Stupid Asshole Deprived of Free Speech & Due Process by Other Stupid Assholes

[Andy9o8 2]

A pox on both their houses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8625543.stm

Quote

Holocaust-denying bishop fined by German court

A renegade British bishop has been fined 10,000 euros (£8,750) for denying the Holocaust in a case that has acutely embarrassed the Vatican.

The case went ahead in a German court without Richard Williamson, whose breakaway Catholic fraternity told him not to testify, his lawyer said.

Denying that the Holocaust took place, or questioning key elements, is illegal in Germany.

Williamson was fined 12,000 euros (£12,500) earlier this year for giving the interview in Germany to a Swedish broadcaster.

The latest trial was ordered after Mr Williamson, who lives in London, refused to pay. He faced a sentence ranging from a fine to up to five years in prison.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

A pox on both their houses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8625543.stm

Quote

Holocaust-denying bishop fined by German court

A renegade British bishop has been fined 10,000 euros (£8,750) for denying the Holocaust in a case that has acutely embarrassed the Vatican.

The case went ahead in a German court without Richard Williamson, whose breakaway Catholic fraternity told him not to testify, his lawyer said.

Denying that the Holocaust took place, or questioning key elements, is illegal in Germany.

Williamson was fined 12,000 euros (£12,500) earlier this year for giving the interview in Germany to a Swedish broadcaster.

The latest trial was ordered after Mr Williamson, who lives in London, refused to pay. He faced a sentence ranging from a fine to up to five years in prison.

There was another case like this where a douchebag proclaimed that. A lady wrote a book callinmg him an idiot, he sued and lost. The gov gave ample warning multi times to STFU and didn't. He got 2 years.

We see it as deprivation of FS, Germans take it much more harshly considering they were the purveyors of that shit. I don't disagree with the law. Also, I have some Nazi era coins with the Swastika - evil looking - they are also lillegal over there and much of W.E.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I don't disagree with the law.

I do. Thus, the title of the thread, and the opening remark above the link.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't disagree with the law.

I do. Thus, the title of the thread, and the opening remark above the link.

Being an American in awe of the horrific nature of the Holocaust is quite diff from being a German, Astrian, etc and watching the same thing ebing talked about. Here we use it as a metaphor to describe Republicans, there they produced it.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't disagree with the law.

I do. Thus, the title of the thread, and the opening remark above the link.

Being an American in awe of the horrific nature of the Holocaust is quite diff from being a German, Astrian, etc and watching the same thing ebing talked about. Here we use it as a metaphor to describe Republicans, there they produced it.

Makes no difference in a civilized country that should be confident in the rule of law, the essential nature of free expression, and the societal harm that comes from the criminalizing of very unpopular speech that the government and/or the tyranny of the majority deems "dangerous.". I generally dislike analogies, but imagine a law in the US which made denying the past existence of slavery in the US a crime. Such a law would be unconstitutional, and that's as it should be.

[dreamdancer 0]

why not also try shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema. or mentioning the word 'bomb' while waiting for a transatlantic plane
(and definitely don't skip anywhere)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I generally dislike analogies, but imagine a law in the US which made denying the past existence of slavery in the US a crime. Such a law would be unconstitutional, and that's as it should be.

Really? KKK fools get shut down all the time with their anti-black message. Where do you their ideals derrived? Also, where did the word, "N*****" come from? Wasn't it used a lot and/or derrived as we know it from the slavery days? Why can't we use it in open speech w/o citing a riot? Why is it not allowed and an arrest be made for disorderly conduct if a fool started using it openly on teh streets or at work, etc? I now see why you don't like analogies.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

why not also try shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema. or mentioning the word 'bomb' while waiting for a transatlantic plane
(and definitely don't skip anywhere)

More great examples. The greater good of society outweighs a person's right to free speech.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Here we use it as a metaphor to describe Republicans, there they produced it

You use it as a metaphor, not we. Don't include everyone in your little name calling game, lucky. I have friends from both major parties and I'm not so big an asshole that I would refer to any of them as Nazis or insinuate they would approve of atrocities the Nazis committed.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Here we use it as a metaphor to describe Republicans, there they produced it

You use it as a metaphor, not we. Don't include everyone in your little name calling game, lucky. I have friends from both major parties and I'm not so big an asshole that I would refer to any of them as Nazis or insinuate they would approve of atrocities the Nazis committed.

