URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Even Greener Pastures
  HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: World Current Events, Politics and News
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 18615--------------------------------------------------
       Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech SPL
       IT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: Irena Date: July 25, 2019, 11:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Nikola link=topic=1275.msg18614#msg18614
       date=1564070404]
       I think that celebrating someone like her might actually be
       against the law in my country, not even joking. We have a Law
       Against Support and Dissemination of Movements Oppressing Human
       Rights and Freedoms which also applies to communist-perpetrated
       atrocities. Just something to be aware of if you happen to cross
       the Czech border.
       [/quote]
       Interesting... Sounds like an unnecessary restriction of free
       speech. Not that I approve of Angela Davis. But that's not the
       point.
       #Post#: 18617--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
        SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: Nikola Date: July 25, 2019, 11:31 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Irena link=topic=1275.msg18615#msg18615
       date=1564070728]
       Interesting... Sounds like an unnecessary restriction of free
       speech. Not that I approve of Angela Davis. But that's not the
       point.
       [/quote]
       It's basically one law that treats this and Nazism the same and
       also addresses denying the Holocaust and denying the communist
       genocide. I don't know where you would draw the line in terms of
       free speech. After all, one person's freedom ends where
       another's begins. We still have the Communist Party but even
       they had to declare that they disagree with things that happened
       before 1989.
       #Post#: 18619--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
        SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: Irena Date: July 25, 2019, 11:40 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Nikola, I actually think that even laws against Holocaust denial
       are counterproductive. It just makes deniers go underground, and
       it convinces them that there are no good arguments proving that
       the Holocaust ever took place, since otherwise, the other side
       would use arguments, rather than legal restrictions.
       As I see it, if you're going to restrict free speech, you need
       to have very compelling reasons for doing so. Credible threats
       and incitement to violence should be unacceptable. The same goes
       for slander against individuals. But if someone's merely
       misrepresenting history, then let him (or her). Use reasoned
       arguments to defeat him.
       #Post#: 18621--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
        SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: Nikola Date: July 25, 2019, 11:52 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Irena link=topic=1275.msg18619#msg18619
       date=1564072850]
       Nikola, I actually think that even laws against Holocaust denial
       are counterproductive. It just makes deniers go underground, and
       it convinces them that there are no good arguments proving that
       the Holocaust ever took place, since otherwise, the other side
       would use arguments, rather than legal restrictions.
       As I see it, if you're going to restrict free speech, you need
       to have very compelling reasons for doing so. Credible threats
       and incitement to violence should be unacceptable. The same goes
       for slander against individuals. But if someone's merely
       misrepresenting history, then let him (or her). Use reasoned
       arguments to defeat him.
       [/quote]
       I get your point but we're not talking just about some crazy guy
       shouting something on the street. If you allow it, you'll get
       books written about it, quoted in other books, real numbers
       slowly changing, people will start saying "different sources
       quote different numbers" and "it's a matter of perspective" but
       the thing is it isn't.
       I wouldn't want to see this over-used but I think in the case of
       millions of victims and movements that operate on the principle
       of violent seizure of power and killing those who disagree,
       which, in my opinion, isn't too far from "credible threats and
       incitement to violence", I don't have a problem with it.
       #Post#: 18622--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
        SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: Irena Date: July 25, 2019, 11:55 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Nikola, I hear that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion sells
       very well in Serbia. Illegally. Forbidden fruit and all that.
       #Post#: 18624--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
        SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: Nikola Date: July 25, 2019, 12:18 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Irena link=topic=1276.msg18622#msg18622
       date=1564073742]
       Nikola, I hear that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion sells
       very well in Serbia. Illegally. Forbidden fruit and all that.
       [/quote]
       OK so that's a side effect of the law. Could something be done
       about it? How much of it is curiosity-driven? Because I think
       that for educational purposes, while stating very clearly that
       this is wrong, things like this could be shown to people and
       talked about. In fact they should be talked about. It's the
       celebrating and distribution of it that's not allowed.
       Now a side effect of not having the law: Numbers and facts being
       bent in the course of time and people believing that they are
       open to interpretation, as a result. People not being sure
       whether the Holocaust ever happened. Could this be avoided?
