EU aims to criminalise Holocaust denial

[Plane]

<<I'm merely arguing that this law against Holocaust denial is, imo, wrong.>>

As great a wrong as was the Holocaust?

An order of magnitude less, maybe three.

But what if freedom of speech was gradually reduced to nothing , by means of many sucyh well meaning laws.

Is it still a small matter?

[Universe Prince]

No, Lanya. Of course not.

[_JS]

But what if freedom of speech was gradually reduced to nothing , by means of many sucyh well meaning laws.

Yet, you have no evidence that this is the case. You have the slippery slope theory and it is unfair to use it in every possible situation.

I think by manichean you mean dualistic, black-and-white.

Yes. I think that probably is unfair to characterize you Prince.

I'm merely arguing that this law against Holocaust denial is, imo, wrong.

I think this is just an area where we honestly disagree.


I'd like to go back to the books I asked Sirs about. He said that in no way should children be able to get a hold of these books on homosexuality. Yet, free speech is useless without an audience, right? I mean, these people denying the Holocaust are writing books and expecting people to read them. My question is this, should these books be placed in a public library? Is that not part of free speech? If you never allow the material to see daylight, then you've just buried free speech by less transparent means, correct? At least this way the Government has a law for all to see. If you disallow books in public (or by whatever means) then you've just attacked free speech in a more covert manner.

So should the books I mentioned be allowed in libraries? Should they be allowed in state schools? What about these Holocaust denial books?

[Plane]

But what if freedom of speech was gradually reduced to nothing , by means of many sucyh well meaning laws.

Yet, you have no evidence that this is the case. You have the slippery slope theory and it is unfair to use it in every possible situation.

I think by manichean you mean dualistic, black-and-white.

Yes. I think that probably is unfair to characterize you Prince.

I'm merely arguing that this law against Holocaust denial is, imo, wrong.

I think this is just an area where we honestly disagree.


I'd like to go back to the books I asked Sirs about. He said that in no way should children be able to get a hold of these books on homosexuality. Yet, free speech is useless without an audience, right? I mean, these people denying the Holocaust are writing books and expecting people to read them. My question is this, should these books be placed in a public library? Is that not part of free speech? If you never allow the material to see daylight, then you've just buried free speech by less transparent means, correct? At least this way the Government has a law for all to see. If you disallow books in public (or by whatever means) then you've just attacked free speech in a more covert manner.

So should the books I mentioned be allowed in libraries? Should they be allowed in state schools? What about these Holocaust denial books?

Such books ought to be vetted by parents , a liabrary that caters to children should not have them unless the parent is made aware of them.

Once that child is grown he should be fair game to persuasion even of the most drastic sort that free speech allows , but it is the right of a parent to raise a child in the way that he should go.

There is not a good reason to treat us all as children tho.

[sirs]

There is not a good reason to treat us all as children tho.

I think that sums things up very nicely.  Well summized, Plane     

[domer]

In one post, JS says to UP (paparphrase): "Sure, you can have a valid opinion [by the way, what does 'valid' mean, JS?] about the EU plan to ban Holocaust denial," but then says (and this is a direct quote): "What I was advising was that one should consider where the EU is coming from in determining this law. I'm sure that Domer and any other legal experts we have around can tell you that law is anything but black and white (most of the time). There are many cultural and societal elements to the legal system in any nation. These stem from collective histories and national events that affect the population at large and thus the legislatures. Laws are also affected by the political system involved." More or less (probably more), this (the latter quote) is my (Domer's) position, which remains the same as when I first uttered it, and equally valid. I have no problem, as I say, with people using this proposed ban as an abstract or imaginary platform to wax poetic about libertarian theories of speech, but I react quite dyspeptically to the pretense of any expertise, entitlement or authority whatsoever to chime in about how this -- ESPECIALLY THIS -- matter is to be handled by those that actually lived through its horrors and will live with its dark legacy. (If I can be charged with arrogance for voicing this opinion, then what can you be charged with for running willy nilly into the eye of the storm in a dilettante's get-up, not ready for substantive contribution but merely to chime in with reflexive libertarianism.

