeing german, this could get me in trouble. Stuff like others wrote in this thread can definately get you in front of a court in germany.

ps: even defence lawyers get convicted if they do it during a trial - http://www.jurawelt.com/gerichtsurteile/9154

[Marilyn Manson]

Zhukov's rather quaint idea that banning holocaust denial and Nazi-related organisations/materials results in less anti-semetism and the like is perhaps undermined a tad by the fact that Austrians are probably the most anti-semitic people in western Europe, (I am not making this up - look at some polling data on Austrian opinion regarding Jews) and that individuals such as Jorg Haider have relatively successful political careers there.

Whatever else these kinds of laws do, they certainly don't reduce sympathy or suppport for the far-right. Banning everything that even sniffs of jackboot polish would be undenially successful in totally excluding Neo-Nazis from the political process, but it's effect of public opinion is uncertain and could potentially be extremley dangerous, which is probably all that counts for your average Jew in the street. So unless it looks like Combat 18 are going to have a parliamentary majority at the next election, I don't really see what political case there is for a mass-ban of these kinds of groups and the ideas they foster.

Attempts at censorship/limitations on freedom of speech are not only immoral, they're also usually politically retarded as well. If you wanted to give people unmerrited attention and an increase in their public support, then banning them or what they have to say would be the first thing you'd do. Just look at Ake Green.

[G.K Zhukov]

Thanks alot MM.

Next time, try to read what I wrote, ok?

Then I will bother giving you a real reply. Same goes for dante and johnny.