Holocaust denier jailed in Germany

[firebug]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

...

And so it is with neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. They're free to write and speak about whatever craziness they want; they haven't broken any just law until a Jewish person is physically harmed as a direct result of their actions.

I hope this means I can now share some of my 'free speech' with the women in my office, or that I see on the c-train, without any need to fear legal or civic reprisals... as long as I don't touch any of them it is all fair game right?

~Bug

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by firebug

I hope this means I can now share some of my 'free speech' with the women in my office, or that I see on the c-train, without any need to fear legal or civic reprisals... as long as I don't touch any of them it is all fair game right?

~Bug

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to harass individuals (or to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre).

I know the distinction might be hard for you to grasp, but there's a world of difference between publishing a work denying the Holocaust and personally threatening a Jewish person. The former is protected, the latter is not.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Looger

nope.

YOU'RE the one that thinks to side me 'with the neo-nazis', meanwhile i said in this thread that a goal of lionizing guys like zundel is to push the simple-minded into the arms of hate organizations.

someone's sure creating something around here...

And I think someone is pushing you the other way, which incidently...

IS INTO A HATE GROUP...

Why is your hate group better than mine?

BTW about your search of my database over CP. I swear, she told me she was 18! lol

I agree that was a cheap shot, but your not fighting with argument. Your making stuff up.

The funny thing is I've watched your tape and I like it (most of it, though it's self serveing for Alex, and a little overdone).

All I am saying is, your parnoia (or search for a greater enemy) has got you ignoring the real danger. Hate crimes.

This is not someone to fight over. If you really want to fight free speeach, there a many causes that are better, both in NA and the world. This is not a slippery slope, this is an incident. If you want your SS, there's many of them out there, But I disagree with this one. This is a hate crime.

He is not talking against a government, he is talking about a people.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to harass individuals (or to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre).

I know the distinction might be hard for you to grasp, but there's a world of difference between publishing a work denying the Holocaust and personally threatening a Jewish person. The former is protected, the latter is not.

Would it be harassment to a jewish person if someone told them that their grandparents were not really exterminated in a gas chamber?

My point is that in our society 'freedom of speech' does not exist. We have already decided that some things cannot be said (publically at least), so that fight is lost. Why then can a society not decide that what ernst zundell has been promoting is against the 'greater good' and be deemed illegal?

~bug

[MarchHare]

Would it be harassment to a jewish person if someone told them that their grandparents were not really exterminated in a gas chamber?

No.

It would be insensitive and outright wrong, but not harassment.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

No.

It would be insensitive and outright wrong, but not harassment.

Morally wrong but not harassment?

Curious.

Not saying I agree or disagree, but I'd like to see where this axiom leads.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Daradon

And I think someone is pushing you the other way, which incidently...

IS INTO A HATE GROUP...

Why is your hate group better than mine?

where am i 'in a hate group' for questioning what's going on when the FBI and the ADL have been caught RUNNING these hate groups?

why does that put me 'into' anything?

your logic here, is very flawed, and i can't believe you're accusing me of what i think you are.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

No.

It would be insensitive and outright wrong, but not harassment.

Because my comments to women (at work or on the train) would not be threatening, but rather about how much I like women, what specifically about them I like, how I like to display my appreciation, pleasurable activities I like to engage in with women.

That shouldn't be illegal either then, right?

~bug

[MarchHare]

Morally wrong but not harassment?

Curious.

Not saying I agree or disagree, but I'd like to see where this axiom leads.

I meant factually wrong, not morally wrong. (although I personally think it would be morally wrong too, there's no laws governing morals).

Because my comments to women (at work or on the train) would not be threatening, but rather about how much I like women, what specifically about them I like, how I like to display my appreciation, pleasurable activities I like to engage in with women.

That shouldn't be illegal either then, right?

Sexual harassment is considered threatening, even if you think you're being "complimentary".

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Looger

where am i 'in a hate group' for questioning what's going on when the FBI and the ADL have been caught RUNNING these hate groups?

why does that put me 'into' anything?

your logic here, is very flawed, and i can't believe you're accusing me of what i think you are.

you put me into a box, I was returning the favor.

I am saying, you defend a person accused of war crimes. You picked your side.

Fine.

I agree with your argument, I do not agree with your situation. I think it's been proven he not only spoke his mind, but laid information with which to hopefully incite against a group.

The funny thing is, even myself with all my 'liberal ways' would have agreed against a company or a government.

But he didn't. He provided hate propaganda against a race.

That's different.

That's the crime.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Daradon

you put me into a box, I was returning the favor.

I am saying, you defend a person accused of war crimes. You picked your side.

nope.

i do not in any way defend ernst zundel.

i defend his right to disagree.

he has not published anything calling for the deaths of others, has he? if he has, then i think some action is required - i'm not aware of his full body of work.

there are limits to free speech - anything DIRECTLY threatening, calling for deaths, yelling fire in a theatre, etc.

but i do not identify with or defend zundel himself, i defend our rights, which are eroding all the time because of the stink made of zundels everywhere, when they would simply fade into the obscurity and lonely little worlds they create for themselves if left to their own devices.

your continual misrepresentation of MY intentions is curious in this discussion, don't you think...?

[Daradon]

Ok, then your defending the speech of a war criminal.

Whether you think he was convicted in truth or not, you are doing that.

Instead of Devil's Advocate what do you think about the situation?

It's bad but he can do what he wants? Where does it stop? I asked this before.

Who has the real truth? Some say he was inciting. You obviously disagree.

What if a demonstration was led, on these hateful free speech values?

You talk about government incitement and collusion, but it's wrapping around to what our yown Alex called government incitement of Nazi propaganda.

Where do you sit? Free speech i get it, yes. But where is free speech no longer free? Where is it incitement and hate?