[domer]

In one post, JS says to UP (paparphrase): "Sure, you can have a valid opinion [by the way, what does 'valid' mean, JS?] about the EU plan to ban Holocaust denial," but then says (and this is a direct quote): "What I was advising was that one should consider where the EU is coming from in determining this law. I'm sure that Domer and any other legal experts we have around can tell you that law is anything but black and white (most of the time). There are many cultural and societal elements to the legal system in any nation. These stem from collective histories and national events that affect the population at large and thus the legislatures. Laws are also affected by the political system involved." More or less (probably more), this (the latter quote) is my (Domer's) position, which remains the same as when I first uttered it, and equally valid. I have no problem, as I say, with people using this proposed ban as an abstract or imaginary platform to wax poetic about libertarian theories of speech, but I react quite dyspeptically to the pretense of any expertise, entitlement or authority whatsoever to chime in about how this -- ESPECIALLY THIS -- matter is to be handled by those who actually lived through its horrors and will live with its dark legacy. (If I can be charged with arrogance for voicing this opinion, then what can you be charged with for running willy nilly into the eye of the storm in a dilettante's get-up, not ready for substantive contribution but merely to chime in with reflexive libertarianism?)

[Amianthus]

Thought it was so good, it needed to be posted twice, huh Domer?

 

[Universe Prince]

I'm merely arguing that this law against Holocaust denial is, imo, wrong.

I think this is just an area where we honestly disagree.

And I'm okay with that.

I'd like to go back to the books I asked Sirs about. He said that in no way should children be able to get a hold of these books on homosexuality.

To be fair to Sirs, I think he would say the same of similar books about heterosexuality. The position being that children should not be exposed to sexual issues. And as I recall, Sirs did not say the books should be prevented from being published or written.

Yet, free speech is useless without an audience, right? I mean, these people denying the Holocaust are writing books and expecting people to read them. My question is this, should these books be placed in a public library? Is that not part of free speech?

Most communication is useless without an audience. But as been pointed out many times, a right to free speech is not a guarantee of an audience. Whether the books make it into a public library should be up to the people who run the library, imo. If they decide not to allow the book in the library, no that isn't an infringement on free speech any more than is a theater owner's choice to allow or not allow a movie or play to be shown, or an individual's choice to block a cable channel from his home.

If you never allow the material to see daylight, then you've just buried free speech by less transparent means, correct? At least this way the Government has a law for all to see. If you disallow books in public (or by whatever means) then you've just attacked free speech in a more covert manner.

Um, no. There is a significant difference between "I choose not to spread or otherwise help make available this opinion," and "If you express this opinion, you're a criminal." Making the former choice does not attack someone else's freedom of speech. Making the latter choice does.

So should the books I mentioned be allowed in libraries? Should they be allowed in state schools? What about these Holocaust denial books?

That is something for the libraries and schools to decide, imo. What do you think? Do you agree with the law banning Holocaust denial? Should Mien Kampf be banned? Where is the line drawn to say these objectionable ideas are not allowed to exist in society while those objectionable ideas are allowed? If we support the law against Holocaust denial by saying it's Europeans making decisions about protecting their society from what they see as destructive influence, then how can we criticize people here who want to prevent by law homosexual marriage? Aren't those people arguing for protecting our society from what they see as destructive influence? I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I'm saying that from my perspective, protecting people's rights (a subject about which I know we disagree) is an issue at the heart of the matter, and asking for your opinion on the issues raised by the questions you asked.

[Universe Prince]

I have no problem, as I say, with people using this proposed ban as an abstract or imaginary platform to wax poetic about libertarian theories of speech, but I react quite dyspeptically to the pretense of any expertise, entitlement or authority whatsoever to chime in about how this -- ESPECIALLY THIS -- matter is to be handled by those who actually lived through its horrors and will live with its dark legacy.

I adopted no such pretense, and I don't believe others did either, though I can speak only for myself in this. My criticism was of a single law and the idea that the law represents. I did not criticize the people involved in making the law. In point of fact, I said directly that "I easily sympathize with their situation, and I don't blame them for wanting to ban the behavior." A disagreement with the decision to make Holocaust denial a crime is in no way an assertion of authority or superiority over the Europeans. It's just a disagreement.

(If I can be charged with arrogance for voicing this opinion, then what can you be charged with for running willy nilly into the eye of the storm in a dilettante's get-up, not ready for substantive contribution but merely to chime in with reflexive libertarianism?)

