Thread: Freedom of Speech

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Here is one article: Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Toward Palestinians and Arabs

Here is another: Do Palestinians Teach Their Children to Hate?

I'm open to continuing to discuss this with you and if you have articles you would like me to read, I will.

It would be nice if you could present any writers a little less biased then Maureen Meehan...

Kristoffer

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Are you sure about that? I'm not
link?

Inciting hatred is illegal in Europe AFAIAA. As is negationism, defamation, racism and xenophobia. In some countries, homophobia is illegal as well.

From wikipedia:

There are various domestic laws concerning negationism and/or hate speech (under which negationism is then included), such as the Belgian Holocaust denial law or the 1990 French Gayssot Act, which prohibits any "racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic" speech. Other European countries which have outlawed Holocaust denial are Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code), Germany (§ 130 (3) of the penal code), Austria (article 3h Verbotsgesetz 1947), Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Poland (article 55 of the law creating the Institute of National Remembrance 1998).

Also from WP, regarding the compatibility with the US consitution:

The Council of Europe Explanatory Report of the Protocol states "European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that the denial or revision of “clearly established historical facts – such as the Holocaust – [...] would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17” of the ECHR (see in this context the Lehideux and Isorni judgment of 23 September 1998)".^[13] However, the United States government does not believe that the final version of the Protocol is consistent with the United States' constitutional guarantees and has informed the Council of Europe that the United States will not become a Party to the protocol.^[14]

Originally Posted by KristofferBodvin

It would be nice if you could present any writers a little less biased then Maureen Meehan...

Kristoffer

I realize that everyone has their bias (even me) and that it may not be possible to convince everyone (anyone?) but the original charge from Englishgent was that I was lying. I wanted to show that I had sources for what I said. I read a lot of articles/watch a lot of videos and I'm not always able to trace back the sources of what I believe to be true.

I could recomend a few: Pascal Bruckner,Jane Mayer,Nassim Nicholas ,Lawrence Wright and Bruce Bawer.

BTW:I have no problem believing that you are who you say you are.
Englishgent will have to speak for himself.

Kristoffer.

In the U.S., we are generally forbidden to incite illegal activity.

Hatred is not illegal, so unless the hatred is to be accompanied by illegal activity like murder or some illegal form of discrimination, we are quite welcome to incite it.

Obviously.

j

It is an immutable and eternal principle of all debate that your opponent's sources are all biased.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

It is an immutable and eternal principle of all debate that your opponent's sources are all biased.

j

Oh phew! I thought it was just my opponents!

Okay, I didn't read all of the posts so far, don't have my glasses and working on my laptop made it too difficult when it got more on topic of Jews v. Palestinians.

First on issue of first ammendment. I belive it is the right to say, or print anything a person believes. Now I think that it should be applied to persons not media entities and respected members of the media and government, since they have undue sway and for some reason billions of people automatically give them the status of truth sayers.

Let me give you a couple of i.e. to show my thoughts. Howard Stern, I dislike much of what he says, find him abbrasive and often the essence of stupidity. But I not only support his right to say these things but am grateful that he keeps pushing the boundary of accepted first ammendments right. if nobody presses on the edges of the bubble it'll contract and there'll be no expanding it again.

next one, recently we had a vote on a proposition here in Kalifornia, to allow or disallow gay marriage. Now whatever your beliefs on this subject, and whether they are factually based or emotionally based, I like to think that everybody should make their decisions based on facts and the truth rather than propoganda and blatant lies. The reason it lost? Not because so many people believed that it was wrong, but because they had a campaign in the media saying that if it was legalized then schools would teach kids about gay marriage. PATENTLY UNTRUE. I belive that the media outlets should have disallowed broadcast of the commercials. I work for the schools, my wife is a teacher, we know they don't teach MARRIAGE in school. the state superintendent of schools said it wasn't true. but every person I know that didn't make a religious decision on the issue but voted against it did so because they believed this propoganda.

and by the way, I don't remember the part in the Bible where it says that if you get the result you want and it is in line with Biblical principles it doesn't matter how you got it.

