Ignorance of the accepted truth now a crime


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
The Exchange

your beliefs will now be determined by the state


No, and no. It's a YD twofer.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

No. He can believe what he wants - publicly denying the holocaust is the crime, not believing it didn't happen.

The Exchange

So you can have an opinion the crime is in sharing it....


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no "now" about it. Holocaust denial's been a crime in Germany for a long time.
They're a little sensitive about, for obvious reasons.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
So you can have an opinion the crime is in sharing it....

Specifically, it is this one opinion. The reasons for the laws in question can easily be found in German history. The law is meant to prevent people from marginalizing the crimes of Nazi Germany (especially teachers, politicians et.al.) and from publicly belitteling the fate of those who lost friends and family in the holocaust, adding mockery to the pain that has been wrecking the life of more then one generation. It also prevented teachers that were themselfs part of the so called 'Tätergeneration' (Offender-generation) to bury the responsibility of their generation, thus making the accounting of the past mandatory.

You may not agree with this, but there are reasons for this specific case of criminalizing a public opinion.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
feytharn wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So you can have an opinion the crime is in sharing it....

Specifically, it is this one opinion. The reasons for the laws in question can easily be found in German history. The law is meant to prevent people from marginalizing the crimes of Nazi Germany (especially teachers, politicians et.al.) and from publicly belitteling the fate of those who lost friends and family in the holocaust, adding mockery to the pain that has been wrecking the life of more then one generation. It also prevented teachers that were themselfs part of the so called 'Tätergeneration' (Offender-generation) to bury the responsibility of their generation, thus making the accounting of the past mandatory.

You may not agree with this, but there are reasons for this specific case of criminalizing a public opinion.

They have no first amendment there so that is for them to decide

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, but basic rights are parts of the German constitution

The first nine articles cover the relevant parts:
I. Basic Rights
Article 1 [Human dignity]

(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
Article 2 [Personal freedoms]

(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.

(2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.
Article 3 [Equality before the law]

(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.

(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.

(3) No person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavored because of disability.
Article 4 [Freedom of faith, conscience, and creed]

(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.

(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.

(3) No person shall be compelled against his conscience to render military service involving the use of arms. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.
Article 5 [Freedom of expression]

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.

(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.
Article 6 [Marriage and the family; children born outside of marriage]

(1) Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the state.

(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty.

(3) Children may be separated from their families against the will of their parents or guardians only pursuant to a law, and only if the parents or guardians fail in their duties or the children are otherwise in danger of serious neglect.

(4) Every mother shall be entitled to the protection and care of the community.

(5) Children born outside of marriage shall be provided by legislation with the same opportunities for physical and mental development and for their position in society as are enjoyed by those born within marriage.
Article 7 [School education[

(1) The entire school system shall be under the supervision of the state.

(2) Parents and guardians shall have the right to decide whether children shall receive religious instruction.

(3) Religious instruction shall form part of the regular curriculum in state schools, with the exception of non-denominational schools. Without prejudice to the state’s right of supervision, religious instruction shall be given in accordance with the tenets of the religious community concerned. Teachers may not be obliged against their will to give religious instruction.

(4) The right to establish private schools shall be guaranteed. Private schools that serve as alternatives to state schools shall require the approval of the State and shall be subject to the laws of the Länder. Such approval shall be given when private schools are not inferior to the state schools in terms of their educational aims, their facilities, or the professional training of their teaching staff, and when segregation of pupils according to the means of their parents will not be encouraged thereby. Approval shall be withheld if the economic and legal position of the teaching staff is not adequately assured.

(5) A private elementary school shall be approved only if the educational authority finds that it serves a special pedagogical interest or if, on the application of parents or guardians, it is to be established as a denominational or interdenominational school or as a school based on a particular philosophy and no state elementary school of that type exists in the municipality.

(6) Preparatory schools shall remain abolished.
Article 8 [Freedom of assembly]

(1) All Germans shall have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without prior notification or permission.

(2) In the case of outdoor assemblies, this right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law.
Article 9 [Freedom of association]

(1) All Germans shall have the right to form corporations and other associations.

(2) Associations whose aims or activities contravene the criminal laws, or that are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding, shall be prohibited.

