Thread: Freedom of Speech

Originally Posted by Rajagra

P.S. to sicboater. I don't believe there are any subjects that cannot be discussed in a gentlemanly manner. It's the attitude of the gentlemen that counts, not the subject matter.

This is what I mean to imply exactly. Thank you!

-Rob

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I agree with that. If a moderator asked me not to open a thread on a certain topic, I would comply. But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

Just keep in mind that the reality is that this site is not a democracy.Its privately run and if the owner wanted to control what was posted he could do it. Our choice would be to vote with our feet and go elsewhere if we disagreed with his policies or comply with his demands.

Of course that's not an issue here but on some sites it is.

Freedom of speech to me, and at one time the Supreme Court, is the right to express any idea, thought or word that does not directly lead to harm. Period.

So you can say you hate Obama all you want. Go ahead, no one will arrest you.

But if you are somewhere in Obama's vicinity, you have a weapon, and you say "I'm going to kill Obama." then say goodbye to the 1st amendment.

There are NO topics which are out of bounds of 1st amendment protection. But please, remember, the 1st amendment is a protection from GOVERNMENTAL intervention, not private. The moderators of this, or any other forum, are incapable of violating your 1st amendment rights, because they aren't the Man.

Freedom of speech means that you can talk about anything you want except whether you sit or stand while doing your business
Billy should be banned for that thread post haste!

Originally Posted by JMS

Freedom of speech means that you can talk about anything you want except whether you sit or stand while doing your business

Honing, right?

...Oh ... You mean the other one!

Originally Posted by Rajagra

P.P.P.S. Isn't it interesting how in Germany it is illegal to suggest that the Holocaust was faked? Ask yourself this: wouldn't Hitler have been proud of such a law?

That's an interesting point and it should be clarified that the issue is not faking the holocaust but saying anything that tends to diminish it. There are people in jail as we speak who are only guilty of critical scholarship. For example, Ernst Zündel was imprisoned because he published a book saying that less than 6 million Jews were killed in the concentration camps, even though this is officially acknowledged. A sign a Auschwitz that used to say that 4 million Jews were killed there was quietly changed to a lower number (1.5 million, I think). Assuming for the sake of argument that only 5 million were killed instead of 6, isn't that already horrible enough? Others have been imprisoned because they said that there is no evidence that there were gas chambers and that the heaps of bodies were victims of disease. Why should it be a crime to say that? Shouldn't the test of whether or not one should be allowed to say something be whether it is true or not? Not whether it tends to annoy a certain group of people?

These people are called "Holocaust Deniers," which, like antisemite and self-hating Jew is a word coined to smear people. In reality, there isn't anyone who denies the holocaust. Everyone admits that the Nazis hated the Jews. Everyone agrees that they were rounded up and put into concentration camps and that an awful lot of people died. Historians just want to clarify how many people died and how. Why should that be a crime?

By the way, it isn't a crime in just Germany but also Austria, Canada, Italy and, I think, France and some other countries.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

That's an interesting point and it should be clarified that the issue is not faking the holocaust but saying anything that tends to diminish it. There are people in jail as we speak who are only guilty of critical scholarship. For example, Ernst Zündel was imprisoned because he published a book saying that less than 6 million Jews were killed in the concentration camps, even though this is officially acknowledged. A sign a Auschwitz that used to say that 4 million Jews were killed there was quietly changed to a lower number (1.5 million, I think). Assuming for the sake of argument that only 5 million were killed instead of 6, isn't that already horrible enough? Others have been imprisoned because they said that there is no evidence that there were gas chambers and that the heaps of bodies were victims of disease. Why should it be a crime to say that? Shouldn't the test of whether or not one should be allowed to say something be whether it is true or not? Not whether it tends to annoy a certain group of people?

These people are called "Holocaust Deniers," which, like antisemite and self-hating Jew is a word coined to smear people. In reality, there isn't anyone who denies the holocaust. Everyone admits that the Nazis hated the Jews. Everyone agrees that they were rounded up and put into concentration camps and that an awful lot of people died. Historians just want to clarify how many people died and how. Why should that be a crime?

By the way, it isn't a crime in just Germany but also Austria, Canada, Italy and, I think, France and some other countries.

This post really shows you in your true colors Chimensch. I don't actually believe that you are or ever were Jewish at all, I think that you are using that cover to hide behind whilst you spread your hatred.

Your cover has been well and truly blown.

Originally Posted by Englishgent

This post really shows you in your true colors Chimensch. I don't actually believe that you are or ever were Jewish at all, I think that you are using that cover to hide behind whilst you spread your hatred.

Your cover has been well and truly blown.

And why would that be?

I don't doubt the holocaust happened, but during the war, both sides fed their population propaganda. The Nazis in Germany, and the allies in their own countries. So the idea to put historical research into controversial areas should not be a hot button issue. Just because the allies won the war does not make all propaganda true.

Truth should be open for all to see, not hidden away from inspection in some corner.

[quote=Bruno;315936] Just because the allies won the war does not make all propaganda true.
quote]

The winners get to write the history books. It doesn't help with the facts on the ground, it's just the reality of it.

There are always limits to free speech. Some are well-known, like the undesirability of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and some are not, like the rampant censorship that goes on in the United States that forbids, for example, import of written material from certain countries, such as Cuba, or the dissemination of calls to action that are themselves against the law. For example, I believe that the government has an interest in shutting web sites that post the names and addresses of Ob-Gyn physicians who perform abortions in order that interested parties may assassinate them more easily.

Political correctness is another issue. For the most part, it's "voluntary." In other words, there's no legal principle at stake, only the tendency of people to behave like sheep. One thing that should be recognized, however, is that it cuts both ways. Conservatives like to portray political correctness as a progressive thing, but they make use of it all the time. The worst example was the 2002 vote in Congress to authorize the president to attack Iraq. Political feeling, in the wake of 9-11, was running strongly in favor of allowing the president unparalleled latitude in attacking foreign nations, and at the time it was considered near-political suicide to go against that. So politicians, being inherently cowards, felt compelled to vote for the authorization. There were a few in both houses who had sufficient grit to stand on principle, but as we all know, there weren't enough. One thing I was proud of was that all three of my representatives voted against it. But it definitely wasn't "politically correct."

j