Orfamay: I said it was difficult at times. I did not say I wouldn't. See, the price of such laws is that other opinions do not get voiced. Say that a new batch of documentation was found about the Holocaust. Something that seriously put in question the official narrative in a big way. How would you deal with that, if you were the one to find it, given that criticism of the official narrative is illegal? If you DID publish it, what would the state do? If you do publish it, what do you say to people the next time an Irving or a Williamson starts bleating? It is a dangerous game to play. We can't ever be sure that everything we claim IS true, and the price of it being false is very high.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we have less to worry about from non government morons believing erroneous things than government morons that can enforce what the right thing is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, how does a large entity like a government sort out malfeasance from mere stupidity?Are you familiar with the david Irving Trial?
When it became obvious during the trial that the weight of factual evidence was strongly against the historical accuracy of Irving's claims, one of his last, desperate cards to play was the "it was mere stupidity and not malfeasance" argument. So it's directly relevant to the question you asked -- how does the decider-of-fact distinguish the two?
I don't think it does. This assumes that the preponderance of the evidence is in fact enough to overcome the delusion and stupidity. I've seen too many fox news enthusiasts to think that this is the case.
No, it simply assumes that reason and evidence, collectively applied in good faith, through due process of law, are an acceptably accurate way of making decisions.
There are quite a few safeguards in place to make sure that the decisions of courts are not unduly influenced by prejudice, delusion, and stupidity. In the case of the Irving trial, for example, it was decided that it would be a bench trial long before the trial itself happened -- the reasoning being that the amount of detail to be presented would be too much for a typical juror to handle. This decision was argued by both sides, a preliminary decision was taken (by a judge) and if the decision had been made wrongly (in the opinion of one of the sides) it would have been subject to appeal and possible reversal.
If you think that your trial cannot be fairly tried before a bunch of mouth-breathing Fox news enthusiasts, you can similarly ask for a change of venue (a request that is routinely made and routinely granted if you actually have a reason). If you can't get a bench trial and you can't get a change of venue, you still have a chance to remove obviously biased jurors through the jury selection process.
If you really don't think that any safeguards will provide you with the level of fairness you expect, you're basically rejecting the rule of law at all. And at this point, it doesn't matter what your paper rights are, since you've rejected the only agency capable of enforcing those rights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we have less to worry about from non government morons believing erroneous things than government morons that can enforce what the right thing is.
Where do you think the government morons get their power?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay: I said it was difficult at times. I did not say I wouldn't. See, the price of such laws is that other opinions do not get voiced. Say that a new batch of documentation was found about the Holocaust. Something that seriously put in question the official narrative in a big way. How would you deal with that, if you were the one to find it, given that criticism of the official narrative is illegal?
Criticism of the official narrative is not illegal. That's one of the big misunderstandings that you have.
Criticism of the official narrative has been ongoing for a long time. Just as a simple example, most historians now consider that the number of Holocaust victims is closer to 5.5 million than to 6 million, largely as a result of continued historical inquiry into the Holocaust.
What Irving and Williamson do, however, is not criticism of the official narrative. They're telling long-discredited lies for the purpose of inciting racial hatred and rehabilitating the Nazi regime. And under German law, this matters, because this is one of the elements behind Holocaust denial.
Here's the (translation of the) text of the relevant German law, courtesy of Wikipedia:
Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.
Read that carefully. In order to fall under that law, I need to address "an act committed under the rule of National Socialism." If I can prove to the satisfaction of the court that a specific act which was previously believed to have been committed under the rule of National Socialism was, in fact, an Act of God, then I have simultaneously proven myself innocent of the charge (because the act that I denied was, in fact, not committed under the rule of National Socialism). The truth of what I claim matters.
Since this is a criminal matter, I would even get the benefit under German law of "reasonable doubt." (The term is English, but Germany has roughly the same standard.) I'd therefore only need to establish a credible scholarly case for my theory. But it would need to be a credible scholarly case. This is something that Irving and his fellow-travellers have completely failed to do, and the judge is within his rights to take judicial notice of the huge amount of published scholarship on the subject.