(3) The right to form associations to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions shall be guaranteed to every individual and to every occupation or profession. Agreements that restrict or seek to impair this right shall be null and void; measures directed to this end shall be unlawful. Measures taken pursuant to Article 12a, to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 35, to paragraph (4) of Article 87a, or to Article 91 may not be directed against industrial disputes engaged in by associations within the meaning of the first sentence of this paragraph in order to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions.

The German constitution does protect free speech, but not an unconditional freedom of speech. (note: I am not saying this is for the better or worse, I am just pointing this out for the better understanding in the context of this topic for readers that may not be aquainted with the German constitution).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
feytharn wrote:
The German constitution does protect free speech, but not an unconditional freedom of speech.

Which hardly makes them unique in the world. The US Constitution, just to pick one example among many, does protect free speech, but not an unconditional freedom of speech.

Oddly enough, the Australian Constitution does not protect free speech. Suggesting that YD might once again have grabbed the wrong end of the stick here.


Andrew R wrote:
So you can have an opinion the crime is in sharing it....

Pretty much the same as the US, in fact. You can have an opinion, but if you express it in a way that is likely to result in a breach of the peace, you can be arrested and punished for it.

I can't think of any jurisdiction that does not have penalties against breach of the peace.

The Exchange

Given its against the law to deny that nazis killed six million Jews, the degree of accuracy for that number to be a nice factual round number is impressive. If they admit it is an estimate then their legitimacy fails.


yellowdingo wrote:
Given its against the law to deny that nazis killed six million Jews, the degree of accuracy for that number to be a nice factual round number is impressive. If they admit it is an estimate then their legitimacy fails.

Nope. You have no idea of what the law actually is, do you?


Did you really just learn of this law, YD?

The Exchange

Not being German, I wasnt overly concerned by it...but you dont have to be German. You can be in a bunker in the usa blogging it never happened and a German judge can find you guilty because his kids read your blog.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
Not being German, I wasnt overly concerned by it...but you dont have to be German. You can be in a bunker in the usa blogging it never happened and a German judge can find you guilty because his kids read your blog.

I'd be interested to know what you consider to be the relevant case law on the subject. I suspect that the highlighted clause is not, in fact, any more accurate than any of your other opinions.

Liberty's Edge

The holocaust cannot be factually denied. While no one can state the exact number of jews killed by the nazis, the probability is that the number was actually closer to eight million than to six million. Hundreds of thousands were killed by nazi extermination groups during the nazi assault in the soviet union. Even the efficient german bureacracy couldn't account for them all. It should also be noted that jews were not the only victims singled out. Gypsies, homosexuals, political opponents, and the handicapped were also exterminated by the thousands.

Liberty's Edge

Did you actually read the article Dingo?

He was in Germany when the interview was conducted.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
your beliefs will now be determined by the state

You know, while I actually believe that this is an acceptable law in Germany, it seems that a similar - yet even more restrictive law - is going to be passed in Israel. The law would state that - notice well - comparing anyone to Hitler, or the actions of someone to those of Nazi soldiers or something similar - will be a crime. In parallel to this, the minister of Education is working hard to ensure that the freedom to have any meaningful discussion about the holocaust other than the national narrative would be strictly forbidden from teachers.

This really concerns me.

Liberty's Edge

I don't know, outlawing reducto ad Hitlarium doesn't sound so bad.


from Wikipedia....

Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. § 130(3) of the StGB (German penal code) reads:

He who, publicly or in assembly, approves, denies, or trivializes genocide committed under the regime of National Socialism in a way that is suitable to disturb the public peace, is subject to imprisonment up to 5 years or a monetary fine.[16]

Perpetrators of Holocaust denial can be tried in absentia and declared persona non grata, thus being barred from entering the country. Extradition treaties as relate to Holocaust denial are subject to political asylum pleas, but a persona non grata who enters Germany can be immediately arrested. Furthermore, a German arrest warrant based on the offense of Holocaust denial is deemed executable in many EU states, thus, a Holocaust denier's entry into any EU state could lead to arrest and extradition to Germany (or any other state where such denial is an offense, such as Austria, and which has issued an arrest warrant).