It's a metaphor, meaning that most R's and R ideology is basically asshole in that it subscribes a mere part of the Nazi Party, not the whole thing or it would be litteral, which I never mean it that way. Of course some idiotic R's consider their calling the D's, Communists as litteral and that is as dumb as calling the R's littertally Nazis.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

why not also try shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema. or mentioning the word 'bomb' while waiting for a transatlantic plane
(and definitely don't skip anywhere)

Very poor comparisons.
Both of your examples are illegal because of the immediate results that can be expected. A person claiming the holocaust never occurred is expressing their views and opinions.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

why not also try shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema. or mentioning the word 'bomb' while waiting for a transatlantic plane
(and definitely don't skip anywhere)

Very poor comparisons.
Both of your examples are illegal because of the immediate results that can be expected. A person claiming the holocaust never occurred is expressing their views and opinions.

Right and a subsequent riot would never outbreak by descedents of the Holocaust survivors . Would saying Licoln was wrong with the Emancipation Proclamation while in downtown Detriot be a cause of a riot? Would it incite civil unrest? Sure, therefore it's not protected but disorderly conduct. Sorry you don't personally like it, but that is the way it is.

[shropshire 0]

Sorry Andy, I'm not entirely convinced by your American, constitutional Freedom of Speech argument... It 'may' work for you but I think that the publicity surrounding the court cases for these hate crime idiots works well for us.

I also guess that you have a law of libel over there and maybe it can be argued that he was being somewhat libellous against a group of people (is that possible?) ..

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

why not also try shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema. or mentioning the word 'bomb' while waiting for a transatlantic plane
(and definitely don't skip anywhere)

Very poor comparisons.
Both of your examples are illegal because of the immediate results that can be expected. A person claiming the holocaust never occurred is expressing their views and opinions.

Right and a subsequent riot would never outbreak by descedents of the Holocaust survivors . Would saying Licoln was wrong with the Emancipation Proclamation while in downtown Detriot be a cause of a riot? Would it incite civil unrest? Sure, therefore it's not protected but disorderly conduct. Sorry you don't personally like it, but that is the way it is.

Again you compare apples to golfballs.
By your logic anybody who says anything that may result in somebody doing something to somebody that they might not like should be arrested.

You wrote, "Would saying Licoln was wrong with the Emancipation Proclamation while in downtown Detriot be a cause of a riot? Would it incite civil unrest? Sure, therefore it's not protected but disorderly conduct. Sorry you don't personally like it, but that is the way it is"
Sorry, but as long as a person obtained any needed permits they could indeed do exactly that. In fact, White Supremecist groups do that very thing all over the country and they are protected by the law.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

why not also try shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema. or mentioning the word 'bomb' while waiting for a transatlantic plane
(and definitely don't skip anywhere)

It'd suck if a theater was on fire but nobod wanted to shout it out because it was illegal. Or, if somebody didn't shout it because they weren't sure that the fire was bad enough for people to evacuate.

Or if there's a bomb on an aircraft, it'd suck if a person saw one and didn't say anything.


To Andy's point, I also thoroughly disagree with the law. It has a tendency to lead to a couple of things. First, a black market of ideas (just because it is illegal doesn't mean people are thinking it or expressing it. And it is being done in a way without opposition. Heck, how many people are out there who would take the Nazi viewpoint BECAUSE it is banned?)

The second thing is that it tends to create acceptance of the banning of an opposing view. Hey, all mention of Naziism is banned? We then move in and ban all mention of Allah. Etc.

It's ironic that the banning of the ideas of a totalitarian regime is itself a totalitarian concept. It also is intolerance of intolerance.

But I disagree with Andy's assertion that it is not consistent with the rule of law. In Germany this IS the rule of law. The rule of law in the US is different. The shame, as I see it, is how many people in the US who favor the stifling of speech they abhor - as if they are the ones who desire the totalitarian power to decide what is permissible to say.

To those I say this: "would you want to give similar power to the Christians, Neo-Nazis, etc?". If you would not desire everyone to have equal power, then I believe that you think equality is very important. Free speech might prevent you from stopping the speech you want to stop. It also prevents others from stopping you from saying what you want to say - and there are plenty of them on all sides.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

OK, let's tally up the score so far. I'm right, and so is Belgian Draft and Lawrocket.
The rest of you are wrong.

