jailed for denying the holocaust

[GepperRankins]

watching some thing on tv about this noob who got jailed for denying the holocaust in austria. wtf is that?

[JPaul]

It was about 1989, he made some speeches where he said it didn't happen. Chap was an author.

He now says that he accepts that the holocaust took place.

He got 3 years.

[vidcc]

I can't make up my mind as to what is more asinine, the inability to accept the holocaust happened, or the law that put this man behind bars.

[JPaul]

I can't make up my mind as to what is more asinine, the inability to accept the holocaust happened, or the law that put this man behind bars.
You think laws against this type of thing are utterly stupid, really.

[vidcc]

I can't make up my mind as to what is more asinine, the inability to accept the holocaust happened, or the law that put this man behind bars.
You think laws against this type of thing are utterly stupid, really.

You think people should be jailed for free speech, really

[Busyman]

What a dumb law.:ermm:

[j2k4]

You think laws against this type of thing are utterly stupid, really.

You think people should be jailed for free speech, really

I think people should be jailed for innovative stupidity, really.

Give them a microphone, by all means, but yeah...put 'em in jail.

[Skillian]

I have to agree, the law is pretty stupid.

[JPaul]

You think laws against this type of thing are utterly stupid, really.

You think people should be jailed for free speech, really
Yes, obviously.

I support Abu Hamza being jailed and I think Nick Fuckwit the head of the BNP should also be jailed for what he said (he's being re-tried apparently).

Free speech yes, consequences also yes. Society has a right to protect itself from hatemongers and those who would cause the suffering of others by their words and what their words lead to.

[Skillian]

In that case he should be jailed for inciting violence or some other crime. Jailing him for what he believes is as stupid as believing it in the first place.

[ilw]

hamza was jailed for incitement to commit murder which i think is fair enough. Griffin hasn't been jailed and is up for incitement to commit racial hatred, which is a bit more shaky imo and i suppose it is vaguely comparable to what irving did if he claimed the jews made up the holocaust for some purpose (I haven't really followed this story).
Just claiming the holocaust didn't happen wouldn't be a problem at all in this country would it?

[Skillian]

Which country?

After looking, it is apparently a crime in Austria, France, Germany, Israel, Belgium, Poland, Lithuania and Switzerland.

[JPaul]

It's illegal in Austria.

They are understandbly touchy about the subject and presumably did not wish the survivors and the relatives of those murdered to be put thro' any more than they had already suffered.

I think their rights outweigh his right to spout hate and bile.

EDIT - It was Austria.

He's also been fined in Germany, for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.

[GepperRankins]

I think their rights outweigh his right to spout hate and bile.


rights?

disagreed.


the guy is a cawk, but being jailed for saying something stupid is wrong IMO

[JPaul]

I think their rights outweigh his right to spout hate and bile.


rights?

disagreed.


the guy is a cawk, but being jailed for saying something stupid is wrong IMO
Agreed, it's an opinion thing.

I think if someone stands up in public and says certain things, then they should be jailed. I don't think that people can be allowed to say anything they want. Well they can, but society can say "no, that's beyond the pale" and do something about it.

[GepperRankins]

laughed and pointed at, ja.

jailing someone is no longer an *opinion thing, it's an infringement of his rights.


*opinion, as in my opinion verse his opinion, even if one opinion does contradict the facts

[vidcc]

Do you think it's ok for a christian to be jailed in a "non christain" country ?

[JPaul]

laughed and pointed at, ja.

jailing someone is no longer an *opinion thing, it's an infringement of his rights.


*opinion, as in my opinion verse his opinion, even if one opinion does contradict the facts
I don't understand what you mean there.

[JPaul]

Do you think it's ok for a christian to be jailed in a "non christain" country ?
Again, I don't really understand the question.

People get jailed if they are convicted of an offence in a country and the sentence is a period of incarceration. What has Christianity, or any other religion got to do with it.

[GepperRankins]

laughed and pointed at, ja.

jailing someone is no longer an *opinion thing, it's an infringement of his rights.


*opinion, as in my opinion verse his opinion, even if one opinion does contradict the facts
I don't understand what you mean there.
i think i forgot half way through typing.



well, regardless of facts and if people take offence, the law shouldn't get involved in peoples opinions

[hobbes]

I think that we are not getting the full story.

