Holocaust Denial, the BNP and freedom of speech

[rushrock]

^ Yes, it should be allowed, because however bad the ideas may be they must be protected with free speech.

[yomom1919]

^ Yes, it should be allowed, because however bad the ideas may be they must be protected with free speech.

 

 

 

So you don't mind people using rights to attempt to remove your rights?

[rushrock]

^ Nope.

[Lionheart_0]

^ Yes, it should be allowed, because however bad the ideas may be they must be protected with free speech.

 

 

 

So you don't mind people using rights to attempt to remove your rights?

 

 

 

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

 

 

 

That, my friend, is what you and everyone else fear. That the mass will believe such big lies. But let those who tell the lies speak their mind, for Hitler also said "Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction. ".

 

 

 

In short, those that speak out these lies fear what is our greatest triumph, the education of the mass. As long as that exists, we should not have anything to fear from lies.

[yomom1919]

That, my friend, is what you and everyone else fear. That the mass will believe such big lies. But let those who tell the lies speak their mind, for Hitler also said "Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction. ".

 

 

 

In short, those that speak out these lies fear what is our greatest triumph, the education of the mass. As long as that exists, we should not have anything to fear from lies.

 

 

 

Exactly, but people still have minds to be poisoned. Demagogues can still take control, the republic of America is not invulnerable, and we should not be illusioned to think that. Minds can be poisoned, no matter what form of government we are in, which is why, like you said, we must be educated. But how much do your peers your age care about education? How much faith do you have in them? I don't know about you, but I don't have much faith in my peers. In case you don't realize it, the security of the masses depends on the honesty and nobility of those in power [not only in government but in the media, etc.] Which is why people should be protected, because many will not realize they are being taken advantage of or having their rights infringed.

 

 

 

My history teacher proved this very well to us; he made us read the Dred Scott Supreme court case as well as the Taney decision. He asked us to vote on who thought the decision was legally sound, and no one in the class objected that it was not legally sound [granted that slavery was legal]. Then he proved the historical flaws in Taney's argument and absolutely destroyed his argument [Taney was a demagogue who happened to know what he was doing.] The nation at the time also happened to think his decision was legally sound [except for a few, such as Lincoln.] My point being, the masses are not invulnerable because of ignorance and simple lack of care.

[Bubsa]

^ As long as they harm nobody and refrain from slander, why not? Don't censor bad ideas just because you don't like them (even if it's the majority that doesn't like them). Let them die on their own.

 

 

 

Don't join the book burners! <-- Great quote.

 

 

 

...You have no idea what I was talking about, do you?

 

Please, if you're going to reply to me, at least reference one bit of my point. #-o

[TheLastTemplar]

I think they should have the right to speak, but I am not clear on UK Free Speech laws.

 

 

 

Here in the US you can say whatever you want, as long as it's: A) True; B) Is not libel or slander.

 

Technically that's not "free" speech, that's "you can say somethings but everything"...duh

[rushrock]

^ As long as they harm nobody and refrain from slander, why not? Don't censor bad ideas just because you don't like them (even if it's the majority that doesn't like them). Let them die on their own.

 

 

 

Don't join the book burners! <-- Great quote.

 

 

 

...You have no idea what I was talking about, do you?

 

Please, if you're going to reply to me, at least reference one bit of my point. #-o

 

"I see you take literally being able to say anything you want as "the freedom of speech".

 

I really wish people would open their eyes and stop thinking that."

 

 

 

That's your post. I said that as long as it isn't slander, it should be accepted. What did I miss?

[Bubsa]

OK, so what gives the BNP, in this case, the 'right' to speak and incite racial hatred, which will inevitably end somone's right to 'live'?

 

 

 

Again, do you even know what you're condoning?

[rushrock]

Hell yes I know. Don't take this the wrong way, but who's job is it to decide what's right and wrong? Everyone is entitled to their crazy opinion.

 

 

 

@yomom: So, people can't be trusted with their own thoughts? Besides the fact that there aren't really many people who are mindlessely ignorant, what should be done about this? Someone to decide for them? A dictatorship?

[yomom1919]

@yomom: So, people can't be trusted with their own thoughts? Besides the fact that there aren't really many people who are mindlessely ignorant, what should be done about this? Someone to decide for them? A dictatorship?

 

 

 

I never said that. By 'protected' I meant protected from speakers such as this. Really, there aren't many people that are mindlessly ignorant? What percentage of Americans legally able to vote actually do? How many actually care about sustaining a stable government? The answer is most of them think their republic of America is so invincible and take so much pride in it they feel it will never be threatened or harmed by people seeking personal power [demagogues]. But how do you secure that it won't be threatened? Does simply being so confident I won't be mugged in the city make me immune to mugging? Of course not, thats stupid. Like Lionheart said, we must be educated. But then a problem presents itself, like I mentioned earlier, what percentage of your classmates truly care about education, compared to the mass amounts of them just 'floating' through school, squeezing by? Your future is decided by the few people in the upper percentage of your class, the more intelligent, those who actually care. But isn't it dangerous when only a few people care about your government? People can use false premises to get into control, they can gain power through other means. Hitler was voted into power in Germany.

 

 

 

Lets put it this way, have you personally read the patriot act? Suppose the media didn't protect the public, and didn't report on the unconstitutionality of the act. Would you personally read it and learn for yourself? How many people you know would do this? Not many, I assume. We depend on the honesty of the media as well as politicians for our security.

 

 

 

A republic is one of the more dangerous types of government, because it is vulnerable to one man or central figure taking power. For example, Lincoln could have taken complete control of the country after the Civil War, became a dictator. He didn't, because of his honesty and sincere care about the Union, it depended completely on his honesty. But who's to say that a future politician will care about the Union more than his own personal goals?

[Hydraides]

OK, so what gives the BNP, in this case, the 'right' to speak and incite racial hatred, which will inevitably end somone's right to 'live'?

 

 

 

Again, do you even know what you're condoning?

 

 

 

Explain to me how Inciting racial hatred can inevitably lead to someones death?

[Ginger_Warrior]

OK, so what gives the BNP, in this case, the 'right' to speak and incite racial hatred, which will inevitably end somone's right to 'live'?

 

 

 

Again, do you even know what you're condoning?

 

 

 

Explain to me how Inciting racial hatred can inevitably lead to someones death?

 

Go away and study the black civil rights movement in the USA of the 1940s-60s, and come back and tell me that racial hatred and racism does not lead to people dying.

 

 

 

By 'live', I'm sure Bubsa didn't just mean the privilage of actually breathing too.

[Bubsa]

OK, so what gives the BNP, in this case, the 'right' to speak and incite racial hatred, which will inevitably end somone's right to 'live'?

 

 

 

Again, do you even know what you're condoning?

 

 

 

Explain to me how Inciting racial hatred can inevitably lead to someones death?

 

Go away and study the black civil rights movement in the USA of the 1940s-60s, and come back and tell me that racial hatred and racism does not lead to people dying.

 

 

 

By 'live', I'm sure Bubsa didn't just mean the privilage of actually breathing too.

 

 

 

Thanks for clarifying that. Alas, I had more faith on OT to pick up that point.

 

 

 

Hell yes I know. Don't take this the wrong way, but who's job is it to decide what's right and wrong? Everyone is entitled to their crazy opinion.

 

 

 

I'd hazard a guess, but I'm pretty sure, depsite what I just said about OT, nearly everyone would see the right/wrong in murder and its beginning.

 

 

 

Another question, are you sitting on that fence because you are so impartial, or because you don't want to come down to concede someone else's point?

[Matok]

The problem isn't them speaking,the problem is that there are still,and will always be,people (like the dude from page 1) who listen & embrace this cheap hateful racist crap.

 

Go, browse some jewish related vids at youtube and see how "Freedom of Speech" looks like. (lets just say the word "Oven" is very popular in the comments section)

[Jaziek]

 

 

 

So that no-one had a chance to interrupt it was really quite hypnotic.

 

 

 

Wahey!

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that theres definitely a line at which free speech stops and it becomes unnaceptable to let people just say whatever they want, but I dont think that line is here, and even if they do freely admit to being a horrible racist monster who would willingly commit hate crimes and the like, that just means they can be arrested.

