Thread: Freedom of Speech

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

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

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

Thanks for a very intelligent post. I think that the situation is seldom black and white. For example, Professor Norman Finkelstein is Jewish and the son of holocaust survivors. He has been persecuted for his views on the state of Israel and the exploitation of holocaust survivors by Jewish organizations. He has not been persecuted by the government, but by wealthy individuals and organizations. In the latest incident, he was denied tenure at DePaul University and is having trouble even getting speaking engagements. In fact, there seem to be a lot of "englishgents" out there trying to drown out voices that they don't agree with. I agree that it is not a legal issue directly, but rather a cultural one. I feel that if we value our democracy we have to protect the space for public discourse where everyone has an opportunity to be heard.

I will say once again that a society that cannot discuss its problems cannot solve them. By this measure, "we", the western world, are in a lot of trouble.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Thanks for a very intelligent post. I think that the situation is seldom black and white. For example, Professor Norman Finkelstein is Jewish and the son of holocaust survivors. He has been persecuted for his views on the state of Israel and the exploitation of holocaust survivors by Jewish organizations. He has not been persecuted by the government, but by wealthy individuals and organizations. In the latest incident, he was denied tenure at DePaul University and is having trouble even getting speaking engagements. In fact, there seem to be a lot of "englishgents" out there trying to drown out voices that they don't agree with. I agree that it is not a legal issue directly, but rather a cultural one. I feel that if we value our democracy we have to protect the space for public discourse where everyone has an opportunity to be heard.

I will say once again that a society that cannot discuss its problems cannot solve them. By this measure, "we", the western world, are in a lot of trouble.

Yes, we're always in trouble, trying to muddle our way out.

One thing, though. Perhaps Englishgent's post was a bit too strident, but there's no need to make him a byword. He's an opponent in a debate. He may, in fact, be dead wrong, and he may have made this personal, but try not to respond in-kind.

Thanks for your post. It's not very often anybody actually agrees with me. Both sides seem to find me annoying.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Yes, we're always in trouble, trying to muddle our way out.

One thing, though. Perhaps Englishgent's post was a bit too strident, but there's no need to make him a byword. He's an opponent in a debate. He may, in fact, be dead wrong, and he may have made this personal, but try not to respond in-kind.

Thanks for your post. It's not very often anybody actually agrees with me. Both sides seem to find me annoying.

j

I accept your point about Englishgent. But it's not true that he's an opponent in a debate. He's not actually debating ... its more like heckling. Fortunately, in this format only one person can speak at a time, so he's not able to drown out the speaker.

As for the rest ... if you think people find you annoying ... it's why I chose "troublemaker" as my title.

It's interesting that the discussion in this thread shows by its content that we all have freedom of speech.

I think.

The holocaust annoys the heck out of me more than anything.
I read the history, I've visited some of the concentration camps, I've seen the gas chambers and the incinerators. I've also heard every moaning Jew from one side of the world to the other go on and on and on about it. I've also had the Jewish propoganda machine use its influential media people hype the message continuously on the television and radio virtually daily throughout my life.
Its now even crawled its way onto my shaving forum.

I wonder if the Jews will use the same media machine to seek foregiveness for the ethnic cleansing they have just undertaken in the holocaust that has just taken place in the Gaza strip.

Now lets see if we really have freedom of speech to say what we really think and feel without any recriminations. Because that what freedom of speech is.

Originally Posted by English

It's interesting that the discussion in this thread shows by its content that we all have freedom of speech.

I think.

The holocaust annoys the heck out of me more than anything.
I read the history, I've visited some of the concentration camps, I've seen the gas chambers and the incinerators. I've also heard every moaning Jew from one side of the world to the other go on and on and on about it. I've also had the Jewish propoganda machine use its influential media people hype the message continuously on the television and radio virtually daily throughout my life.
Its now even crawled its way onto my shaving forum.

I wonder if the Jews will use the same media machine to seek foregiveness for the ethnic cleansing they have just undertaken in the holocaust that has just taken place in the Gaza strip.

Now lets see if we really have freedom of speech to say what we really think and feel without any recriminations. Because that what freedom of speech is.

We should maintain a distinction between the action of the Israeli government and the action of "Jews." There is a big difference. Disagreement with policies of the State of Israel is not synonymous with anti-semitism, nor are the activities of Israel equal to the activities of all Jews.

The State of Israel has to answer for its actions in Gaza, not Jews.

j