Call us all black sheep (fine) but where do you graze?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I agree that giving that giving these guys more attention just makes their cause look legitimate and worth taking note. Just wanted to clarify what you were saying. But if everyone would ignore him, it would go away much more easily than locking him up.

i'm saying that without hate organizations and without the undue attention given to them by our media, certain organizations would cease to have a reason to exist and get money from truly concerned citizens.

Originally Posted by Burninator

What are you insinuating with this statement? Elaborate please.

i'm insinuating that there is legislation being tabled that will hand over control of what is 'hate' to intentions that could not care aboot the people being 'protected', and seek to simply outlaw all kinds of things along with what most people would consider 'over the line'.

this isn't some 'grand conspiracy', this is the force behind police-state legislation in ALL countries at ALL times - always lurking beneath the surface and waiting for an excuse.

[Looger]

Daradon, i've made my positions abundantly clear in this thread, and you keep accusing me of all kinds of crap.

keep it to pm's please - this has gotten stupid.

[MarchHare]

Ok, then your defending the speech of a war criminal.

How is Zundel a war criminal? He was born in 1939...it's not like the Nazis had four-year olds staffing the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

I know your comments were directed at Looger, but I'm also going to reply to this. I've mentioned several times in this thread already that I disagree with Zundel's Holocaust-denial claims in the strongest possible terms. I am absolutely not defending his position. I am defending his right to express that belief, however erroneous it is.

What if a demonstration was led, on these hateful free speech values?

So long as their demonstration was without violence, he has the right to peaceful assembly.

where is free speech no longer free? Where is it incitement and hate?

Speech becomes incitement when violence or the threat of violence results directly because of one's words. Unless it can be demonstrably proven that the works Zundel published impaired the right of Jewish people to have safety and security of their persons, he's committed no crime. As Firefly pointed out earlier in this thread, nobody has yet to provide a link to a news story showing a direct connection between Zundel and crimes committed against Jews.

In the wake of 9/11, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said that America should invade Muslim nations, kill their leaders, and convert their populations to Christianity. That, to me, sounds much more like someone inciting violence against a particular race than an individual making the ridiculous claim that the Holocaust didn't happen. Yet most reasonable people simply laughed about how clueless Coulter was, and she wasn't charged with any "hate speech" crimes (namely because laws like that don't exist in the US, and rightfully so).

[Looger]

for fun google 'ann coulter adam's apple'...

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How is Zundel a war criminal? He was born in 1939...it's not like the Nazis had four-year olds staffing the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

I know your comments were directed at Looger, but I'm also going to reply to this. I've mentioned several times in this thread already that I disagree with Zundel's Holocaust-denial claims in the strongest possible terms. I am absolutely not defending his position. I am defending his right to express that belief, however erroneous it is.



So long as their demonstration was without violence, he has the right to peaceful assembly.



Speech becomes incitement when violence or the threat of violence results directly because of one's words. Unless it can be demonstrably proven that the works Zundel published impaired the right of Jewish people to have safety and security of their persons, he's committed no crime. As Firefly pointed out earlier in this thread, nobody has yet to provide a link to a news story showing a direct connection between Zundel and crimes committed against Jews.

In the wake of 9/11, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said that America should invade Muslim nations, kill their leaders, and convert their populations to Christianity. That, to me, sounds much more like someone inciting violence against a particular race than an individual making the ridiculous claim that the Holocaust didn't happen. Yet most reasonable people simply laughed about how clueless Coulter was, and she wasn't charged with any "hate speech" crimes (namely because laws like that don't exist in the US, and rightfully so).

I guess it's the burden of proof.

The article does say he was making material, but you are right, it does not say he incited violence. (or incited anything)

When is material wrong? We have laws against other material AND esp the areas you distribute it. Material against groups, material against content, material against public viewing...

I dunno, we're all looking for an answer one way or the other. It's very grey though.

I've contended all along I could be wrong. And the funny thing is I usually cry for freedom of speech. I just think this went beyond the bounds, and so did a few other courts.

I might be completely wrong.

But without an example we don't know if there was incitement or hate.

I guess innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately he WAS proven guilty.

So where is that example?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I've contended all along I could be wrong. And the funny thing is I usually cry for freedom of speech. I just think this went beyond the bounds, and so did a few other courts.

I might be completely wrong.

the irony of you stating this, in a thread in which you have accused me of siding with a war criminal, is stunning, and is endemic of the problems our society faces with issues such as these - that most would agree is at least a murky one.

it's fine for you to falsely accuse, but it's not ok for someone else? and then dance away from it?

here it is folks, the debate personified!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Looger

the irony of you stating this, in a thread in which you have accused me of siding with a war criminal, is stunning, and is endemic of the problems our society faces with issues such as these - that most would agree is at least a murky one.

it's fine for you to falsely accuse, but it's not ok for someone else? and then dance away from it?

here it is folks, the debate personified!

No it's you. I asked you in at least two posts to take a side and say what you believe in besides the altruisic 'freedom of speech'.

You dodged me at every bend and now because I make a stand and possibilily, you accuse me of waffling.

For a third and final time. What is your stance sir? And more importantly, after your altruistic hyperbole, where do you draw the line?

As much as you hate the politicians, you seem primed to be one. Pointing fingures but not offering any solutions except for slogans and hyperbole.

Drawing a fight then jumping in when it suits you while dodging your questions.

Where do you stand?

[Looger]

i drew the line at incitement to violence and calls to arms and 'fire' in the theater, several posts ago.

and i stated very clearly what 'side' i'm taking here - your efforts to paint me with your catchall neo-nazi brush fails once again, maybe someday you'll figure out this 'independent thought' business western society has been promoting for centuries...