"I think that holocaust was a vast conspiracy" is an opinion (although uninformed), and not a jailable offense.

"The holocaust is a lie by the Jews, who must be driven into the sea" is an opinion which encites violence and is therefore illegal.

[JPaul]

I don't understand what you mean there.
i think i forgot half way through typing.



well, regardless of facts and if people take offence, the law shouldn't get involved in peoples opinions
People can have whatever opinion they want, it's when they express those opinion and effect other people's lives that the law takes an interest.

Is a rally in the middle of London, where the speakers express their opinion that all green people are useless cunts and should be thrown out of the country OK.

I for one want the law to intervene.

[JPaul]

I think that we are not getting the full story.

"I think that holocaust was a vast conspiracy" is an opinion (although uninformed), and not a jailable offense.

"The holocaust is a lie by the Jews, who must be driven into the sea" is an opinion which encites violence and is therefore illegal.
You are to be congratulated on your knowledge of Austrian law, I am well impressed.

[hobbes]

i think i forgot half way through typing.



well, regardless of facts and if people take offence, the law shouldn't get involved in peoples opinions
People can have whatever opinion they want, it's when they express those opinion and effect other people's lives that the law takes an interest.

Is a rally in the middle of London, where the speakers express their opinion that all green people are useless cunts and should be thrown out of the country OK.

I for one want the law to intervene.

right.

One is an opinion. fine. They are cunts

The second is an encitement to violence. They should be thrown out. Wrong.

[hobbes]

I think that we are not getting the full story.

"I think that holocaust was a vast conspiracy" is an opinion (although uninformed), and not a jailable offense.

"The holocaust is a lie by the Jews, who must be driven into the sea" is an opinion which encites violence and is therefore illegal.
You are to be congratulated on your knowledge of Austrian law, I am well impressed.

Austrian law is not irrelvant.

We must decide whether ones opinion that the holocaustis a fraud is justifiable to deem jail time, versus freedom of speech.

That is an "ends versus the means" case, which you have stated is completely wrong.

The fulcrum is whether the opinion is then promoted as a reason for violence.

Jailtime should NEVER be given for an opinion, but can be warranted because it encourages people to act violently against others.

[Skillian]

I think that we are not getting the full story.

"I think that holocaust was a vast conspiracy" is an opinion (although uninformed), and not a jailable offense.

"The holocaust is a lie by the Jews, who must be driven into the sea" is an opinion which encites violence and is therefore illegal.

I'm really not sure that that's right. As far as I can tell, it is the opinion that is the crime, rather than any violence or hatred it may incite.

[JPaul]

You are to be congratulated on your knowledge of Austrian law, I am well impressed.

Austrian law is not irrelvant.

Agreed, Austrian law is not irrelevant, as that's where he was convicted and sentenced.

[JPaul]

I think that we are not getting the full story.

"I think that holocaust was a vast conspiracy" is an opinion (although uninformed), and not a jailable offense.

"The holocaust is a lie by the Jews, who must be driven into the sea" is an opinion which encites violence and is therefore illegal.

I'm really not sure that that's right. As far as I can tell, it is the opinion that is the crime, rather than any violence or hatred it may incite.
As I understand it, it's publicly denying the holocaust which is the offence.

So you are both wrong, but hobbes is wronger than you.

[Skillian]

:01:

[hobbes]

Austrian law is not irrelvant.

I think you'll find it is, as that's where he was convicted and sentenced.

Well, the rule is moronic.

Can there be any disagreemnet to that?

Should I be jailed when I say that the US moon landing was a government hoax.

No, that is just my idiotic opinion.

Everone has the right to be an idioit. Being an idiot should not make one a criminal.

We are discussing the merit of the law. The law is shit if an uniformed opinion is a jailable offense.

The laws has merit if, by his expressed opinion, he is enciting harm to others.

[hobbes]

I'm really not sure that that's right. As far as I can tell, it is the opinion that is the crime, rather than any violence or hatred it may incite.
As I understand it, it's publicly denying the holocaust which is the offence.

So you are both wrong, but hobbes is wronger than you.

I would never tolerate such a suppresive government.

Laws should be driven by individual rights, not popularity.

Such suppression of opinion is totalitarian.

I enjoy the way you state that "the ends never justify the means" in one context (torture), then approve of it in another. Very convenient.

Fuck that.