So I'd be faced with the extremely onerous task of addressing the past seventy years of scholarship on the subject and dealing with it in a professional and even-handed manner. But presumably my ability and willingness to do that is something else you're granting as part of your hypothesis.
If you DID publish it, what would the state do?
Probably invite me to deliver a plenary at the annual meeting of the German Historical Society. There are literally millions of Germans that would welcome this kind of evidence-based reanalysis.
If you do publish it, what do you say to people the next time an Irving or a Williamson starts bleating?
The same thing I say today, and for the same reasons, backed by the same evidence. Irving isn't a liar because he found a new batch of documentation; he's a liar because he misrepresents the same old batch of documentation even when he's been corrected repeatedly on it.
We can't ever be sure that everything we claim IS true, and the price of it being false is very high.
No, but we can know that everything we claim is false, and refrain from saying those things we know to be false. We can similarly demand that other people refrain from saying specific things that we know to be false if enough people agree that those things are also harmful.
There is none. just as there is none in many made up religions, many foolish philosophies. Just like there is no value in many idiot politically correct attempts to control our lives. But who are we to stop them from saying it? After all if we stop them why not stop every value less, foolish and maybe dangerous opinion? Again i ask, where do you stop? I say stop at the government EVER having the power to silence. YOU know they are nuts, most of us know they are nuts. Teach those that do not know the difference but do not give the government the power to decide and silence. NOTHING good will come of that in the endAnd thats the beauty of it, will you sit silently when someone says your views are lies? Who decides the truth of belief and opinion and who gets the right to silence the other? What you advocate is nothing less than giving tyrants what they NEED for the next Hitler or Stalin to rise and silence those that dare question. THAT is how millions die, not in disagreement over opinion but in silence as people dare NOT question.Ok so nazis deserve no freedom of speech because they might be dangerous. So where does that end?If I make sausage filled with rat poison and toxic waste, can I market it as "fresh, wholesome, 100% organically-grown pork sausage with no fillers"? After all, you have no right to take away my freedom of speech. I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech, but even I stop when it becomes outright lying.The German law doesn't silence dissent and questioning. It silences propaganda intended to cover up massive crimes.
Why are you in favor of propaganda covering up massive crimes?
If you think it isn't propaganda, please feel free to show the value in Holocaust denial.
This kind of speech has directly contributed to a massive world war, where millions and millions of people died.
Are you denying that fact?
Orfamay: I said it was difficult at times. I did not say I wouldn't. See, the price of such laws is that other opinions do not get voiced. Say that a new batch of documentation was found about the Holocaust. Something that seriously put in question the official narrative in a big way. How would you deal with that, if you were the one to find it, given that criticism of the official narrative is illegal? If you DID publish it, what would the state do? If you do publish it, what do you say to people the next time an Irving or a Williamson starts bleating? It is a dangerous game to play. We can't ever be sure that everything we claim IS true, and the price of it being false is very high.
You're talking about a hypothetical.
The law is dealing with actual events that have transpired.
Should I put more weight behind your hypothetical? Or should I put more weight that this kind of speech has directly contributed to the slaying of millions of people in cold blood?
In other words, why is your hypothetical more important than the actual Holocaust?
Orfamay: I said it was difficult at times. I did not say I wouldn't. See, the price of such laws is that other opinions do not get voiced. Say that a new batch of documentation was found about the Holocaust. Something that seriously put in question the official narrative in a big way. How would you deal with that, if you were the one to find it, given that criticism of the official narrative is illegal?
Further to previous. Are you familiar with the German historian Götz Aly? He basically did what you're describing in 1999, restructuring the official narrative not as a top-down plan from Hitler to kill the Jews, but as a bottom-up populist undertaking, arguing that the entire Nazi leadership had nothing to do with the initiation of the Holocaust.
That's a significant chunk of what Irving would like to do, actually. Irving spent much of Hitler's War arguing that Hitler had nothing to do with any of the Jewish deaths and was actually trying to restrain his subordinates from genocidal acts. I suspect that Irving would absolutely love to expiate not only Hitler but the entire Nazi party.