I have no idea at whom you've aimed that odd question. Having seen you knee jerk your way to "You have no business telling them how to manage their affairs on such an issue", however, I am left wondering why you think you have grounds to accuse someone else of reflexive behavior.

[Lanya]

Prince,
Thank you for your response.
The reason I asked....well, it's hard to explain.   
I think that people want to forget bad things, especially if their country has done those things.  They want to minimize, to pretend it maybe wasn't as bad as all that, and if you go down that road, eventually you have several generations past the actual horrible deed, and people may not believe it ever happened at all.  It didn't affect them.

This is why they are making it illegal in Europe, I believe: because it was so horrible.   And they don't want anyone to ever forget or deny that it actually did happen, so that it can never happen again. One must  face up to facts.  Denying them is not healthy in the long run.

I can't make a good comparison for the US except perhaps, if someone were to state that slavery never happened.  There's documentary evidence for both the Holocaust and for slavery too.  It may be a poor comparison, though.

[Universe Prince]

The reason I asked....well, it's hard to explain.

Obviously not that hard, because you did a good job of it.

I'm not criticizing anyone for wanting to make Holocaust denial illegal. The Holocaust is a horror that we should never forget, and people who deny it, as my father might put it, need a good, solid whack upside the head with a 2x4 just to get their attention. They're hateful bastards, to put it mildly, and I feel hatred for them (Does that make me hateful? I don't know.) I just don't agree, for reasons already stated in this thread, that making Holocaust denial illegal is a good solution.

I hope that helps explain my position on the matter.

[_JS]

In one post, JS says to UP (paparphrase): "Sure, you can have a valid opinion [by the way, what does 'valid' mean, JS?] about the EU plan to ban Holocaust denial," but then says (and this is a direct quote): "What I was advising was that one should consider where the EU is coming from in determining this law. I'm sure that Domer and any other legal experts we have around can tell you that law is anything but black and white (most of the time). There are many cultural and societal elements to the legal system in any nation. These stem from collective histories and national events that affect the population at large and thus the legislatures. Laws are also affected by the political system involved."

Ouch. You try and be diplomatic and this is where it gets you.

Quite clearly we agree on this issue Domer. This law, or more accurately this framework for a law being passed down by the European Union, is a product of much more than a question of freedom of speech.

Unlike the Europeans, we did not live the Holocaust. We did not live the horrors of World War II at all. We lost a lot of brave soldiers, but we did not have our cities turned to rubble, we did not lose millions of civilians. It was a different war from our perspective.

It is easy to point at Domer and say, "arrogance!" The truth is that there is a lot of arrogance in taking an American perspective and projecting it on everyone else. Not only that, it can also be very dangerous (Vietnam, Iraq).

And if I can perhaps be even more arrogant, in many ways I believe Europe is being very responsible in coming to terms with her actions and complicity in one of the world's worst atrocities. It is interesting to note the contrast in that and some of Britain's main colonies who have yet to come to terms with their atrocities towards their native populations (Canada, Australia, the United States).

[Plane]

Prince,
Thank you for your response.
The reason I asked....well, it's hard to explain.   
I think that people want to forget bad things, especially if their country has done those things.  They want to minimize, to pretend it maybe wasn't as bad as all that, and if you go down that road, eventually you have several generations past the actual horrible deed, and people may not believe it ever happened at all.  It didn't affect them.

This is why they are making it illegal in Europe, I believe: because it was so horrible.   And they don't want anyone to ever forget or deny that it actually did happen, so that it can never happen again. One must  face up to facts.  Denying them is not healthy in the long run.

I can't make a good comparison for the US except perhaps, if someone were to state that slavery never happened.  There's documentary evidence for both the Holocaust and for slavery too.  It may be a poor comparison, though.

   It is an exelent thing to compare with , when I was small there were still texts in school that minimised the henious nature of slavery , woud you want it to be against the law for someone to state tha slavery "wasn't so bad"?

I am not going to agree with someone who thinks slavery was a reasonable or kind hearted institution  ,I might even argue otherwise , if the occasion seemed appropiate.

But for their right to say it .......?

[Plane]

Would this count as a European perspecive?








I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Voltaire

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/voltaire.html#6