Among those who have been charged with Holocaust denial in Germany are the following:

David Irving, who was declared persona non grata and has not returned to Germany;
Germar Rudolf, who was sentenced to prison but fled jurisdiction; he was deported from the United States in 2005;
Ernst Zündel, received a five year prison sentence on February 15, 2007 in Germany,
Frederick Toben, an Australian citizen, who had an appointment with a German public prosecutor in Mannheim with whom he wanted to discuss Holocaust denial; at the end of the conversation with the prosecutor, Toben was presented an arrest warrant which the prosecutor had already obtained beforehand. A German court sentenced him to a prison sentence of ten months.


The thing is, it's a pissy thing to make criticism of important things illegal. Just as it is bad policy to make certain political parties illegal. It's something that must be very carefully monitored, and of course, it never is. The most probable result of these specific laws is going to be that racist organizations can point to this for recruitment purposes.


feytharn wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So you can have an opinion the crime is in sharing it....

Specifically, it is this one opinion. The reasons for the laws in question can easily be found in German history. The law is meant to prevent people from marginalizing the crimes of Nazi Germany (especially teachers, politicians et.al.) and from publicly belitteling the fate of those who lost friends and family in the holocaust, adding mockery to the pain that has been wrecking the life of more then one generation. It also prevented teachers that were themselfs part of the so called 'Tätergeneration' (Offender-generation) to bury the responsibility of their generation, thus making the accounting of the past mandatory.

You may not agree with this, but there are reasons for this specific case of criminalizing a public opinion.

This is also not an _opinion_. It is an incorrect statement of fact. Of course, there are opinions that are also illegal to state publicly - both in the US and Germany (for example laws about inciting riots etc) - but holocaust denial isn't an opinion, it is a lie spread by nazis.

Sissyl wrote:
The thing is, it's a pissy thing to make criticism of important things illegal. Just as it is bad policy to make certain political parties illegal. It's something that must be very carefully monitored, and of course, it never is. The most probable result of these specific laws is going to be that racist organizations can point to this for recruitment purposes.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, there's several parts to it:

1. First of, criticism isn't illegal. Trivializing or denying is.
2. Second, it directly hurts people who were persecuted in the nazi regime - in this regard, it is much like hate speech law, and the statements are usually made in hate speech-like circumstances (neonazi rallies etc).
3. Third, I'm critical of this idea because it or similar ideas are put forward all the time whenever something by law or general public behaviour is restricted, and in the cases where this leads to unrestricting it, it tends to get worse. Not just about laws but about public acceptance in general. For a local perspective, as I know you're a Swede, consider:
A. Alcohol law; when we had the bratt system, people claimed it made alcohol more interesting and that it encouraged people to buy their whole allowance even if they otherwise wouldn't. So they got rid of the bratt system, and alcohol-related crime and health issues increased by 30% basically overnight.
B. How neonazis have fared at different places and times in modern Sweden. Where the neonazis (SMR, SvP, BSS, old SD) and pseudofascists (modern SD) have been treated with "well if we silence them or treat them harshly they'll use that as a recruitment strategy", they have gained a lot of support because they can spread their vile propaganda. And they can still use the "anti-establishment" and "we are being politically persecuted" even when they are as far from that as possible (prime example being modern SD). Meanwhile, in the areas where they have been met with anti-fascist sabotage, vandalism, and sometimes violence, they have not been able to establish themselves locally. Whether one agrees with anti-fascist sabotage and violence or not, it clearly shows that being "accepting of different viewpoints" works far worse in preventing neonazi organizing than considering it completely unacceptable and taking measures against it.
C. It's easy to show it works the other way around too. Consider all the homophobes and other crappy people that want to ban organizations such as RFSL. If RFSL were banned, or everywhere met with the violence they meet at some places right now, would that make more people organize themselves in RFSL because they could use it as a recruitment strategy? I'm very, very skeptical of that.

That said, I'm wary of giving direct power over this to the state, and would much rather prefer that the state aided groups that sought to combat stuff like neonazis (including holocaust deniers), since the state often seem to be both incompetent and power-hungry, and ultimately will always aid those in power over those without power. And since the upper class has everything to earn on just the right amount of racism to splinter the working class and keep focus from themselves, I do not ever trust the state to keep fascists away. Because when the s!!~ hits the fan, the state won't have any issues supporting the same people spouting holocaust denial rethoric - the state of Germany still cooperates and is one of the heaviest voices in the EU, which support the neo-nazi coup in ukraine and indirectly aid Golden Dawn and other nazi organizations around Europe.