 

 

 

And also, to the person who referenced the nazis to my earlier point, the two cases arent particularly similar. 2007 Britain is not in a state of political unrest nor does it have a completely failing economy and government. Hitler took advantage of the fact that Germany needed help in order to help his rise to power. Hitler was a strong and good leader. I'm pretty sure the leader of the BNP doesnt have the motivation or the prowess to be able to lead the party to any kind of success.

[assassin_696]

So we only afford the freedom to express opinions and points of views to those who agree with us?

 

 

 

I agree, people who's words and actions will inevitably lead to death and suffering should not have that right afforded to them. But, when it comes to people making fascist claims isn't it better to beat them with reasoned debate than simply banning them from speaking? If they're cut to shreds in the public view won't that stop people from being persuaded by their lies?

 

 

 

It's either freedom of speech for everyone, or no one.

[Bubsa]

So we only afford the freedom to express opinions and points of views to those who agree with us?

 

 

 

I agree, people who's words and actions will inevitably lead to death and suffering should not have that right afforded to them. But, when it comes to people making fascist claims isn't it better to beat them with reasoned debate than simply banning them from speaking? If they're cut to shreds in the public view won't that stop people from being persuaded by their lies?

 

 

 

It's either freedom of speech for everyone, or no one.

 

 

 

You've contradicted yourself, you state that "people who's words and actions will inevitably lead to death and suffering should not have that right afforded to them", yet go on to say: "It's either freedom of speech for everyone".

 

 

 

I think what you're getting at is what I believe as well: Everyone is granted the freedom of speech - but people can abuse it and lose it.

[assassin_696]

So we only afford the freedom to express opinions and points of views to those who agree with us?

 

 

 

I agree, people who's words and actions will inevitably lead to death and suffering should not have that right afforded to them. But, when it comes to people making fascist claims isn't it better to beat them with reasoned debate than simply banning them from speaking? If they're cut to shreds in the public view won't that stop people from being persuaded by their lies?

 

 

 

It's either freedom of speech for everyone, or no one.

 

 

 

You've contradicted yourself, you state that "people who's words and actions will inevitably lead to death and suffering should not have that right afforded to them", yet go on to say: "It's either freedom of speech for everyone".

 

 

 

I think what you're getting at is what I believe as well: Everyone is granted the freedom of speech - but people can abuse it and lose it.

 

 

 

Sorry, I did actually contradict myself, but yeah what I was getting at was that when you start inciting sufficient hatred/violence to lead to actual physical harm to other persons it goes beyond freedom of speech and they (the inciter) needs to be restrained for the safety of society.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm afraid I don't agree with the idea that it's better to defeat them in a public debate, than just stop them preaching at all. Even if we allow them that freedom of speech, any time anyone tries to raise a counter-argument against them, they worm their way around it using slightly flawed terminology, or by simply saying, "You're picking on us deliberetely", effectively giving them martyrdom anyway. The very fact that most people in the UK are, thankfully, opposed to views of the BNP would mean they'd be able to claim they're oppressed anyway.

 

 

 

My opinion is fairly strong and resolute here. I do not see the justification or logic in giving key principles of a liberal society (such as freedom of speech) to those who oppose liberalism, even if only to certain groups of the population.

 

 

 

The only way in which I am proud to be British is the fact we have such a relatively tolerant and open society; those are values the likes of the BNP would destroy.

[assassin_696]

I'm afraid I don't agree with the idea that it's better to defeat them in a public debate, than just stop them preaching at all. Even if we allow them that freedom of speech, any time anyone tries to raise a counter-argument against them, they worm their way around it using slightly flawed terminology, or by simply saying, "You're picking on us deliberetely", effectively giving them martyrdom anyway. The very fact that most people in the UK are, thankfully, opposed to views of the BNP would mean they'd be able to claim they're oppressed anyway.

 

 

 

My opinion is fairly strong and resolute here. I do not see the justification or logic in giving key principles of a liberal society (such as freedom of speech) to those who oppose liberalism, even if only to certain groups of the population.

 

 

 

The only way in which I am proud to be British is the fact we have such a relatively tolerant and open society; those are values the likes of the BNP would destroy.