[GepperRankins]

i think i forgot half way through typing.



well, regardless of facts and if people take offence, the law shouldn't get involved in peoples opinions
People can have whatever opinion they want, it's when they express those opinion and effect other people's lives that the law takes an interest.

Is a rally in the middle of London, where the speakers express their opinion that all green people are useless cunts and should be thrown out of the country OK.

I for one want the law to intervene.
i see your point now.

i was about to say people will analyse what people say, then i realised "nope, most people are stupid".


so uh, yeah. i realised it is possible, and fairly easy to brainwash everyday people :dabs:

[JPaul]

I think you'll find it is, as that's where he was convicted and sentenced.

Well, the rule is moronic.

Can there be any disagreemnet to that?

Should I be jailed when I say that the US moon landing was a government hoax.


How many people do you think would be deeply hurt by that opinion being expressed.

How many people who survived the .... never mind, I've already posted that. Either you've read it and ignored it, or not read it. I'm cool either way.

I think I'll go and pish on someone's grave, what do their friends and relatives care. The person is dead anyway.

[JPaul]

As I understand it, it's publicly denying the holocaust which is the offence.

So you are both wrong, but hobbes is wronger than you.

I would never tolerate such a suppresive government.

Laws should be driven by individual rights, not popularity.

Such suppression of opinion is totalitarian.

Fuck that.
Luckily you live in USA, so Austrian law is not a problem

[JPaul]

As I understand it, it's publicly denying the holocaust which is the offence.

So you are both wrong, but hobbes is wronger than you.

I enjoy the way you state that "the ends never justify the means" in one context (torture), then approve of it in another. Very convenient.

Just covering your edit.

What in the name of fuck is that supposed to mean.

[Skillian]

It just seems to me to be silly to specify the event.

Would we need seperate laws for denying Sept. 11th, Hiroshima, Red Square or other sensitive tragedies? Or do a certain number of people have to die before it gets its own law?

[hobbes]

[QUOTE=hobbes]

Well, the rule is moronic.

Can there be any disagreemnet to that?

Should I be jailed when I say that the US moon landing was a government hoax.


How many people do you think would be deeply hurt by that opinion being expressed.

How many people who survived the .... never mind, I've already posted that. Either you've read it and ignored it, or not read it. I'm cool either way.


Lots of things cause emotional scars but are not jailable offenses.

Do you have anything other than phish to offer.

On one hand the ends never justify the means and on any=other they do.

Quit talking phish.

[hobbes]

I enjoy the way you state that "the ends never justify the means" in one context (torture), then approve of it in another. Very convenient.

Just covering your edit.

What in the name of fuck is that supposed to mean.

think.

Torutue is never justified

But a law that suppressed freedom of speech is, because emotions may be hurt.

FTW?

[JPaul]

It just seems to me to be silly to specify the event.

Would we need seperate laws for denying Sept. 11th, Hiroshima, Red Square or other sensitive tragedies? Or do a certain number of people have to die before it gets its own law?
The systematic attempted genocide of Jews, over several years, is hardly specifying "the event".

Sorry if you think it's a numbers thing. 6,000,000 men, women and children chosen because of their religion and for the most part civilian and of no military significance, sort of justifies it for me.

[Busyman]

I think you'll find it is, as that's where he was convicted and sentenced.

Well, the rule is moronic.

Can there be any disagreemnet to that?

Should I be jailed when I say that the US moon landing was a government hoax.

No, that is just my idiotic opinion.

Everone has the right to be an idioit. Being an idiot should not make one a criminal.

We are discussing the merit of the law. The law is shit if an uniformed opinion is a jailable offense.

The laws has merit if, by his expressed opinion, he is enciting harm to others.
Good post.:01:

I would think that someone saying that America didn't use blacks for slave labor is an idiot but I would think it dumb as hell to jail him/her for it and I'm black. :ermm:

I do like how the forum helps bring out what people think on here and how some people show how moronic they are regardless of their sentence structure.:happy:

Luckily the Austrians are the ones jailing their ill-informed citizens and conspiracy theorists. We have our own shit like the Patriot Act.

[Skillian]

How did fish get involved?

[hobbes]

BTW, people have stated that 9/11 was a conspiracy between George W and the Saudi royalty family and they have not been arrested.

People can say what they want, only an encitement to violence breaks the law.

[JPaul]

[QUOTE=JPaul]
How many people do you think would be deeply hurt by that opinion being expressed.

How many people who survived the .... never mind, I've already posted that. Either you've read it and ignored it, or not read it. I'm cool either way.


Lots of things cause emotional scars but are not jailable offenses.

Do you have anything other than phish to offer.

On one hand the ends never justify the means and on any=other they do.

Quit talking phish.


I refuse to discuss the matter with someone who is that bad at quoting.

[Busyman]

It just seems to me to be silly to specify the event.

Would we need seperate laws for denying Sept. 11th, Hiroshima, Red Square or other sensitive tragedies? Or do a certain number of people have to die before it gets its own law?
A person should be able to say the 9/11 was blessing from God if they wanted to.

Intention to incite violence is where the line gets drawn.

[hobbes]

[QUOTE=hobbes]


I refuse to discuss the matter with someone who is that bad at quoting.

So, you are just soputing shite, thought so.

An unpopular opinion, or an ill informed opinion is not an illegal act.

As BM says, it may hurt blacks emotionally for me to deny slavery, but I have every right to express my idiotic opinion.

If I call out to hurt blacks, that is another matter.

Case closed.

[JPaul]

Well, the rule is moronic.

Can there be any disagreemnet to that?

Should I be jailed when I say that the US moon landing was a government hoax.

No, that is just my idiotic opinion.

Everone has the right to be an idioit. Being an idiot should not make one a criminal.

We are discussing the merit of the law. The law is shit if an uniformed opinion is a jailable offense.

The laws has merit if, by his expressed opinion, he is enciting harm to others.
Good post.:01:

I would think that someone saying that America didn't use blacks for slave labor is an idiot but I would think it dumb as hell to jail him/her for it and I'm black. :ermm:

I do like how the forum helps bring out what people think on here and how some people show how moronic they are regardless of their sentence structure.:happy:

Luckily the Austrians are the ones jailing their ill-informed citizens and conspiracy theorists. We have our own shit like the Patriot Act.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Read the story half-wit.

[hobbes]

[QUOTE=hobbes]


I refuse to discuss the matter with someone who is that bad at quoting.

So, you are just spouting shite, thought so.

An unpopular opinion, or an ill informed opinion is not an illegal act.

As BM says, it may hurt blacks emotionally for me to deny slavery, but I have every right to express my idiotic opinion.

If I call out to hurt blacks, that is another matter.

It must be a true delight to use the "ends/means" arguement as unaccaptable or acceptable as you see fit.

Consistency is more my game.

Case closed.

[Skillian]

It just seems to me to be silly to specify the event.

Would we need seperate laws for denying Sept. 11th, Hiroshima, Red Square or other sensitive tragedies? Or do a certain number of people have to die before it gets its own law?
A person should be able to say the 9/11 was blessing from God if they wanted to.

Intention to incite violence is where the line gets drawn.

Agreed.

[JPaul]

[QUOTE=JPaul]

So, you are just soputing shite, thought so.

An unpopular opinion, or an ill informed opinion is not an illegal act.

As BM says, it may hurt blacks emotionally for me to deny slavery, but I have every right to express my idiotic opinion.

If I call out to hurt blacks, that is another matter.

Case closed.
Indeed, case closed.

Three years, without the option.

Publicly expressing the opinion that the Holocaust was a lie is a criminal offence in Austria. Fact

It really matters not one fuck what you, or busboy, or anyone else thinks.

[JPaul]

A person should be able to say the 9/11 was blessing from God if they wanted to.

Intention to incite violence is where the line gets drawn.

Agreed.
Agree away, the case was heard in a European Court.

He broke Austrian law.

He got the jail.

This pleases me no end, you chaps deal with it however you see fit.

[Busyman]

Hey everyone!!!

Austria has a law which many of us think is stupid.

No one should discuss it and subsequently, this thread should not have posted.

3 years jail time for you dissenters. :1eye:


I do like how the forum helps bring out what people think on here and how some people show how moronic they are regardless of their sentence structure.:happy:

[hobbes]

[QUOTE=hobbes]
Indeed, case closed.

Three years, without the option.

Publicly expressing the opinion that the Holocaust was a lie is a criminal offence in Austria. Fact

It really matters not one fuck what you, or busboy, or anyone else thinks.

Austrian law is oppressive shite, fact.

That is all anybody really has cared about.

Vidcc said it first... "which is worse, his denial of the Holocaust or the law that jailed him for it."

Your support for such a law is an atrocity of the freedom of speech.

It is a contradiction of your statement that "ends never justify the means", in regard to the "torture" thread.

If it supports your agenda "ok", if not "bad".

That is just a shite talker.

[hobbes]

Agreed.
Agree away, the case was heard in a European Court.

He broke Austrian law.

He got the jail.

This pleases me no end, you chaps deal with it however you see fit.


Great, perhaps if I state that Jesus is not the son of God, Austrians, and their artibrary laws can jail me for that, too.

[JPaul]

Austrian law is oppressive shite, fact.


Again, I had not thought Austrian law to be a specialist area of yours.

You are a chap of myriad talents.

[JPaul]

Agree away, the case was heard in a European Court.

He broke Austrian law.

He got the jail.

This pleases me no end, you chaps deal with it however you see fit.


Great, perhaps if I state that Jesus is not the son of God, Austrians, and their artibrary laws can jail me for that, too.
Sorry I can't help you there.

You would really have to ask an Austrian, for preference a lawyer.

PS I really must object to "artibrary", me eyes are bleeding.

[hobbes]

Austrian law is oppressive shite, fact.


Again, I had not thought Austrian law to be a specialist area of yours.

You are a chap of myriad talents.

Austrian law being oppressive shite is my opinion and requires no special knowledge on my part.

Nice attempt to distract from the fact that you think the ends justify the means.

[JPaul]

Again, I had not thought Austrian law to be a specialist area of yours.

You are a chap of myriad talents.

Austrian law being oppressive shite is my opinion and requires no special knowledge on my part.

Nice attempt to distract from the fact that you think the ends justify the means.
:lol: :lol:

You artibrarily used that phrase and feel it has now become the crux of the argument.

I think not, baby puppy.

Oh and ending a sentence with "fact" tends to suggest it is more than your opinion. Fact.

[hobbes]

Great, perhaps if I state that Jesus is not the son of God, Austrians, and their artibrary laws can jail me for that, too.
Sorry I can't help you there.

You would really have to ask an Austrian, for preference a lawyer.

PS I really must object to "artibrary", me eyes are bleeding.

Again concrete thinking to dismiss the pertinent concepts.

BTW, have you bothered to read your posts.

Spelling errors abound, but since I am not out to distract with such inane commentary, I have not brought them to the fore.

[hobbes]

Austrian law being oppressive shite is my opinion and requires no special knowledge on my part.

Nice attempt to distract from the fact that you think the ends justify the means.
:lol: :lol:

You artibrarily used that phrase and feel it has now become the crux of the argument.

I think not, baby puppy.

The use is very specific, very.

[vidcc]

Indeed, case closed.

Three years, without the option.

Publicly expressing the opinion that the Holocaust was a lie is a criminal offence in Austria. Fact who said it wasn't?


It really matters not one fuck what you, or busboy, or anyone else thinks.
This will come in handy the next time you criticise American laws and punishment like the death penalty.

[JPaul]

who said it wasn't?


It really matters not one fuck what you, or busboy, or anyone else thinks.
This will come in handy the next time you criticise American laws and punishment like the death penalty.
Hello one trick pony, how are you ce soir.

[hobbes]

Austrian law being oppressive shite is my opinion and requires no special knowledge on my part.

Nice attempt to distract from the fact that you think the ends justify the means.
:lol: :lol:

You artibrarily used that phrase and feel it has now become the crux of the argument.

I think not, baby puppy.

Oh and ending a sentence with "fact" tends to suggest it is more than your opinion. Fact.


Using torture under any circumastance is wrong- Jp

Yes, stating something that might be hurtful to another is a jailable offense- Jp

The first illustrates that violating a persons right is always wrong.

The second clearly shows that it is simply a matter of opinion.

Can't have both can we.

Unless we are talking shite.

[JPaul]

:lol: :lol:

You artibrarily used that phrase and feel it has now become the crux of the argument.

I think not, baby puppy.

Oh and ending a sentence with "fact" tends to suggest it is more than your opinion. Fact.


Using torture under any circumastance is wrong- Jp

Yes, stating something that might be hurtful to another is a jailable offense- Jp

The first illustrates that violating a persons right is always wrong.

The second clearly shows that it is simply a matter of opinion.

Can't have both can we.

Unless we are talking shite.

Read ECHR, I keep asking you to do so, but you don't.

I have gone to the bother of getting a basic knowledge of your Constitution. Is it so much to ask that you make a modicum of effort to reciprocate.

Freedom from torture is absolute. Freedom of speech is not.

That's what our "Constitution" says.

[hobbes]

I will not embarrass you further.

If you think that someone should be jailed for an unpopular opinion, you and your 1984 camera and survellience moniters can live happily well away from my counrty.

How is this ANY different than denying slavery?

You are pro-freedom as long as it supports your opinion, good for you.

[Cheese]

I tend to agree with Deborah Lipstadt's comments on BBC News with regards to this, censorship is not the answer. Countering these absurd claims with history and the truth is the best way to go. On the other hand I can understand the jail sentence to a certain extent because David Irving was inciting racial hatred.

Personally I think the abject humilation and denouncement he has endured at the hands of people like Lipstadt is a far greater punishment than anything the Austrians could hand out. I'd rather he died a broken man in obscurity than become a martyr for the far-right.

On a side note not related to whether the punishment/law is just: Carrying one of his own flawed books to the trial was bit stupid, as was breaking the law in the first place but why on earth return to a country that has a warrant for your arrest and a mandatory 1-10 year sentence for the crime he knew he had committed and that he intended to commit again? :duh:

[Busyman]

I tend to agree with [SIZE=2]Deborah Lipstadt's comments on BBC News with regards to this, censorship is not the answer. Countering these absurd claims with history and the truth is the best way to go. On the other hand I can understand the jail sentence to a certain extent because David Irving was inciting racial hatred.
How was he inciting violence? (I actually don't know the particulars)

I have known folks that questioned the Jewish holocaust and talked about it openly. Many say that it's all they've ever known, as far as history goes, that 6 million Jews were exterminated and they thought the figure exagerrated.

I see Deborah Lipstadt doesn't even advocate the law. She thinks it is totalitarian and gives Irving an ear to those who previously didn't listen.

Hell I even looked up what the hell he was talking about when previously couldn't care less. I honestly accept the holocaust 'cause it's what I was taught and it's what non-racist historians say. Others might think differently.

I do see that when such an effort is made to make folks STFU about something, people tend to look at what they must STFU about and whether there's a conspiracy behind it.

Some may say it's an issue with Austria, France, and the other 5 or so countries (that have similar laws) to deal with. Well that get's a NO SHIT DUH DUMBASS.

This is a discussion.

Comment has been made ad nauseam about American laws to an even greater extent....by folks that don't even live here.

The best thing for those folk that would quell discussion would be to STFU, fuck-off and troll the Lounge, and grab some common fucking sense to go along with their book knowledge.

[Cheese]

I tend to agree with [size=2]Deborah Lipstadt's comments on BBC News with regards to this, censorship is not the answer. Countering these absurd claims with history and the truth is the best way to go. On the other hand I can understand the jail sentence to a certain extent because David Irving was inciting racial hatred. How was he inciting violence? (I actually don't know the particulars)

I have known folks that questioned the Jewish holocaust and talked about it openly. Many say that it's all they've ever known, as far as history goes, that 6 million Jews were exterminated and they thought the figure exagerrated.

I see Deborah Lipstadt doesn't even advocate the law. She thinks it is totalitarian and gives Irving an ear to those who previously didn't listen.

Hell I even looked up what the hell he was talking about when previously couldn't care less. I honestly accept the holocaust 'cause it's what I was taught and it's what non-racist historians say. Others might think differently.

I do see that when such an effort is made to make folks STFU about something, people tend to look at what they must STFU about and whether there's a conspiracy behind it.

Some may say it's an issue with Austria, France, and the other 5 or so countries (that have similar laws) to deal with. Well that get's a NO SHIT DUH DUMBASS.

This is a discussion.

Comment has been made ad nauseam about American laws to an even greater extent....by folks that don't even live here.

The best thing for those folk that would quell discussion would be to STFU, fuck-off and troll the Lounge, and grab some common fucking sense to go along with their book knowledge.

You seem to have wandered off onto some sort of nonsensical rant there. Could you not stick to the topic itself? Do we really need your "common sense > book knowledge" nonsense yet again?

This is a discussion.