I also agree with the statement that you should have freedom of persecution for what you say from the government, but not personally (from other people). i.e. slander, liable etc.

On the holocaust. I too have heard that the numbers are lower than stated, I don't believe this changes the evil of the act. I really HATE that Jewish people, and their most ardent supporters, get angry every time somebody uses the term holocaust comparitively. As if that specific attempt at genocide is the only one deserving of the title. In my mind it is an attempt to wipe out a single race from the face of the earth. If there are 2000 people and another ethnic group is trying to wipe them all out, that's genocide and fully deserving of a comparison to the holocaust. Why should Jewish people have exclusivity? and what is the point of bringing it up all the time to remind people that it shouldn't happen again. unless it is to say "look, look at what is happening, remember what happened before? it si starting again and it needs to be stopped".

last thing, I don't think freedom of speech extends to anything that directly infringes upon another person's person or property. i.e. graffiti, I don't care if people think it is a form of expression, if it ain't yours, don't express yourself on it.

Oh, just had another memory. I had a friend that broiught up the fact that Adolph Hitler was a charismatic and moving orator. he couldn't even make his supporting arguments before the other people at dinner with us freaked out and started in on him. His point was entirely valid, but the issue brought up such emotional response that nobody could see past it (excepting me who agreed that only somebody that charismatic could have moved a nation to support those policies).

that'll be my final point, emotion should be kept out of discussion as much as humanly possible, at least if you want anybody to take you seriously or you want to sway their opinion.

Red

Originally Posted by Big Red

Why should Jewish people have exclusivity? and what is the point of bringing it up all the time to remind people that it shouldn't happen again. unless it is to say "look, look at what is happening, remember what happened before? it si starting again and it needs to be stopped".

But is the same thing happening now? Is Israel trying to kill every Palestinian in order to meet its stated goal to cleanse them from the earth? Were the Jews firing rockets into Nazi towns? These are a couple of the reasons the specific word holocaust cannot be used to accurately describe both events. Just because the holocaust was wrong and evil doesn't mean it should be used to describe everything that is ever wrong or evil

Who cares what we call it anyway? The violence needs to stop, but it won't. Israel and Hamas hate each other and there really isn't anything anyone else can do to change that

Originally Posted by Big Red

I really HATE that Jewish people, and their most ardent supporters, get angry every time somebody uses the term holocaust comparitively. As if that specific attempt at genocide is the only one deserving of the title. In my mind it is an attempt to wipe out a single race from the face of the earth. If there are 2000 people and another ethnic group is trying to wipe them all out, that's genocide and fully deserving of a comparison to the holocaust. Why should Jewish people have exclusivity? and what is the point of bringing it up all the time to remind people that it shouldn't happen again. unless it is to say "look, look at what is happening, remember what happened before? it si starting again and it needs to be stopped".

I don't know anyone, Jewish or otherwise, that claims that the Nazis cleansing the earth of the Jews is the only holocaust or genocide in history, and in fact the turkish genocide against the armenians if often cited (by Jews and non-Jews), and there are many examples like darfur, the kurds and bosnia. And I think the Romans did it best against Hannibal's people, and it must have worked because I can't remember what they were called.

What enrages people (Jewish and otherwise) is when people say "that's a holocaust" every time Israel defends itself or uses it's military. Genocide and holocaust are serious words - they mean an attempt to wipe a race off the face of the earth. Israel just isn't doing that, and suggesting they are calls into question the intellect and I believe, racism, of the speaker. Let's face it, if Israel was trying to wipe out the Paestinians, they'd be gone.

And for those who won't trust israel till they retreat to the 1967 borders, what happened in 1967 that caused the borders to change? Wasn't it yet another attempt by the arabs to run Israel into the water? Is that genocide to you guys, or are only compassionate and capable nations capable of genocide in your eyes?