|
NorthernGent -> RE: EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial (4/19/2007 11:32:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: SeekingMatureSub
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Sinergy,
We had this chat before, can't remember the outcome:
a) A person is repeatedly threatening to blow up part of the US?
b) A person is threatening to cause harm to someone you love?
Freedom of speech?
I'm willing to apologized if there is something I am missing here, but how is your response comparable to what synergy is talking about in his post? Synergy is saying if someone wants to voice an opinion that the holocost did not occur, that's an opion.... and protected under the freedom of speech. Voicing such an unpopular opinion is no way to win friends, but it is also not a terroristic threat.
Communication a wish to do bodily harm to someone or their property is a terroristic threat and not protected speech because it infringes on the rights of others and threatens thier well-being. The right to free speech ends when interferes with the safety and prosperity of others.
No need to apologise. It's part of a wider, ongoing conversation. I agree that past events such as the holocaust should be available for discussion. As a point in case, I've said on this board that 6 million Jews did not die, there wasn't 6 million Jews living in Europe at the time (according to detailed analysis). Regardless, it was the attempted annilihation of a group of people.
I'm thinking about where a line is drawn between harmless speech and speech acting as a catalyst for violence. To illustrate the point, you said the right to free speech ends when interferes with the safety and prosperity of others. What exactly constitutes threatening safety to others, and who determines the parameters? You may think your safety isn't threatened if someone is in your face racially abusing you or threatening to rape you, but someone else might take it as threatening their safety.
It's a genuine question, is there a line to be drawn? if so, where is it?
You make a valid point, NorthernGent, and I am not sure whether I necessarily disagree with what you post. After all, it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre in the United States because of the likelihood of inciting panic.
If I remember the phraseology of the books about the holocaust, the comment made was that the exact cause was unknown because many of the records of who died were destroyed. Additionally, the NAZIs killed all sorts of non-jews to get rid of them. Many of these might have been counted as Jews depending on who kept track.
I am still having trouble understanding what the clear and present danger of some guy standing on a box in Berlin pontificating about the non-occurrence of the holocaust. He might get assaulted by somebody else, but there are laws against assaulting people. A person who doesnt want to hear this person spew his drivel has the choice to stand and listen to it, or walk away.
We had an issue a few years ago in the United States where certain segments of the population wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban burning the US flag. I thought it was a bit idiotic, since the only legal way to dispose of a flag no longer being used is to burn it, but I didnt' say anything.
Sinergy
In terms of the holocaust, I don't think the 6 million figure was a deliberate exaggeration, there were so many variables and, as you say, the nazis weren't always as systematic as what people are led to believe. The death squads that followed the German army into the east wiped people out on the spot - Jews, Polish intelligensia, gypsies etc - they didn't always keep records. There has been a detailed study done on the number of Jews living in Europe at the time and, accounting for adjustments such as those not recorded on the census, there weren't 6 million Jews living in Europe.
I agree with you in terms of a lone idiot spewing his nonsense, it would be stretching it to suggest that person will incite violence - I can't see a reason for banning his right to put forward his position.
I do think this is one of the most difficult areas in terms of balancing civil liberties and responsibility to law and society. There are instances where speech is intended to incite violence and violence follows. I suppose the problem is it is not easy to map out the parameters on what will and will not lead to violence. What do you think? An impossible job, so speech has to have no limits?
|
|
|
|