Aly was not prosecuted. Far from it -- he won the 2002 Heinrich Mann Prize. And the Bundesverdienstkreuz in 2007. And the 2012 Ludwig Börne Prize.
What's the difference?
I should also add that I disagree with Aly's interpretation, although I'm hardly an expert on his theories. I think the evidence from Göbbel's diaries and from works like Mein Kampf is pretty compelling that Hitler had been planning the Holocaust for a long time, probably since the 20s. Lots of other historians, in and out of Germany, disagree with Aly as well.
But no one's suggested criminal prosecution for Holocaust denial. He's a scholar, not a Nazi apologist. And the government can tell the difference.
I think we have less to worry about from non government morons believing erroneous things than government morons that can enforce what the right thing is.
Where do you think the government morons get their power?
Out of the barrel of a gun largely.
No, it simply assumes that reason and evidence, collectively applied in good faith, through due process of law, are an acceptably accurate way of making decisions.
And that those in charge are acting in good faith, and that they will continue to act in good faith in the future.
There are quite a few safeguards in place to make sure that the decisions of courts are not unduly influenced by prejudice, delusion, and stupidity.
Make something idiot proof and they will make a better idiot..
In the case of the Irving trial, for example, it was decided that it would be a bench trial long before the trial itself happened -- the reasoning being that the amount of detail to be presented would be too much for a typical juror to handle.
So the check on the governments power to stifle free speech is... the government?
I am REAALLY not ok with this.
If you think that your trial cannot be fairly tried before a bunch of mouth-breathing Fox news enthusiasts
You missed that point completely. Let me try again.
All evidence in the world points to A
Person is spouting Belief Not A.
Therefore person A is lying, and can be charged with fraud.
The problem is that people, by and large, are NOT rational. Just because all the evidence points to A, and someone spouts not A, doesn't mean that they're deliberately fraudulent. There is a very real chance that they actually believe Not A. I would call it insanity, but thats a hard word to use when most of the human race does it.
Easy example: using the exact same standard shouldn't you be arresting every priest in the country for fraud?
you can similarly ask for a change of venue (a request that is routinely made and routinely granted if you actually have a reason). If you can't get a bench trial and you can't get a change of venue, you still have a chance to remove obviously biased jurors through the jury selection process.
The mere burden of a trial itself is enough to stifle free speech. I would rather deal with the yahoos.
If you really don't think that any safeguards will provide you with the level of fairness you expect, you're basically rejecting the rule of law at all.
What I want is the least amount of imposition on an individuals freedom as can be managed. I have never seen giving the government the power to stifle speech end well. Experimentally, it seems to be a bad idea and very little harm seems to come from the whackos.
And at this point, it doesn't matter what your paper rights are, since you've rejected the only agency capable of enforcing those rights.
If you put the paper rights at C you can only get to C. if you put the paper rights at Z you're more likely to get to R at least.
]It's amazing they waste so much time and money persuading people to vote for them then. Why not just rely on the guns, if that's where the power comes from?
$682.0 billion on "defense".
..$2.5 billion on the election.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this silly debate about free speech. It's really simple...just ask yourself one thing: Is it money? If so, then it's speech. Wasn't that easy? :P
Silly man, if money=speech then the loon down on State Street on a soap box rambling on ad nauseum about the end of the world would be a millionaire.
Though, now that I think about it, he does look like Donald Trump...
Silly man, if money=speech then the loon down on State Street on a soap box rambling on ad nauseum about the end of the world would be a millionaire.
Though, now that I think about it, he does look like Donald Trump...
Don't be silly, that skinned new york city rat he's wearing for a toupee is WAY better than what Trump has.
I should also add that I disagree with Aly's interpretation, although I'm hardly an expert on his theories. I think the evidence from Göbbel's diaries and from works like Mein Kampf is pretty compelling that Hitler had been planning the Holocaust for a long time, probably since the 20s. Lots of other historians, in and out of Germany, disagree with Aly as well.