The best thing for those folk that would quell discussion or hijack it to insult others or to further a tired agenda would be to STFU and fuck-off. They can stay out of the Lounge as well.

[Busyman]

How was he inciting violence? (I actually don't know the particulars)

I have known folks that questioned the Jewish holocaust and talked about it openly. Many say that it's all they've ever known, as far as history goes, that 6 million Jews were exterminated and they thought the figure exagerrated.

I see Deborah Lipstadt doesn't even advocate the law. She thinks it is totalitarian and gives Irving an ear to those who previously didn't listen.

Hell I even looked up what the hell he was talking about when previously couldn't care less. I honestly accept the holocaust 'cause it's what I was taught and it's what non-racist historians say. Others might think differently.

I do see that when such an effort is made to make folks STFU about something, people tend to look at what they must STFU about and whether there's a conspiracy behind it.

Some may say it's an issue with Austria, France, and the other 5 or so countries (that have similar laws) to deal with. Well that get's a NO SHIT DUH DUMBASS.

This is a discussion.

Comment has been made ad nauseam about American laws to an even greater extent....by folks that don't even live here.

The best thing for those folk that would quell discussion would be to STFU, fuck-off and troll the Lounge, and grab some common fucking sense to go along with their book knowledge.

You seem to have wandered off onto some sort of nonsensical rant there. Could you not stick to the topic itself? Do we really need your "common sense > book knowledge" nonsense yet again?

This is a discussion.

The best thing for those folk that would quell discussion or hijack it to insult others or to further a tired agenda would be to STFU and fuck-off. They can stay out of the Lounge as well.
Could I not stick to the topic? I did. :huh:

Comment was also made about those trying to quell discussion and hijack it to insult others which I'm able to do.

I'm glad you agree since you did the same.

[Cheese]

You seem to have wandered off onto some sort of nonsensical rant there. Could you not stick to the topic itself? Do we really need your "common sense > book knowledge" nonsense yet again?

This is a discussion.

The best thing for those folk that would quell discussion or hijack it to insult others or to further a tired agenda would be to STFU and fuck-off. They can stay out of the Lounge as well. Could I not stick to the topic? I did. :huh:

Comment was also made about those trying to quell discussion and hijack it to insult others which I'm able to do.

I'm glad you agree since you did the same.

:whoosh:

[JPaul]

I will not embarrass you further.

If you think that someone should be jailed for an unpopular opinion, you and your 1984 camera and survellience moniters can live happily well away from my counrty.

How is this ANY different than denying slavery?

You are pro-freedom as long as it supports your opinion, good for you.
I do not think that someone should be jailed for holding an unpopular opinion, like I said quite clearly, they can hold whatever opinion they want. That's a matter for them

However that does not mean they can choose to express any opinion wherever they want and whenever they want. I do not think the KKK should be allowed to go en mass into a black area and hold a rally proclaiming white supremacy. That does not mean they cannot do it, simply that society can decide it is wrong and take them to task for it.

In Austria they think that holocaust denial is so offensive that it is punishable by imprisonment. Where I am, incitement towards racial hatred is illegal because we as a society think it is morally repugnant. Society has rights, just as much as the individual.

With regard to the various attempted analogies. Certain rights are held to be absolute and others are not. The right to life and the right to freedom from torture are absolute and the State cannot take those away. The right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression are not. The default position is that people have those rights, however given certain circumstances and within a certain legal framework, the State can remove these rights.

That's how things are over here and the Austrians, given the historical significance, have every right to behave in the way they did. If some anti-semitic, racist decided to flaunt their laws good on them for defending themselves from him.

EDIT - The right to freedom from slavery is also an absolute right.

[hobbes]

I will not embarrass you further.

If you think that someone should be jailed for an unpopular opinion, you and your 1984 camera and survellience moniters can live happily well away from my counrty.

How is this ANY different than denying slavery?

You are pro-freedom as long as it supports your opinion, good for you.
I do not think that someone should be jailed for holding an unpopular opinion, like I said quite clearly, they can hold whatever opinion they want. That's a matter for them

However that does not mean they can choose to express any opinion wherever they want and whenever they want. I do not think the KKK should be allowed to go en mass into a black area and hold a rally proclaiming white supremacy. That does not mean they cannot do it, simply that society can decide it is wrong and take them to task for it.