       #Post#: 18628--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
        SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: NealC Date: July 25, 2019, 1:20 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I don't think the Holocaust will ever be forgotten solely on the
       basis of the meticulous records kept by the Germans themselves.
       I was reading about the Warsaw Uprising today and the first hand
       reports they have from the German commander who went in and
       flattened the Ghetto was enough to chill me to my bones.  A lot
       of these people were very committed to what they were doing and
       had no problem writing about it.
       #Post#: 18629--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
        SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: Alharacas Date: July 25, 2019, 1:35 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Irena, I see your point, and to some extent I even agree with
       it. In theory.
       In practice, it seems unnecessarily cruel towards the survivors
       and the descendants of victims to have to put up with deniers
       and belittlers on top of everything else, doesn't it?
       I see these laws as the least a society can do which committed,
       condoned, did nothing to stop atrocities. Dead people are final,
       no amends can be made. All you can do afterwards is to try and
       ensure a minimum of respect is shown.
       Oh - apart from trying to get the murderers condemned. Yeah,
       there is that. But then, that would mean looking things in the
       face. Too much bother, apparently.
       #Post#: 18659--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
        SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: Alharacas Date: July 26, 2019, 3:56 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Steven, your post has been moved to
       Back to Angela Davis SPLIT FROM Stripping off clothes? Those
       Americans are crazy! Human Rights vs Free Speech SPLIT FROM Back
       to Angela Davis SPLIT AGAIN from Human Rights vs. Free Speech
       as this particular thread here has nothing whatsoever to do with
       your personal opinion about socialism. :)
       Neal, it's not about forgetting. It's about guys like the one I
       saw on TV the other day (not live, they were showing a bit of a
       recording, but amazingly, the guy is actually still alive),
       saying how you should be careful with talking about millions,
       because there simply hadn't been that many jews. This guy is
       undoubtedly a mass murderer. However, when they'd tried to
       convict him, decades ago, apparently there was not enough
       evidence (big advantage when all of your victims are dead). So,
       now at least he's being dragged through the courts because he's
       denied the Holocaust. Yes, it's the smallest placebo imaginable,
       but surely it's something that he's not allowed to keep mocking
       his victims?
       I think we'd need Susan to help us with terminology and a
       scientific explanation, but basically this is how I see it:
       after a genocide, there are still all those people around who'd
       participated in it to a larger or smaller extent, who'd admired,
       applauded, helped and/or tried to emulate its instigators. And
       if anyone, it's usually only the instigators who are
       executed/condemned. The others... well, some may come to realize
       how wrongly they'd acted. But many, I'd say the majority, have a
       vested interest in minimizing (if not justifying) what happened.
       Recognizing their guilt would invalidate a significant part of
       their lives, all the emotions invested in ardent belief,
       bla-bla-bla. And since you can't send a large part of a
       country's population into therapy (provided that would even
       work), you bleeding well have to do something to at least try
       and shut them up, don't you?
       #Post#: 18662--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
        SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
       By: Irena Date: July 26, 2019, 4:27 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Alharacas link=topic=1276.msg18629#msg18629
       date=1564079706]
       Irena, I see your point, and to some extent I even agree with
       it. In theory.
       In practice, it seems unnecessarily cruel towards the survivors
       and the descendants of victims to have to put up with deniers
       and belittlers on top of everything else, doesn't it?
       I see these laws as the least a society can do which committed,
       condoned, did nothing to stop atrocities. Dead people are final,
       no amends can be made. All you can do afterwards is to try and
       ensure a minimum of respect is shown.
       Oh - apart from trying to get the murderers condemned. Yeah,
       there is that. But then, that would mean looking things in the
       face. Too much bother, apparently.
       [/quote]
       Yeah, well, and then you get laws like the one in Poland. From
       Wikipedia: "A law forbidding anyone from blaming the state of
       Poland for Holocaust atrocities during World War II was voted by
       lawmakers on January 26, 2018."  ::)
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Poland
       I'd rather protect free speech, and handle people who spout
       nonsense (even highly offensive nonsense) by other means.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page