But no one's suggested criminal prosecution for Holocaust denial. He's a scholar, not a Nazi apologist. And the government can tell the difference.
I have great respect for Germany and its people. I approve of much of their legal structure. It is quite possible that they, of all people, can handle this responsibility. At least, right now and as they are. Now, would it be a good thing in Italy as well? Bulgaria? Seems to me that that would be a bit different. As has been mentioned, there are other laws like this, including a french one about Armenian genocide. It is not guaranteed to be a good idea, is it?
Edit: They had one until... what do you know? It was struck down in 2012 for being a threat to free speech by the Constitutional Court... How odd. Here is arguably the most reason-heavy legal entity in France, saying that the state CAN NOT handle this responsibility. How odd, if such laws are not a problem...
|
Orfamay: I said it was difficult at times. I did not say I wouldn't. See, the price of such laws is that other opinions do not get voiced. Say that a new batch of documentation was found about the Holocaust. Something that seriously put in question the official narrative in a big way. How would you deal with that, if you were the one to find it, given that criticism of the official narrative is illegal? If you DID publish it, what would the state do? If you do publish it, what do you say to people the next time an Irving or a Williamson starts bleating? It is a dangerous game to play. We can't ever be sure that everything we claim IS true, and the price of it being false is very high.
A mind of reason.
It's kind of ironic, but as an anarchist I agree with nearly everything Orfamay Quest and Kirth Gersen is writing.
Feels kinda weird.
|
Just to chime in once more. One of the (I think more important) reasons for the law in question was the scale of the Nazi propaganda, the number of people involved in the crimes and lessons learned from the history not learned from WWI.
- It was not some tiny minority of the German population that was on the Nazis side. Through various means of lies, deception, seduction agitations and promises of reclaiming a place in history lost during the last war, the Nazi party brought a majority of the German people on its side.
- The Nazis focused much of their propaganda work on the younger generations. From schools to youth organizations they promised young people power over their lives and a chance to do different and better then the older generations (again, combined with falsehoods over the causes and rsults of WWI), delivering a promise to put the young, strong people into power.
- The success of the Nazis made it literally impossible to bring every Nazi or even every war criminal to justice at the end of WWII, at least without depopulating Germany. The fact that the US already started to see the beginning of a new era of conflict between the western states and the Sowiet Union set up a certain pressure to stabilize a new Germany of 'western' making as a possible ally or at least a buffer zone.
- Now you had teachers who were members of the Nazi party, sometimes guilty of herding their pupils into war, sometimes guilty of crimes during the war. You had young men (and sometimes women) who commited horrible crimes during the last monts of the war, incited by the passionate propaganda of Hitler and Goebbles about a 'last stand' that made use of the strange believes in blood, honor, strength and fatherland, or better the Nazis own version of these beliefs, planted during their time in Nazi youth organizations. You had people still telling tall tales about their time in the army, the heroic soldiers etc.
- With a population still that much under the influence of Nazi propaganda, it would have been easiest (and sadly sometimes still was) to ignore the own responsibility, never speaking about Nazi crimes, never speaking about the wrongdoings of the Wehrmacht. Many teachers and Politicians did try to deny that some of the greater crimes like the holocaust happened, decrying them as part of the winner nations opressed and demonized by the victors, with a younger generation not knowing about the true extend of their parends and grandparents faults and thus ripe for the taking for another Führer whipping them into action against those opressors.
The law in question was part of the plan to keep this from happening.
|
|
Yes, as a clarification / reformation of the basic rights and of the criminal law against incitement of the people fo 1951 / reformed and clarified 1960 after a couple of hate crimes against Jewish citizens. A law outlawing holocaust denial wasn't ratified in 1960 because the court wanted to avoid singling out the Jewish people even by privilege.
Until 1985 Holocause denial was persecuted either as incitement of the people or as libel, depending on the case. The law from 1985 was a reform more or less in union with israel who passed a similar law in 1986.
Oh, also, about that "the fascists of the future will call themselves antifascists" which referred to american patriots?
Looks like Long was right on that.
The US wants to give weapons to these guys.