 

 

 

I know you didn't mean it, but your first point is a bit of a strawman, you can't just outright claim that all fascists or extremists aren't open to reasoned argument and debate if you never give them a chance. And even if they can't see their errors maybe external observers might be able to if they were going to have been otherwise swayed by their arguments.

 

 

 

But at the end of the day you're still just denying freedom of speech (surely a bedrock of any liberal society?) to anyone who explicity disagrees with you. Isn't disagreement and difference of opinion ultimately what gets people thinking about their views? And if we don't allow these people freedom of speech where do we draw the line?

[Ginger_Warrior]

You seem to have misinterpreted what I'm saying with that second paragraph. I don't believe in censorship against anyone who doesn't agree with me. I believe that a diversity of opinion is a healthy thing because, as you rightly point out, it allows people to think more carefully about their own judgements. David Cameron may annoy the heck out of me, but he certainly has a right to air his views on political issues; and, much as I hate to say it, the fact he opposes the government forces the government into actions it wouldn't otherwise do.

 

 

 

The difference between David Cameron and Nick Griffin is that David Cameron does not openly claim in his manifesto that he'd deny the very rights he uses to other people if he were to get into power. Aside from the blatent hypocrisy of the BNP's claim to "free speech", the messages the BNP preach are actually dangerous and cause racial tensions and unrest, which itself leads to crime and further instability.

 

 

 

As said, if they do not wish to show the tolerant behaviour towards ethnic minorities that they except us to give to them as an extreme-right wing organisation, then I see no reason to give them that tolerance. I suppose in that light, you could call it retribution, only I'm not trying to scapegoat minorities which can't defend themselves for my own problems.

[GrimHams]

Yes, Nick Griffin was invited to talk about free speech, and the irony is that the apparant "anti fascists" protesting were trying to stop Nick's free speech. I think the BNP came off very well from this with the idiocy of the far left (+ Oxford toffs) making a mockery of themselves. I haven't heard the debate (i believe its on youtube or i could get it somewhere) but i expect many thought Nick would be destroyed in the debate and the evil BNP shown to be what the mass media have decided they are. Unfortunately for them i hear Nick came across very well and put his legitimate views across. (clapping at the end i hear?).

 

 

 

Free speech should be allowed to anyone, thats a beauty of democracy and if Nick and the BNP weren't allowed to speak it would cause utter outrage, you may not agree with people but the way to win is to discuss with them their views, unfortunately for the "anti fascists" Nick's views are perfectly reasonable from an increasing amount of British peoples view. I don't believe what those protestors do, that unless you have PC views you're evil and wrong, i'd happily let the far left talk because free speech is what this country needs to gain alternative views in politics etc.

 

 

 

I'd also like to make the distinction between the BNP and holocaust deniers, the BNP does not deny the holocaust, Nick used to in a sense but as people progress they change their beliefs. Irving, contrary to popular belief does not deny the holocaust happened, he says that there isn't solid proof that it happened in the severity (6 million dead) as is publicised. I don't agree with Irving and believe that the numbers are irrelivant, wanting genocide against the jews was utterly despicable and the Nazi's should be shown as they were.

 

 

 

It shows how scared some fascists are if they want to stop Nick talking because they're so scared his views are going to make sense to people, i think monday was a victory for the BNP and a victory for free speech. People say wherever the BNP goes violence goes? Indeed, by the far left causing problems.

[Ginger_Warrior]

It shows how scared some fascists are if they want to stop Nick talking because they're so scared his views are going to make sense to people, i think monday was a victory for the BNP and a victory for free speech. People say wherever the BNP goes violence goes? Indeed, by the far left causing problems.

 

Really?

 

 

 

Because, from what I heard, there was only one person that got into trouble with the police that night, and I seem to recall it was a member of the BNP trying to provoke trouble from those "anti fascists" on the way to the pub after the debate.

 

 

 

 

 

You know what's another beauty of democracy? Everyone is equal. Yes, that includes ethnic minorities and migrant workers. Maybe you should have a look at your own party's stance towards equality before lecturing us on democracy, m'kay?

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

It shows how scared some fascists are if they want to stop Nick talking because they're so scared his views are going to make sense to people.

 

 

 

A BNP supporter calling people fascist, definately the most ironic thing I've heard this week.