Sissyl wrote:
The thing is, it's a pissy thing to make criticism of important things illegal. Just as it is bad policy to make certain political parties illegal. It's something that must be very carefully monitored, and of course, it never is.

Of course it is. It's blasted across news channels, picked up by blogs, weighed by policymakers, argued in courts, debated on RPG forums, etc., etc.

The fact that you have given your opinion on it, so far removed from it as you and I are, means it is being very well monitored, indeed.

That's what a free press is for.

As to the case in point, well... Hitler, dude. Nazis. I am not for "thought crime" ordinarily, but I understand this. In the end, most of us lost relatives of only a generation or two distant, to immediate family, to those a-holes. Some of us happen to know who we lost, some remain blissfully ignorant, but believe me - we lost people. We still live with this evil to some extent. I think it makes some sense, that in Germany there be some safeguard to make sure this is not forgotten, or relegated to myth. I don't think this is the perfect way, but I get the intent. It's not to force you to buy some party line - quite the opposite: it's to make sure the party line never rules over rationality and truth - and never KILLS - again.

The Exchange

Krensky wrote:

Did you actually read the article Dingo?

He was in Germany when the interview was conducted.

For an article broadcast in Sweden. frankly they need consensus of the populace regarding all acts of government, law, constitution. If they had this in Germany in 1900 there would be no nazis.


Yeah. Good luck getting the consensus of the populace to "losing the Great War."

Sometime circumstances force governments to take unpopular acts.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

From the article: "But the actual interview took place in the southern city of Regensburg and it is illegal in Germany to deny the Nazis murdered six million Jews during World War II."

Now I personally am for more free speech than less, so the law annoys me, but given this man's colourful history... he shouldn't be surprised.

The Exchange

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So you can have an opinion the crime is in sharing it....

Pretty much the same as the US, in fact. You can have an opinion, but if you express it in a way that is likely to result in a breach of the peace, you can be arrested and punished for it.

I can't think of any jurisdiction that does not have penalties against breach of the peace.

By that standard you have NO freedom of speech if others might act like animals if they hear it. That means no freedoms based on others actions, so your freedoms are truly non-existant


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If the two choices are unrestricted freedom of speech or none at all, then, yes, you have none at all.

Fortunately, only Libertarian idiots seems to have only two choices.

The Exchange

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Yeah. Good luck getting the consensus of the populace to "losing the Great War."

Sometime circumstances force governments to take unpopular acts.

When the few who govern the many do as they wish againts the expectations of the many, thats called tyranny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Yeah. Good luck getting the consensus of the populace to "losing the Great War."

Sometime circumstances force governments to take unpopular acts.

When the few who govern the many do as they wish againts the expectations of the many, thats called tyranny.

By that definition, every government is a tyranny. Governments are always few, and there are always many that disagree with what the government does.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Yeah. Good luck getting the consensus of the populace to "losing the Great War."

Sometime circumstances force governments to take unpopular acts.

When the few who govern the many do as they wish againts the expectations of the many, thats called tyranny.

Er,.... no.

The "expectations" of both sides heading into the Great War was a short victorious war. "Home by Christmas" was the usual phrase in August 1914. Also on both sides it was quite a popular war; a populist like you would have insisted that war had to happen, by public demand.

The problem is that it's literally not possible for both sides to win the war, so someone's "expectation" was doomed to be dashed.

I assure you that the German government didn't "wish" to lose the war, but circumstances forced it upon them. And it's precisely lunatics like yourself, who insisted that the the "tyrannical" government had "betrayed" them that brought the Nazis to power.

I'm serious, YD. Shut the hell up. Your political philosophies have literally killed millions of people. Between Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, there seems to be literally no ideologue promising a better world that you won't support. There seems to be no amount of damage you are unwilling to inflict upon the world in order to achieve a literally impossible golden age that exists somewhere in your bong water, and nowhere else in the multiverse. You are dangerous to yourself and others.


Vod Canockers wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Yeah. Good luck getting the consensus of the populace to "losing the Great War."

Sometime circumstances force governments to take unpopular acts.

When the few who govern the many do as they wish againts the expectations of the many, thats called tyranny.
By that definition, every government is a tyranny. Governments are always few, and there are always many that disagree with what the government does.