In Austria they think that holocaust denial is so offensive that it is punishable by imprisonment. Where I am, incitement towards racial hatred is illegal because we as a society think it is morally repugnant. Society has rights, just as much as the individual.

With regard to the various attempted analogies. Certain rights are held to be absolute and others are not. The right to life and the right to freedom from torture are absolute and the State cannot take those away. The right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression are not. The default position is that people have those rights, however given certain circumstances and within a certain legal framework, the State can remove these rights.

That's how things are over here and the Austrians, given the historical significance, have every right to behave in the way they did. If some anti-semitic, racist decided to flaunt their laws good on them for defending themselves from him.

EDIT - The right to freedom from slavery is also an absolute right.

If someone comes to my home and asks me if I think the holocuast occurred and I say "No, it was a hoax". That is my opinion, and not jailable.

If I use this opinion to intentionally cause harm or incite hatred, then I am stepping on the rights of others, and this should be jailable.

This is what I have been trying to express since post one.

That is why I said in my first post that we perhaps were not getting the full story, which simply stated that he was jailed for denying the holocaust. It was not just his denial of the holocaust that was the offense, but how he used his opinion to intentionally stir up offense and promote hatred.

[JPaul]

That is why I said in my first post that we perhaps were not getting the full story, which simply stated that he was jailed for denying the holocaust. It was not just his denial of the holocaust that was the offense, but how he used his opinion to intentionally stir up offense and promote hatred.
On what do you base this contention.

[Skillian]

It was not just his denial of the holocaust that was the offense, but how he used his opinion to intentionally stir up offense and promote hatred.

No it's not, public denial is the offence. Your way makes more sense to me and many others, but it's not how the law is.

[Busyman]

I think what really sucks is that the law is about public denial of a historical event or minimalization of it.

I think everyone knows that freedom of speech is not absolute. There are too many examples: shouting "BOMB" at an airport, libel and slander, threatening bodily harm against a person or riding into a neighborhood shouting racial hatred. Those are direct contradictions to (absolute) freedom of speech.

What this case sounds like is dissenting opinion and the government stifling dissenting opinion.

Imagine folks NOT being able spout conspiracy theories about 9/11, calling the President an idiot on TV or questioning evolution.

The law, in principle, stifles a person in public from being an idiot OR correct.

[hobbes]

It was not just his denial of the holocaust that was the offense, but how he used his opinion to intentionally stir up offense and promote hatred.

No it's not, public denial is the offence. Your way makes more sense to me and many others, but it's not how the law is.

Then it's just a stupid law which censors its citizens. Being jailed for expressing an opinion, in a context which is not aimed at hurting or provoking others, is wrong.

It is not illegal to yell "fire", but one will be held accountable for yelling fire(when there is none) in a crowded theather, provoking a stampede and causing injuries.

It would be like jailing someone for denying slavery in the US. Wrong.
It would be like jailing someone for denying Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Wrong.

The historical record is there and stands well enough on its own.

They can pass any laws they want, and I can judge them as I see fit.

[Busyman]

The historical record is there and stands well enough on its own.

They can pass any laws they want, and I can judge them as I see fit.
Eggggzacklee.;)

[Formula1]

Again as a user at TB.net said, I agree with this response,



3 words, freedom of speech. Although I personally think that denying holocaust shows that the person is either dumb or he lacks education, having second opinion on a matter is hardly worth of prison time. I saw people fighting for freedom of speech in the danes vs. mohammed cartoon threads, I see this situation very similar.

[BawA]

You think people should be jailed for free speech, really
Yes, obviously.

I support Abu Hamza being jailed and I think Nick Fuckwit the head of the BNP should also be jailed for what he said (he's being re-tried apparently).

Free speech yes, consequences also yes. Society has a right to protect itself from hatemongers and those who would cause the suffering of others by their words and what their words lead to.
thats what am been saying for so long, what u say now?
why not jail that man who made cartoons?
they can jail someone for just speaking but they cant jail a guy who acctually made something that spreaded world wide.


If someone comes to my home and asks me if I think the holocuast occurred and I say "No, it was a hoax". That is my opinion, and not jailable.

If I use this opinion to intentionally cause harm or incite hatred, then I am stepping on the rights of others, and this should be jailable.
again something that i was pointing.

[JPaul]

why not jail that man who made cartoons?

For the simple reason that he did not commit an offence. If he had then the Danish authorities may well have prosecuted him.