DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Greener Pastures
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: World Current Events, Politics and News
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18684--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: Irena Date: July 26, 2019, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Nikola link=topic=1276.msg18683#msg18683
date=1564139523]
Free speech as a human right applies as long as it's not aimed
at violating other people's human rights. Otherwise it would be
like saying that one person's rights are more important than
others'.
[/quote]
Right, which is why you can't go around calling for the
extermination of this or that group. But disagreements about
history (even when they happen to be in bad faith, which is
generally the case with the Holocaust) don't quite seem to
qualify.
I also wonder how post WWII immigrants whose ancestors had
nothing to do with the Holocaust, be it as perpetrators or as
victims, fit into all this. Sometimes, their Holocaust denial is
rooted in simple ignorance, and they're unlikely to see laws
criminalizing Holocaust denial as a particularly convincing
argument. That doesn't mean nothing should be done (I never said
that), just that people shouldn't be imprisoned or fined for
such things. Beyond that, there are quite a lot of things that
can and should be done, most having to do with education and
mass media.
#Post#: 18686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: SHL Date: July 26, 2019, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Nikola link=topic=1276.msg18683#msg18683
date=1564139523]
[quote author=Irena link=topic=1276.msg18679#msg18679
date=1564138793]
I wonder what you mean by human rights then. Because I'd think
that freedom of speech would be one of them.
[/quote]
Free speech as a human right applies as long as it's not aimed
at violating other people's human rights. Otherwise it would be
like saying that one person's rights are more important than
others'.
[/quote]
Talk about censorship, look at how Jerry is trying to censor my
free speech, just because I said something positive about
socialism.
#Post#: 18687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: Nikola Date: July 26, 2019, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That brings me back to the question I asked yesterday.
[quote author=Nikola link=topic=1276.msg18624#msg18624
date=1564075113]
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?
[/quote]
What is an elegant, less restrictive solution to this? If there
were another way of preventing this from happening, then the law
wouldn't be needed.
#Post#: 18688--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: SHL Date: July 26, 2019, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Nikola link=topic=1276.msg18687#msg18687
date=1564140522]
That brings me back to the question I asked yesterday.
[quote author=Nikola link=topic=1276.msg18624#msg18624
date=1564075113]
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?
[/quote]
What is an elegant, less restrictive solution to this? If there
were another way of preventing this from happening, then the law
wouldn't be needed.
[/quote]
I think Alharacas touched on this. When a particular country has
been directly involved in or affected by a horrible event in
history, is restricting speech about the event more appropriate
in the affected country than in other countries where the
atrocities didn‘t occur? If so, why?
Take as an example, a German neo-Nazi. Yeah, they’re around
(maybe underground). If they travel to the US, is it okay for
them to give the Hitler salute and fly the Swastika flag in
public there, where it‘s legal? Is it the location that matters?
#Post#: 18689--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: Nikola Date: July 26, 2019, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven, your little story has its own thread now:
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com/world-current-events/steven's-story-split-from-law-against-movements-oppressing-human-rights-vs-free-/msg18685/?topicseen#msg18685<br
/>Hope that's OK.
#Post#: 18690--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: SHL Date: July 26, 2019, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Nikola link=topic=1276.msg18689#msg18689
date=1564140942]
Steven, your little story has its own thread now:
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com/world-current-events/steven's-story-split-from-law-against-movements-oppressing-human-rights-vs-free-/msg18685/?topicseen#msg18685<br
/>Hope that's OK.
[/quote]
Thanks Nikola. And thanks to Irena for the support.
Is the intensity of the offense the issue? This is where the
lines get a little blurry.
Not to compare apples to oranges, but should the US have laws
against the denial of the (or quasi-elimination) of the
indigenous population? To what extent? I can deny that the
Indians had anything bad happen to them all day if I want. I
don’t do that, but no one would care. I know it‘ an inexact
comparison, but should such speech be restricted?
There are some in the States who, while not denying slavery, say
that the Jim Crow laws that followed it weren’t all that bad
(I’m sure they actually were). One Black guy who grew up under
these laws has a radio show and even says the Jim Crow laws
weren’t that bad (of course he gets a ton of hate mail, but it
doesn’t brother him).
#Post#: 18691--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: Truman Overby Date: July 26, 2019, 6:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=SHL link=topic=1276.msg18686#msg18686
date=1564140411]
Talk about censorship, look at how Jerry is trying to censor my
free speech, just because I said something positive about
socialism.
[/quote]
Au contraire mon frère. I suggested that you start your own
socialism/communism/US-hating forum. How is that censorship?
That's an endorsement of your free speech rights.
#Post#: 18692--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: Alharacas Date: July 26, 2019, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ahem! As much as I dislike quoting myself, could somebody please
adress the problem I mentioned in my last post?
What I said was "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?"
Let's be clear here, those aren't people who are unclear about
the facts of what happened, those are people who will keep
denying what happend (maybe even to themselves, but that's
beside the point), no matter what, because it serves their
purpose.
Claiming the earth is flat won't hurt a fly. Claiming a genocide
- based on a certain ideology - did not take place is to
effectively vindicate that ideology. An ideology which, if it
hadn't held a certain appeal in the first place, would never
have come to dominate.
If you need proof for "incitement to violece", just have a look
at the statistics of members of right-wing splinter groups
committing crimes against people they consider "different", as
in "not German enough for their taste", whether homeless people,
people with skin darker than theirs, or members of antifascistic
groups.
#Post#: 18693--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: Irena Date: July 26, 2019, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Nikola link=topic=1276.msg18687#msg18687
date=1564140522]
That brings me back to the question I asked yesterday.
[quote author=Nikola link=topic=1276.msg18624#msg18624
date=1564075113]
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?
[/quote]
What is an elegant, less restrictive solution to this? If there
were another way of preventing this from happening, then the law
wouldn't be needed.
[/quote]
My point is that the law is unlikely to help you accomplish this
goal, and even if it did (which is doubtful), it would have a
lot of highly unpleasant side effects.
I mean, think about it. Take something you believe, but most
people around you don't. (Even better: take something most
people in your extended family believe, but most people in
society at large do not. Is there anything like that in your
family? If not, use your imagination.) Now imagine the
government made it illegal to state the opinion that you hold in
public. Would that make you more likely or less likely to change
your mind?
#Post#: 18694--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law Against Movements Oppressing Human Rights vs Free Speech
SPLIT FROM Back to Angela Davis
By: Truman Overby Date: July 26, 2019, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=The Artist formerly known as Truman Overby
link=topic=1276.msg18691#msg18691 date=1564141297]
[quote author=SHL link=topic=1276.msg18686#msg18686
date=1564140411]
Talk about censorship, look at how Jerry is trying to censor my
free speech, just because I said something positive about
socialism.
[/quote]
Au contraire mon frère. I suggested that you start your own
socialism/communism/US-hating forum. How is that censorship?
That's an endorsement of your free speech rights.
This appears to be quite unnecessary, Susanne. It's your opinion
that I have nothing to contribute. If I want to be on italki
then I'll go to italki and have overbearing, power-hungry
censors monitor my words and scold me. I don't need this crap. I
had no idea that EGP would turn into a place where I'd have such
a hateful thing inserted into my post.
Oh, and good luck attracting new members when they see this sort
of thing.
Now I finally see why Guyomar won't have anything to do with
this forum.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page