Without reading the entire thread:
Holocaust denial is not an opinion. It happened, we have eye witnesses and tons of evidence. There have been testimonials from both captives and captors, as well as those working among the nazis trying to sabotage their efforts and "uninvolved" third parties. The holocaust is indisputable fact and the only way denying it is not an outright lie is arguing from complete ignorance. (or denying the entirety of reality)
--------
I am as opposed to the nazi ideology as you can get without falling into other extremes but that doesn't mean i condone the censorship that is going on against it. I think invalid and harmful ideologies need to be exposed to the public as what they are, harmful and stupid. Not shut out left to grow in the dark while everyone pretends it doesn't exist. Nazis should be allowed to speak their opinions and use their symbolisms publically (which currently they aren't) because denying their free speech is no better than how they denied others' free speech and is just as harmful.
Holocaust denial is just outright fabricating a false history, which should not be accepted in public speech. But again it should be met with the truth and superior arguments, not with legal consequences.
Freedom of speech here in Germany isn't in a terrible state, it's still one of the better countries concerning that but there is a lot of room for improvement yet.
Can a doctor lie to his patients? For example, selling sugar pulls to "cure" cancer, which he knows are ineffective. Not allowing him to do so is a restriction on his free speech.
Would it be okay to yell fire/bomb/anthrax in a crowded sports arena, with the intent to cause panic? You're potentially putting multiple people's lives at risk. Restricting that is a limit on free speech.
How about imploring others to kill people? Not just using violent imagery, but out and out calls for violence. Calls for violence with the intent to spark actual violence. Restricting that is a limit on free speech.
Here's another one, should we protect speech where a political party attempts to whip a nation in an ethnic fervor killing 6 million people of a minority? This one isn't hypothetical. It actually happened and it's been referenced this entire thread.
Nazism and apologetics for Nazism are dangerous. I consider them harmful to the well-being of many people and therefore do not think they should be protected. Just like committing fraud with intent to harm, denying the Holocaust with intent to harm shouldn't be protected.
Now that's an important piece of the puzzle though. It isn't just repeating the concept that is dangerous. It's doing so in a way that promotes doing harm to others that is dangerous. There ARE people who are trying to revive the Nazi party, specifically with the intent of killing millions of ethnic minorities. That should not be protected speech.
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone brings up a 30 year old law to support a Slippery Slope Fallacy...
And Fails.
Meanwhile Libertarians and Holocaust deniers find themselves in cahoots.
...Shocking I know...
That nutshell in a nutshell:
People think Freedom of Speech makes their opinions equal to facts. (or as Asimov said: democracy makes their ignorance equal to intelligence)
It doesn't.
Excuse me? Libertarians and Holocaust deniers in cahoots? Where? You're not actually saying that since libertarians tend to be critical of laws forbidding various types of speech, they are Holocaust deniers since the Holocaust deniers also want to get rid of one type of law preventing their nazi b&*##$#@ speech, are you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread in a nutshell:
Or: Germany created these laws because they know they have a very low Will Save vs. National Socialism?
However, being critical of the Holocaust, means that possibly the stories have been embellished and that a thorough investigation must be done to find out what had actually happened. This means looking at Nazi records to see what they say.So you're saying in essence, the primary decider of guilt should be the accused?
That's probably what he's saying, yes.
However, that's not necessarily how what he says should be interpreted. Just as the primary decider of guilt should not be the accused, it shouldn't be the prosecutor or the victim, either.
That's why trials are set up as they are, to permit disinterested people a chance to look at all the relevant evidence. Not to look at the Nazi records would be as dishonest as not to look at the victims' records.
Bearing in mind that records can be lost, can be destroyed, can be forged, and can even be misinterpreted, sifting through these records is a major undertaking requiring a high degree of professional skill.
Fortunately, that's basically a historian's job description, and they've been working on this problem for more than 60 years. The idea that the Nazi records have somehow not been examined is ludicrous.
Excuse me? Libertarians and Holocaust deniers in cahoots? Where? You're not actually saying that since libertarians tend to be critical of laws forbidding various types of speech, they are Holocaust deniers since the Holocaust deniers also want to get rid of one type of law preventing their nazi b@+%@@#+ speech, are you?
I didn't say anything so tautological as Libertarian Holocaust deniers and Holocaust deniers are in cahoots. But this:
Libertarians and Holocaust deniers in cahoots? Where? You're not actually saying that since libertarians tend to be critical of laws forbidding various types of speech, and since the Holocaust deniers also want to get rid of one type of law preventing their nazi b@+%@@#+ speech, THEY'RE IN CAHOOTS are you?
Yes, I am.
BUT, while I'm here...
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...
There's still active membership in the Flat Earth Society. People can be willfully stupid.
There's still active membership in the Flat Earth Society. People can be willfully stupid.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...
Don't mistake stupidity for malice. This can be a bad mistake in either direction.
Most Holocaust deniers are not particularly stupid(*). What drives them is malignancy, prejudice, and hate.
(*) Well, actually, yes, they are. But only because malignant, prejudiced, and hateful people tend to be stupid.
If I make sausage filled with rat poison and toxic waste, can I market it as "fresh, wholesome, 100% organically-grown pork sausage with no fillers"? After all, you have no right to take away my freedom of speech. I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech, but even I stop when it becomes outright lying.
Since the above would almost certainly be recognized as commercial speech, which doesn't have full First Amendment protection to begin with, nothing need be "taken away" when you are prohibited from this particular instance of outright lying.
But only because malignant, prejudiced, and hateful people tend to be stupid.
Kind of being hard on the forums, don't you think?
But only because malignant, prejudiced, and hateful people tend to be stupid.Kind of being hard on the forums, don't you think?
Not really. Malignant, prejudiced, and hateful people tend to be stupid. That doesn't mean that stupid people tend to be malignant, prejudiced, and hateful.
All cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats. Quite the contrary.
I'm a kitty!
A hairless breed like the sphynx, judging from your avatar....
|
|
Excuse me? Libertarians and Holocaust deniers in cahoots? Where? You're not actually saying that since libertarians tend to be critical of laws forbidding various types of speech, they are Holocaust deniers since the Holocaust deniers also want to get rid of one type of law preventing their nazi b@~!*@#! speech, are you?
Some think rights are a gift to give to those they want to have them, not indeed rights. They are those that would gladly bend a knee for a dictator to end freedoms as long as he is one like themselves.
i disagree with restricting freedom of speech because that is the first step in losing freedoms as a whole. I would rather hear awful opinions than risk us being allowed no opinions at all.
Reasonable restrictions on actions and speech are necessary for public order, and I'm not taking about a regimented society here, I'm using "order" deliberately as the alternative to chaos.
A man's right to freely swing his fist ends at the tip of my nose.
A hairless breed like the sphynx, judging from your avatar....
MEOW!
Something I've been noticing in this thread that I believe is a misconception, is the idea that Libertarians support unfettered free speech.
This is only correct to a certain degree. Typically, it is argued that while you have the right to say controversial things, you do not have the right to de-fraud people. Namely, because libertarianism holds to three basic fundamental human rights: the right to one's life, property and liberty.
And since de-frauding someone is a form of theft of property, I don't see the Libertarian position as defending a doctor who sells his patients "sugar pills" and claim they're the cure for cancer as someone used as an example of above.
To the OP's thread, the issue is rather complexing. While I do think we should protect the freedom of speech everywhere, even when idiots try to deny something irrefutable, the fact that someone would try to sell falsehoods as truth is technically a form of fraud. (I am of course, skimming over a million caveats to this point, for the convenience of word space)
Which is why I almost think it is a judicial issue moreso than a legislative one. I have to admit I know nothing of Germany's laws or its judicial system. Just wanted to give a paleo-conservative's perspective.
Finally, while I see that many are speaking passionately to defend the truth regarding an abysmal mark on the face of human history, please dont paint with broad strokes. Just becasue some Libertarians are in cahoots with holocaust deniars (still scratching my head on that one) or show idiotic behavior; it doesn't mean we are all like that... :P