Holocaust Denial, the BNP and freedom of speech

[dorcus1]

Imagine this:

 

 

 

[sarcasm]

 

Freedom of speech and expression, yay!!!!

 

 

 

Let's put porn on cartoon network.

 

Let's put porn pictures on the sidewalks.

 

Let's put porn ads in Reader's Digest.

 

Let's cover the world with porn!!!

 

[/sarcasm]

 

 

 

 

 

You can see where this is going. Hypothetically, if I have a right to free speech, don't I have a right to throw around pictures of porn in public places like confetti?

 

 

 

That's why there's a thing called public decency. Some things are not acceptable. Porn in a public area is indecent, offensive, and unacceptable.

 

 

 

Shouldn't extremist, fanatic, indecent, offensive, and generally unacceptable views also be controlled? Freedom of Speech should be subject to a few laws that filter out the extremist, fanatical, and almost universally offensive views.

[Schmo0zle]

Holocaust deniers are stupid.

 

 

 

The Holocaust happened, it's just that they believe the number of deaths has been greatly inflated, thus they don't believe it.

 

 

 

Also, it's unclear weither Jews were gassed using Zyklon B in camps or not, because the "gas chamber" walls have no blue staining or anything indicating it was used.

 

 

 

Also, the Nazi's de-loused Jews and there was a pool at one of the camps...So Holocaust deniers say that Nazi's were treating the Jews far too well to have just been gassing them for fun.

 

 

 

I don't believe the Nazi's gassed the Jews or killed them for fun, I *DO* believe, however, that the Nazi's were working them to death, and the de-lousing was only so the Nazi's didn't get lice and say it didn't out-break all over the freakin' place.

 

 

 

Also, most of the Zyklon B canisters were found to have been used for de-lousing, not gassing.

 

 

 

Oh, and the Soviets changed some of the buildings after the war to make them look like gas chambers when they were not, they were oringinally bunkers or bomb shelters.

 

 

 

So, I assure you, people are lying about the Holocaust by making it sound as if the Nazi's gassed Jews for fun, because that is not the case. However, they did round them up and then worked them to death, which, uhh...That's not exactly good, my friends. :lol:

 

 

 

They also deny the Holocaust happened because the number of deaths could be inflated, but it's quite obvious MANY people DID die. The number is kinda' irrelevant.

[nomadmike]

:? This is the only freedom of speech problem you see?

 

 

 

There is this one guy who lives in the Midwest(USA). He has made millions(as in published) of books. Each and every one tells you in very great detail how to make anything from meth to armor piercing bullets to weapons that can kill many.

 

The govn't can't go after him because he is not doing anything bad, just printing books.

 

 

 

He has the law on his side because he is just giving free info to others so then they will hurt the world not him(the writer).

 

 

 

 

 

-.- Hes a nut by the way. Was put in jail for 2 years for making meth. Now he says hes "Getting back at the world that wronged him".

[Ginger_Warrior]

Shouldn't extremist, fanatic, indecent, offensive, and generally unacceptable views also be controlled? Freedom of Speech should be subject to a few laws that filter out the extremist, fanatical, and almost universally offensive views.

 

See, this is actually where it becomes quite dangerous. How on Earth can you define something as "extremist" or "fanatic"? The courts have a hard enough task deciding whether something incites racial hatred or not. I've said it before and I'll say it again, many political analysists would describe my political position as extremist, only my extremism is guided towards liberalism and I would never be purposefully racist or xenophobic; quite the opposite.

 

 

 

There are many Muslim extremists who also believe in non-violence. During his time, I'm sure many would have regarded Ghandi as an extremist, or perhaps Martin Luther King Jr..

 

 

 

Extremism itself is perfectly acceptable and converesly is how new political ideologies spawn. However, there is a line at which extremism turns into racist discrimination (for the BNP) and terrorism (for 'religious' groups such as the Real IRA or Al'Queda). It is only at these points extremism becomes dangerous, especially when the ideology is based on hysteria and lies like the BNP's is.

[assassin_696]

Shouldn't extremist, fanatic, indecent, offensive, and generally unacceptable views also be controlled? Freedom of Speech should be subject to a few laws that filter out the extremist, fanatical, and almost universally offensive views.

 

 

 

Controlled based on whose ideology? Yours? Mine? The consensus? Might as well not have it then.

[dorcus1]

Shouldn't extremist, fanatic, indecent, offensive, and generally unacceptable views also be controlled? Freedom of Speech should be subject to a few laws that filter out the extremist, fanatical, and almost universally offensive views.

 

 

 

 

 

See, this is actually where it becomes quite dangerous. How on Earth can you define something as "extremist" or "fanatic"? The courts have a hard enough task deciding whether something incites racial hatred or not. I've said it before and I'll say it again, many political analysists would describe my political position as extremist, only my extremism is guided towards liberalism and I would never be purposefully racist or xenophobic; quite the opposite.

 

 

 

There are many Muslim extremists who also believe in non-violence. During his time, I'm sure many would have regarded Ghandi as an extremist, or perhaps Martin Luther King Jr..

 

 

 

Extremism itself is perfectly acceptable and converesly is how new political ideologies spawn. However, there is a line at which extremism turns into racist discrimination (for the BNP) and terrorism (for 'religious' groups such as the Real IRA or Al'Queda). It is only at these points extremism becomes dangerous, especially when the ideology is based on hysteria and lies like the BNP's is.

 

 

 

 

 

You got me on the "extremism is perfectly acceptable" one. I'll have to agree with you. I'll also agree with the "worry about it when it becomes dangerous." It seems like the only problem is defining "dangerous".

 

 

 

I'd like to describe dangerous as "being a probable negative influence to the majority of a society" As you can see, I've included a lot of weasel words in my definition. Fanaticism and extremism are not necessarily dangerous, since their influence may not be negative. But something like denying the holocaust would be dangerous. It's hard to draw the line.

 

 

 

 

 

Controlled based on whose ideology? Yours? Mine? The consensus? Might as well not have it then.

 

 

 

I believe it should be controlled by the majority's (at least 80%) ideology of what is "dangerous" (not what's right or wrong). In a democracy, the courts, which represent the population, should do the controlling.

[assassin_696]

Controlled based on whose ideology? Yours? Mine? The consensus? Might as well not have it then.

 

 

 

I believe it should be controlled by the majority's (at least 80%) ideology of what is "dangerous" (not what's right or wrong). In a democracy, the courts, which represent the population, should do the controlling.

 

 

 

So you would deny that 20% who oppose whatever you vote on the right to peacefully make their opinions and thoughts felt? In the UK alone that could be over 10 million people. And you call that democracy? Sounds more like fascism.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Controlled based on whose ideology? Yours? Mine? The consensus? Might as well not have it then.

 

 

 

I believe it should be controlled by the majority's (at least 80%) ideology of what is "dangerous" (not what's right or wrong). In a democracy, the courts, which represent the population, should do the controlling.

 

A dictatorship isn't necessary a tyrannical regime where the views of a tiny minority are forced onto everyone else. In fact, Cuba is still officially a dictatorship; but one there with the support of the majority due to a clever, more relaxed approach to Communism by Fidel Castro.

 

 

 

Unless that 20% is a group of people deliberetely attempting to stir racial tensions in the community (or something along those lines), and is therefore clearly a dangerous threat to the stability of the country's society, I can't see how you can justify that living in a democracy where some extent of Free Speech is near enough expected.

[fatbill]

Well if you live in the UK and go to an education place then I must say then that this must be going around all the schools and Universities then cause I had the excate same assembly about this the other day.

 

 

 

Dont really have anything to say on the subject matter though as I wasn't really payin attention and I wont really what youve said as im at school at trying to do work XD

[dorcus1]

Controlled based on whose ideology? Yours? Mine? The consensus? Might as well not have it then.

 

 

 

I believe it should be controlled by the majority's (at least 80%) ideology of what is "dangerous" (not what's right or wrong). In a democracy, the courts, which represent the population, should do the controlling.

 

 

 

So you would deny that 20% who oppose whatever you vote on the right to peacefully make their opinions and thoughts felt? In the UK alone that could be over 10 million people. And you call that democracy? Sounds more like fascism.

 

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily. Only if the 20% advocate something I consider "dangerous." If 0.1% of the population advocate kindness to fleas and express their views in a peaceful way, I'm fine with that. It wouldn't be dangerous. Although I would vote against those "be kind to fleas" people, I wouldn't suppress their views.