Now back to the fun.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Or if there's a bomb on an aircraft, it'd suck if a person saw one and didn't say anything.

what about a simple joke about a bomb while waiting for your flight?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Or if there's a bomb on an aircraft, it'd suck if a person saw one and didn't say anything.

what about a simple joke about a bomb while waiting for your flight?

You and Lucky should know better than to use the stinky examples you've each used. Stinky!
I'll see you two after class.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Would saying Licoln was wrong with the Emancipation Proclamation while in downtown Detriot be a cause of a riot? Would it incite civil unrest? Sure, therefore it's not protected but disorderly conduct. Sorry you don't personally like it, but that is the way it is.

Okay. So, in order to preserve the peace, Negro men should not have been allowed to marry white women. (I seem to recall reading about things like lynch mobs).

Martin Luther King. Jr. caused violent reactions. So did Ghandi. Yet, because of your self-centered approach, there are differences between violence directed at those with whom you agree and violence directed at those with whom you disagree.

Do you defend those who would spit on Congressmen and Congresswomen because they were incited to do it by the words and actions of the recipients of the spit? your reasoning justifies defending them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Again you compare apples to golfballs.
By your logic anybody who says anything that may result in somebody doing something to somebody that they might not like should be arrested.

I guess the legal term that matters here is: FORSEEABLE. Is it forseeable that denying the holocaust or dropping the N-bomb in the US would likely end up with a riot? Of course it is, trherefore it s/b a crime and a tort.

Quote

Sorry, but as long as a person obtained any needed permits they could indeed do exactly that. In fact, White Supremecist groups do that very thing all over the country and they are protected by the law.

Many are denied permits, just as a permit to deny the Holocaust in Germany, Austria, etc would be denied summarily as a matter of law. So I see we agree, if there is a permit then you can do it and it's protected. Here are examples:

http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2010-02-06/story/ku_klux_klan_denied_permit_to_rally_at_nahunta_city_hall

http://peanutpolitics-keith.blogspot.com/2010/02/ku-klux-klan-denied-permit-to-rally-in.html

http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2010-02-06/kkk-denied-permit-south-georgia-rally?page=1&v=1265460826

There are more, but this speech is so sensitive that they often get turned down, meaning their speech is not protected as it violates other's civil rights.

Glad we agree.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

To Andy's point, I also thoroughly disagree with the law. It has a tendency to lead to a couple of things.

I know, it's not as if a simple thing as a jury verdict could cause a riot that kileld 53 people or anything . I agree, speech before life

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

OK, let's tally up the score so far. I'm right, and so is Belgian Draft and Lawrocket.
The rest of you are wrong.

Now back to the fun.

Congratulations, you are on the same side as Belgian

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or if there's a bomb on an aircraft, it'd suck if a person saw one and didn't say anything.

what about a simple joke about a bomb while waiting for your flight?

You and Lucky should know better than to use the stinky examples you've each used. Stinky!
I'll see you two after class.

They're awsome examples of the meaningless 1st.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

OK, let's tally up the score so far. I'm right, and so is Belgian Draft and Lawrocket.
The rest of you are wrong.

Now back to the fun.

Congratulations, you are on the same side as Belgian

Go figure.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Okay. So, in order to preserve the peace, Negro men should not have been allowed to marry white women. (I seem to recall reading about things like lynch mobs).

That was addressed in Loving v Virginia 1968, counselor. Marrying is hardly simple free speech, lousy comparison.

Quote

Martin Luther King. Jr. caused violent reactions. So did Ghandi. Yet, because of your self-centered approach, there are differences between violence directed at those with whom you agree and violence directed at those with whom you disagree.

It's not self-centered, and with the civil rights marches in the 1960's, we have an obviously discriminated group trying to gain equality vs the KKK a bunch of racist pigs trying to relive the gool ole days to them. Point is, as unfair as it may seem, a black man can say, "N*****" all day in public whereas I cannot if I wanted to.

As well, it's not just about the parties, innocent bystanders could be get hurt/killed with a riot caused by idiots claiming to be excercizing free speech, so it's about public good as well and where rights end and protections begin.

Quote

Do you defend those who would spit on Congressmen and Congresswomen because they were incited to do it by the words and actions of the recipients of the spit? your reasoning justifies defending them.

Only if they are Republican congresspeople. Of course not, but your examplke is waaaay off base to free speech. Spitting on anyone isn't expression, unless it's wanted by the recipient.