Sinergy
Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
|
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
_____________________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"
"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle
|
EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread