EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial

[Plane]

So, Js, are you going to be interviewing for the position of deciding what does and doesn't incite hatred?  And if it's egregious rhetoric aimed at the "majority", that's perfectly ok then, right?

Do you have any idea how bad an idea this is.  This isn't yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.  This is some organization body deciding what is and isn't "inciting hatred".  This is precisely what Plane & ami have been referining, the road to the thought police.  And you don't have a problem with that??     

Just what I was going to say.

(what a saveing of effort)

Let me add.

If someone wants to say something demonstrably false , the thing to do is demonstrate that falsity , useing governmental fiat to enforce the truth does not make it more credible , rather otherwise.

Rosie O'Donnell is denying the truth in terms that make her look stupid, government action to shut her up would repair her credibility , even with people who know that heat softens steel.

[_JS]

So in your all's estimation it is not feasible for reasonable people or judges to determine if condoning genocide has led to a riot?

The Austrian law is nearly identical to the German law, which you were defending, seeming to claim that arresting and imprisoning someone for just speaking an incorrect opinion would not happen.

Neither of which are examples of the EU law.

Out of curiosity Plane, Ami, and Sirs. Should Israel overturn its similar law on holocaust denial?

[Amianthus]

Neither of which are examples of the EU law.

West Germany (now Germany) has had this law for many years and is there "thought crime" in that country? Of course not.

So, which is it? Germany has this law, or it does not?

I will add that while the David Irving case is recent, there are similar accounts of arrests made in Germany under their laws.

[Amianthus]

Out of curiosity Plane, Ami, and Sirs. Should Israel overturn its similar law on holocaust denial?

Yes.

[sirs]

So in your all's estimation it is not feasible for reasonable people or judges to determine if condoning genocide has led to a riot?

No.  It's blatantly supporting the idea of a thought police.  Remember you specifically referenced if it incites hatred, not just a riot.  There are many things that can incite hatred.  It's emotion driven.  That's precisely the road this is heading

Out of curiosity Plane, Ami, and Sirs. Should Israel overturn its similar law on holocaust denial?

Absolutely

[_JS]

OK.

Under the agreement, incitement to hatred or violence against a group or a person based on colour, race, national or ethnic origin must be punishable by at least a year in jail. However, member states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order.

Officials said the wording was carefully designed to avoid criminalising films or plays about genocide, or discouraging academic research.

The text of the decision says the new rules will not modify the obligation to respect fundamental legal principles, including freedom of expression and association. Countries where it is already a crime to deny the Holocaust will stick to their existing rules, but other countries will not be obliged to help them with judicial investigations.

Link

*sigh*

Project your American view elsewhere please.

[Plane]

So in your all's estimation it is not feasible for reasonable people or judges to determine if condoning genocide has led to a riot?

Good greif how much power do Judges need over what is allowed to be said?
What little of our lives is not presently under the Law we should guard against the encrochment .

The Austrian law is nearly identical to the German law, which you were defending, seeming to claim that arresting and imprisoning someone for just speaking an incorrect opinion would not happen.

Neither of which are examples of the EU law.

Out of curiosity Plane, Ami, and Sirs. Should Israel overturn its similar law on holocaust denial?

I was not aware that they had one , if it is much like what we have been discussing then there of all places they can do well without it.

[sirs]

*sigh*  Project your American view elsewhere please.

Freedom to speak your mind isn't a concept you support I see.  gotcha.  Keep in mind Js, this isn't supporting the notion of yelling "Let's start a riot, because we hate those f'ing  (fill in the blank)."   This is supporting the notion that despite how much you might disagree with another person's POV, even make you boil inside that someone would dare deny the holocaust happened, to support the right for them to say it & be a moron.

You apparently think otherwise..........................which is really, really sad

[Plane]

OK.

Under the agreement, incitement to hatred or violence against a group or a person based on colour, race, national or ethnic origin must be punishable by at least a year in jail. However, member states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order.

Officials said the wording was carefully designed to avoid criminalising films or plays about genocide, or discouraging academic research.

As long as it is within the orthodox government approved version of the truth.

The text of the decision says the new rules will not modify the obligation to respect fundamental legal principles, including freedom of expression and association. Countries where it is already a crime to deny the Holocaust will stick to their existing rules, but other countries will not be obliged to help them with judicial investigations.

Link

*sigh*

Project your American view elsewhere please.

I am indeed glad it is happening thousands of miles away , let the result be a lesson to us as onlookers .

Seems to me that they could have learned this particular lesson long ago from how poorly the enforcement of orthodoxy on Gallileo turned out.

[_JS]

Actually Israel's law on genocide is rather remarkable. They, according to their own law, may arrest anyone for any genocidal act (or conspiracy, incitement, attempt, complicity in and thereof) that takes place anywhere in the world meeting their criteria which is not limited only to the Hebrew people, though to my knowledge they have not enforced this on anyone else (though I could be wrong).

Keep in mind Js, this isn't supporting the notion of yelling "Let's start a riot, because we hate those f'ing (fill in the blank)."

On the contrary, that seems to be the very notion that you, Ami, and Plane are supporting. Starting a riot does not have to be that implicit (it rarely is) but even the United States has laws against it. I really don't understand why you are having a difficult time with this (especially you Sirs, someone who has supported wiretapping, overseas CIA prisons, and even certain degrees of torture!).

As long as it is within the orthodox government approved version of the truth.

Plane, do you honestly believe that European countries run their film industries this way?

Seems to me that they could have learned this particular lesson long ago from how poorly the enforcement of orthodoxy on Gallileo turned out.

Your analogy would conclude that the Holocaust deniers were correct all along. (Sort of, actually Galileo's trial has been somewhat susceptible to myth. Much of it had to do with politics of the day and the many enemies he made. Heliocentrism was never held as heretical by the Church ).

[sirs]

Keep in mind Js, this isn't supporting the notion of yelling "Let's start a riot, because we hate those f'ing (fill in the blank)."

On the contrary, that seems to be the very notion that you, Ami, and Plane are supporting. Starting a riot does not have to be that implicit (it rarely is) but even the United States has laws against it.

Not even close, as this never was about supporting someone's right to yell fire.  This has always been about supporting the right for someone to hold a POV that you might find absolutely reprehensible, and even say it publically.  If that someone is taking that POV to then attempt to initiate a riot, that's completely different, as that's no longer simply expressing a different position.  That's now an attempt to actively illicit a violent response.  Do you see the difference yet?  You're too smart a fella not to

I really don't understand why you are having a difficult time with this (especially you Sirs, someone who has supported wiretapping, overseas CIA prisons, and even certain degrees of torture!)

Now here's an interesting, albeit Tee-like tactic.  Have an absolutely non-defensible position, and try to bring in a completely unrelated topic that you think you can then put me on the defensive with.  If you want to talk about wiretapping suspected foreign terrorists, and what I support in the way of "torture", then by all means, initiate another thread.  You're support of policing one's thoughts is the problem you have in this thread, and trying to tell me to "project my American view elsewhere" apparently makes me feel all the better that I live in a country, where I could say reprehensible garbage like what Barbara Streisand, Danny Glover, Alec Baldwin, Harry Belafonte, Rosie O'Donnel, Sean Penn, Julia Roberts, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Keith Olberman, etc., etc., etc., say on a nearly 24/7 basis

[Plane]

As long as it is within the orthodox government approved version of the truth.

Plane, do you honestly believe that European countries run their film industries this way?

Seems to me that they could have learned this particular lesson long ago from how poorly the enforcement of orthodoxy on Gallileo turned out.

Your analogy would conclude that the Holocaust deniers were correct all along. (Sort of, actually Galileo's trial has been somewhat susceptible to myth. Much of it had to do with politics of the day and the many enemies he made. Heliocentrism was never held as heretical by the Church ).

No, I hope that most of the film industrys igtnore this law and that it is never enforced anywhere.

No, the people who procicuted Gallileo were quite sure that he was wrong , and that he had no right to spread such error  so they threatened him with severe consequences unless he recanted . Not too long before in a simular case , the heriutic that professed helio centricism was exicuted.

You and I are quite sure that the historical record of the Holocaust is not a grand conspiracy to lie to everyone , but governments do not have any business enforceing an orthodox truth.

[_JS]

This has always been about supporting the right for someone to hold a POV that you might find absolutely reprehensible, and even say it publically.

Which is not in conflict Sirs. The EU Law clearly leaves this up to the nations and even says that: "states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order." Why do you have a problem with that? Please tell me what is wrong with that.

No, the people who procicuted Gallileo were quite sure that he was wrong , and that he had no right to spread such error  so they threatened him with severe consequences unless he recanted

That is simply untrue. Copernicus and Kepler had already made their views known. Moreover, Copernicus was very well liked by a number of Church officials and his writings were very well received, especially by the later formed Jesuit community (which became more prominent in Galileo's time). Though in fairness it was also ridiculed, especially by the scientists of the day and Protestant clerics - especially Luther and Melanchthon.

Heliocentrism was not heretical, nor was it forbidden for astronomers to learn. Part of Galileo's problem was his own arrogance, his inability to refute Aristotle (who was very widely respected in that time), and the faults of literal interpretation of Bible verses.

[sirs]

This has always been about supporting the right for someone to hold a POV that you might find absolutely reprehensible, and even say it publically.

Which is not in conflict Sirs. The EU Law clearly leaves this up to the nations and even says that: "states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order." Why do you have a problem with that? Please tell me what is wrong with that.

My "problem" is in your own response.  "states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order..."   Which means they can also choose not to, and instead choose simply to crimimalize language that someone(s) decide is simply hateful, MINUS public order disturbance.  Do you see the diff yet?  Please say you do, as I've already made it painfully clear that this isn't about someone yelling "fire", nor in support of "Death to all *fill-in-the-blank*, let's burn them all" attempt at initiating a riot

[_JS]

My "problem" is in your own response.  "states can choose to limit prosecutions to cases likely to disturb public order..."

First, to understand that you have to understand the European Union and how it functions. That will require a lot of time and I don't want to get into that unless you wish to sincerely discuss it.

Which means they can also choose not to, and instead choose simply to crimimalize language that someone(s) decide is simply hateful, MINUS public order disturbance.

But are you consistent here? You have no problem with people publishing tracts on how the Holocaust was fake. Fine.

How about publishing health reports on why adult sex with children has positive aspects in fighting cancer, complete with explicit pictures? Surely this would also fall under your "Freedom of Speech." And if the pictures are too much and violate the rights of others, then drawings would be OK, right?

There could be a film included, because we would not want the tyrannical governments of Europe to disturb the film industry with government approved "orthodox views." They can always use a boy and girl who are legally 18 and use modern technology to make them appear much younger.

So, there should be no laws preventing this? It is not "hate speech" but it is a serious academic look into the possible positive health effects of pedophillia.

You're on board, right Sirs?