Yeah, it's worse than that. He's saying that when governments do anything unexpected -- not just unpopular -- they become tyrannical. A natural disaster strikes, against the expectations of the many, and only a "tyrannical" government is allowed even to notice and respond, because otherwise it's doing something the masses didn't expect.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Yeah. Good luck getting the consensus of the populace to "losing the Great War."

Sometime circumstances force governments to take unpopular acts.

When the few who govern the many do as they wish againts the expectations of the many, thats called tyranny.
By that definition, every government is a tyranny. Governments are always few, and there are always many that disagree with what the government does.
Yeah, it's worse than that. He's saying that when governments do anything unexpected -- not just unpopular -- they become tyrannical. A natural disaster strikes, against the expectations of the many, and only a "tyrannical" government is allowed even to notice and respond, because otherwise it's doing something the masses didn't expect.

I don't know. I expect the government to respond to natural disasters. I think many other people do as well.


thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Yeah, it's worse than that. He's saying that when governments do anything unexpected -- not just unpopular -- they become tyrannical. A natural disaster strikes, against the expectations of the many, and only a "tyrannical" government is allowed even to notice and respond, because otherwise it's doing something the masses didn't expect.

I don't know. I expect the government to respond to natural disasters. I think many other people do as well.

That's because you're not yellowdingo, and therefore are presumptively not crazier than a rhinocerous on bad acid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Yeah, it's worse than that. He's saying that when governments do anything unexpected -- not just unpopular -- they become tyrannical. A natural disaster strikes, against the expectations of the many, and only a "tyrannical" government is allowed even to notice and respond, because otherwise it's doing something the masses didn't expect.
I don't know. I expect the government to respond to natural disasters. I think many other people do as well.
That's because you're not yellowdingo, and therefore are presumptively not crazier than a rhinocerous on bad acid.

If you realize that then don't take him so seriously. He's not advocating any kind of serious political philosophy. He's advocating random weird crap and you're taking it seriously.

It's like analyzing the Monster Raving Loony Party's platform.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

If you realize that then don't take him so seriously. He's not advocating any kind of serious political philosophy. He's advocating random weird crap and you're taking it seriously.

It's like analyzing the Monster Raving Loony Party's platform.

The problem is that there are a lot of lunatics on this forum and there are also a lot of young people who may not realize just how harmful his random weird crap is. I knew too many Randroid Libertarians in college (most of whom have now, thank goodness, realized just how self-destructive Libertarianism is) not to fight nonsense. I've seen too many cities' budgets destroyed by populist revolts, and I don't want that to happen to any of the towns near me.

Here's something from an article in today's New York Times:

Quote:


Take, for example, Americans age 25 to 34, the leading edge of the so-called millennials, the generation born in the 1980s and 1990s. They are worse off than Gen Xers (born from the mid-1960s to the late-1970s) were at that age and the baby boomers before them by nearly every economic measure — employment, income, student loan indebtedness, mobility, homeownership and other hallmarks of “household formation,” like moving out on their own, getting married and having children.

This group had the bad luck of entering the work force in the depressed and slow-growth years that started when the recession hit in 2007. Instead of spending the crucial early years of their work lives laying the groundwork for a solid economic future, many of them have struggled with unemployment and underemployment, and many have fallen so far behind where they would hope to be that recovering lost ground may well be impossible.

That's not an accident. That's the expected result of the policy decisions taken by the Federal Government, largely at the behest of the Tea Party lunatics who rode a wave of populism into office and then proceeded to prevent any sort of effective anti-recession measures from being enacted. Nobel Laureate Krugman, for example, predicted on January 8, 2009, that the then-proposed stimulus "falls well short of what’s needed," due to "political caution" and "fear of debt."

Krugman's blog, January 6, 2009 wrote:


I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”

Pretty much exactly as it turned out.

The effects are also pretty much as one would predict:

New York Times wrote:


Evidence and experience from before the recession show that starting one’s work life in a poor economy can translate into lower earnings and less career attainment over a lifetime.

How many millions of people have been negatively affected from stupid "random weird crap" that people consider to be a serious political philosophy?

Stupidity, especially deliberate stupidity, is not merely harmless and amusing. It seriously f--ks up people's lives.

Silver Crusade

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
The holocaust cannot be factually denied. While no one can state the exact number of jews killed by the nazis, the probability is that the number was actually closer to eight million than to six million. Hundreds of thousands were killed by nazi extermination groups during the nazi assault in the soviet union. Even the efficient german bureacracy couldn't account for them all. It should also be noted that jews were not the only victims singled out. Gypsies, homosexuals, political opponents, and the handicapped were also exterminated by the thousands.