 

 

 

A democracy is "rule by the people." The majority rules. One of the big problems with democracy is that the majority couldn't care less about some minorities. That's what free speech rights are for - to protect minorities. Of course, the hard part is defining which minorities deserve free speech rights....

 

 

 

 

 

Unless that 20% is a group of people deliberetely attempting to stir racial tensions in the community (or something along those lines), and is therefore clearly a dangerous threat to the stability of the country's society, I can't see how you can justify that living in a democracy where some extent of Free Speech is near enough expected.

 

 

 

This sentence is a bit unclear to me. I'll just restate some of my beliefs.

 

 

 

A group's right to free speech should only be suppressed when the majority (80%) considers the group's ideology or method of communication dangerous.

 

 

 

If we define democracy as "rule by the people" where the majority of the population makes the decision for everyone, then there is bound to be tyranny by majority. The problem of the majority silencing the minority should be a natural (if unfortunate) occurrence in any democracy.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Yes but you're missing my point.

 

 

 

By doing that you're ignoring the 20% which think the idealogy is acceptable. Regardless of whether they agree with what's being said, you're removing their right to speech.

 

 

 

Above all else, let's say there is a referendum, and over 20% think the BNP's ideology is perfectly acceptable. They'd gain so much popularity it's not funny, and it would become even harder for moderates to challenge their views.

 

 

 

Can't you see such a system is flawed?

[dorcus1]

[hide]Yes but you're missing my point.

 

 

 

By doing that you're ignoring the 20% which think the idealogy is acceptable. Regardless of whether they agree with what's being said, you're removing their right to speech.

 

 

 

Above all else, let's say there is a referendum, and over 20% think the BNP's ideology is perfectly acceptable. They'd gain so much popularity it's not funny, and it would become even harder for moderates to challenge their views.

 

 

 

Can't you see such a system is flawed?[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

If a vote is held and 82% of voters find the ideology dangerous while 18% find the ideology acceptable, then tough luck for the 18%. Rule by the majority is the very essence of democracy. You don't like your country's president? Well, tough luck, he/she was voted in by the majority. You don't like decisions made by your town's council? Well, tough luck, they were voted in by the majority. Welcome to democracy.

 

 

 

I believe the minority should (from a human-rights perspective) be considered. With the exception of dangerous minorities.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe, to protect minority rights, I should bump my number to 99.9%. Then there would be more free speech. Then there would be a lot more crap going around because 0.2% could consider acceptable what 99.8% find dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If 20% find BNP's ideology perfectly acceptable, then BNP has the right to free speech, even though 80% find the ideology dangerous.

 

 

 

Maybe, to protect the majority from a minority of dangerous ideology, I should bump my number down to 66% or 51%. But, then, there is greater potential for tyranny of the majority.

 

 

 

If the BNP does gain popularity, then it represents a segment of the people. If they are allowed free speech, then they're allowed free speech. As long as the majority (80% in my example) doesn't condemn them, they're fine. If the moderates find it hard to challenge BNP's views, then tough luck for the moderates.

 

 

 

There's a balance between giving people a right to a safe, secure environment and giving them the right to free speech. Wherever the government draws the line, there are always those who will believe in more free speech, or more censorship. I see that the system is somewhat flawed. You can make some people happy all of the time or all people happy some of the time, but you can't make everyone happy all of the time. It's a compromise between two ideals.

[Bxpprod]

I'm all for freedom of speech. If that means people denying the Holocaust, then fine. The concept of Tu quoque comes into play a lot in countries that claim freedom of speech these days, with them often demanding the suppression of the ideas of certain "extremists".

 

 

 

The Holocaust in my opinion did occur. The images recorded and taken of death camps and burial grounds in my mind is just to heavy to ignore. That said, if there are people out there that wish to dispute this, then so be it.

 

 

 

That said, it is against the law in Austria (David Irving case recently) to deny the Holocaust. This is possibly to do with the heavy toll that was dealt upon Austria. Germany for many years had erased history of the Holocaust.

 

 

 

I guess what it all boils down to is that, really, it is not "Freedom of Speech" that we enjoy, but rather "Moderated Freedom of Speech".