I actually checked out the other side of this story. All I can say is that the winners write History, and the losers do not. Finding out Objective history has to come from an impartial source that observes what has happened and can give an account of what has happened.

This is one of the reasons why I have hope in the Glorious Coming of Jesus Christ, so that our screwed up Historical Record can have all the propaganda and politics taken out of it. The Historical Record is one of political opinion, which is why Alexander the Great is seen as a great hero in Europe, but as a devil in Southwest Asia (except for Indians, the people of India may have a different opinion of the man).

The other side of this story is simple. There are people who checked the Architectural plans of Austwich and found that the stories don't add up. This does not mean that atrocities were not committed at Austwich, but it does mean that things can get embellished. Criticizing the Holocaust after 70 years is what should be done. It's been too long and people have a right to voice dissenting opinions so we can have a revelation of the Truth through honest debate and honest inquiry.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Elton wrote:


The other side of this story is simple.

... and wrong.

Quote:
There are people who checked the Architectural plans of Austwich and found that the stories don't add up.

There are. It's a pity that the people who have done this (and come to this conclusion) are uniformly unqualified to do any checking on this or to form any opinions on this matter at all.

I never realized that you were a Holocaust denier, Elton.

Quote:


The Historical Record is one of political opinion,

Nope. No amount of political opinion trumps physical evidence, I'm afraid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing good will come of this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Nothing good will come of this thread.

It's chaotic neutral.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

Pretty much the same as the US, in fact. You can have an opinion, but if you express it in a way that is likely to result in a breach of the peace, you can be arrested and punished for it.

I can't think of any jurisdiction that does not have penalties against breach of the peace.

Saying something like this is a "breach of the peace" seems to be stretching things to a ridiculous degree though, and seems like a pretty slippery and dangerous path to go down in my opinion. It's a pretty shaky line of thought to me.

Just because somebody wants to be a complete idiot, ignore reality, or have a very unpopular opinion doesn't constitute comparing that to things that create a purposeful and imminent harm to other people like screaming fire in a crowded public place when there is none or whipping up a mob into a frenzy and then ordering them to hurt somebody.

As well meaning as this is I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than simply rationalizing a government banning an opinion one doesn't like. Once that road is gone down one has to wonder in the future what else could be someday added to the list of banned subjects or added to the list of things that must be said because others find them "right". After all one thing is banned why not others?

As bad as it is I think it's better to allow people the freedom to have opinions and thought that involve hate, ignorance, and stupidity than to face the future repercussions of trying to eliminate that freedom because most feel those things are wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drock11 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Pretty much the same as the US, in fact. You can have an opinion, but if you express it in a way that is likely to result in a breach of the peace, you can be arrested and punished for it.

I can't think of any jurisdiction that does not have penalties against breach of the peace.

Saying something like this is a "breach of the peace" seems to be stretching things to a ridiculous degree though, and seems like a pretty slippery and dangerous path to go down in my opinion.

That's your opinion. It happens not to be an opinion shared by much of central and western Europe, many of whom have a much more personal stake in the Nazi atrocities and their aftermath, and accordingly are much less likely to respond in what you would consider a calm and rational manner.

Basically, you can say Well, I should be able to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, as a rational human being will not panic and injure anyone. However, regardless of your personal opinion about what the law should allow, the law is fairly clear about what it does allow, and your opinion doesn't enter into it. And the people responsible for creating, adjusting, and enforcing the law tend not to share your opinion, which means that the law will continue to follow their opinions, not yours.

Quote:


Just because somebody wants to be a complete idiot, ignore reality, or have a very unpopular opinion doesn't constitute comparing that to things that create a purposeful and imminent harm to other people like screaming fire in a crowded public place when there is none or whipping up a mob into a frenzy and then ordering them to hurt somebody.

In your opinion. In the opinion of the people actually affected by the Nazis, you're wrong. Bearing in mind that the Nazi atrocities started with a legitimate political movement, the Germans are deeply concerned that no such movement ever again is permitted to get traction.

Basically, your argument amounts to "expression of Nazi beliefs is not likely to result in a breach of the peace." Empirically, you are wrong. That experiment was done in the first half of the 20th century; I can point you to some published work describing the outcome of that experiment. While you may be perfectly comfortable replicating that experiment to see if the same outcome occurs, the people actually involved by the first experiment and who would be directly affected by the replication are unwilling to allow you to conduct it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Stuff

So, everyone who sees the world differently is a "lunatic"? You have 100% of the answers, no one else can be right?

Nah, they're not crazy, you're just "right".


houstonderek wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Stuff
So, everyone who sees the world differently is a "lunatic"?

Nope, but thanks for playing. Not even everyone who is wrong is a lunatic. But lunatics almost by definition see the world differently (and wrongly to boot)....

Quote:
You have 100% of the answers, no one else can be right?

Lots of people can be right. Some unfortunates can't be, and many more choose not to be.


I am opposed to laws like this because I believe it is wrong, and detrimental to society, to allow those in power to determine which opinions are allowed to be expressed or not. A commonly used example is the Westboro church's actions. I find them morally repugnant, offensive to all common decency, and inaccurate. However, I am glad that it is legal for them to behave so. Now, placing select limitations on it, such as prohibiting them from protesting during the actual funeral service, is fine.

Freedom to believe without freedom to act on that belief is not freedom of belief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still don't understand WHY there are holocaust deniers...
I mean you have places, pictures, trials, witnesses, books, records, and pretty much everything you need to say "yup, this happened."
-It's like denying gravity...

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Did you actually read the article Dingo?

He was in Germany when the interview was conducted.

For an article broadcast in Sweden. frankly they need consensus of the populace regarding all acts of government, law, constitution. If they had this in Germany in 1900 there would be no nazis.

So that's "No".

You also failed modern history too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drock11 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Pretty much the same as the US, in fact. You can have an opinion, but if you express it in a way that is likely to result in a breach of the peace, you can be arrested and punished for it.

I can't think of any jurisdiction that does not have penalties against breach of the peace.

Saying something like this is a "breach of the peace" seems to be stretching things to a ridiculous degree though, and seems like a pretty slippery and dangerous path to go down in my opinion. It's a pretty shaky line of thought to me.

Just because somebody wants to be a complete idiot, ignore reality, or have a very unpopular opinion doesn't constitute comparing that to things that create a purposeful and imminent harm to other people like screaming fire in a crowded public place when there is none or whipping up a mob into a frenzy and then ordering them to hurt somebody.

As well meaning as this is I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than simply rationalizing a government banning an opinion one doesn't like. Once that road is gone down one has to wonder in the future what else could be someday added to the list of banned subjects or added to the list of things that must be said because others find them "right". After all one thing is banned why not others?

As bad as it is I think it's better to allow people the freedom to have opinions and thought that involve hate, ignorance, and stupidity than to face the future repercussions of trying to eliminate that freedom because most feel those things are wrong.

Isn't this an almost textbook refutation of this kind of "slippery slope", "if the government can ban this, why not others"?

Germany has had laws banning Holocaust denial for around 30 years and yet still has a robust political debate. Going down that road hasn't led to widespread bans. In some ways the acceptable limits on political discourse are broader than in the US.

The US has in the past, despite our strict "Freedom of Speech", banned plenty of political speech.

There's no slippery slope here. It's quite possible to ban one thing and not go on to ban others. It's quite possible to have many things banned and then have those bans lifted. It's quite possible to have nothing banned and then move quickly to ban many thing.


thejeff wrote:
Isn't this an almost textbook refutation of this kind of "slippery slope", "if the government can ban this, why not others"?

Only to the reality-influenced contingent. Against the ideologues, nothing is a refutation.

The Exchange

Lloyd Jackson wrote:

I am opposed to laws like this because I believe it is wrong, and detrimental to society, to allow those in power to determine which opinions are allowed to be expressed or not. A commonly used example is the Westboro church's actions. I find them morally repugnant, offensive to all common decency, and inaccurate. However, I am glad that it is legal for them to behave so. Now, placing select limitations on it, such as prohibiting them from protesting during the actual funeral service, is fine.

Freedom to believe without freedom to act on that belief is not freedom of belief.

Or even say it. Then again some think that believing in liberty is madness, dangerous even. After all we must quietly follow our masters, they know what is best for us.

1 to 50 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Ignorance of the accepted truth now a crime All Messageboards