Historian Charged With Denying Holocaust

ricky wrote:

Thus my point. Public speech is protected, private speech is not protected.
Private speech doesn't need protection from government interference since private speech is not a concern of the state.

 

All freedoms come with inherent limits. It is effectively the price of a modern, reasonably functioning society.

Someone has already brought up the US constitution in this discussion so perhaps it is worth using an example from this, The right to bear arms.

A discussion (read argument) on the rights or wrongs of this has come up before so lets not sidetrack. At present the US constitution gives its citizens the right to bear arms. This is however this is not an open ended right. If you want to go hunting or shoot targets the constitution allows this. It doesn't allow you to rob a bank or register your dissatisfaction with the President by putting a bullet between his eyes!

Equally freedom of speech is a right with limitations. If I say 'the policy of the Jewish state towards the Palestinians has lead to the instability in the middle east' most Western countries will allow and protect that opinion. If on the other hand I say 'all jews are scum and deserve to be wiped out' (NOT AN OPINION I SUBSCRIBE TO) this would rightly be regarded as an abuse of my rights.

Bottom line it is a trade off. Rights of the individual versus good of society and unfortunately there is never going to be one simple answer. Times change what is necessary today might not be necessary tomorrow.


Hope this comment hasn't rambled too much.

 

Ebar said it well.

However...

Actually, as I understand it, the right to bear arms was given to prevent the government being oppressive etc. So shooting the President is fine.*

*Providing you can show that he was repressing the rights of citizens and that other methods of removing him (like a free & fair election) had been removed.

 

ricky wrote:

The fact that the right to bear arms is indeed considered a check against state oppression does not mean that anyone who disagrees with the President has the right to shoot him ( but then you surely know that)

 

Of course!

See my 'footnote'.

This is why whoever shot JFK (for example) is a criminal. The guy who tried to shoot Reagan is also a criminal.

 

That kind of goes without saying. The fact that one is not empowered by the Constitution to commit crimes like murder or robbery is not a limitation on the right to bear arms..there is no right to commit crimes thus no need to limit that nonexistent right.

That may be your(or others as well) interpretation of freedom of speech however it is certainly not the interpretation envisioned by the framers of the Constitution nor the right as it has been interpreted by US Supreme Courts. Unpopular speech, even repugnant speech is protected as well.
As earlier noted safe speech has no particular need of protection.

 

ricky wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms is considered to be a deterrent against state oppression. It does not give one an affirmative right to shoot anyone even if you can show that the Presiden't actions were repressive, for example.

 

I HAVE read all your posts religiously. However,you have been defending the right for free speech based on the American constitution while the whole world still revolves my friend.

It's been nearlyaround 300 years since your forefathers framed the constitution,surely whateer they intended cannot be,however relevant,be 100% relevant after all?For surely the events that plagued present society doesn't plague theirs?I am sure no one among those who framed the Bill knew that Hitler would become popular in germany.

 

kaiser wrote:

Then you must have read where I wrote:

thus the debate is an academic one not with any intention of applying US law to European nations but intended to contrast the differing views of free speech.

Basic unalienable individual rights are as relevant today as they were at that time. The universal legal prohibition against murder has been around for as long as history has been recorded yet no one seriously suggests that it doesn't apply today because the world has changed.

 

You must have read somewhere between my sentences that i mentioned "situations changed"? A situational change is different fron a character one or nature.Murder still happens because once so often,the human nature has murder written in them.That is why we fight wars and such. Unless the situation changed into something like the human nature has been subdued due to medication or something,then the situation change and the prohibition of murder worthless.

 

[

Seems like a clear violation of art. 19 to me.[/quote]


Who's talking about the UN..??


I was of course referring to our own declaration of human rights of 26th august 1789, which states that any person can freely express it's opinion as long as others are not threatened by it.

There's obviously a difference here, at least between the US and France.
Maybe the US constitution is more about protecting freedom of speech, while the french constitution is more about protecting the victims of freedom of speech....

 

castelot wrote:

Lol..surely there must be more to it than that. Somebody is likely to feel threatened by nearly any opinion expressed. If one cannot express themselves unless everyone else agrees with them then freedom of speech becomes a meaningless term.

The only victims of the freedom of speech are the tyrants who wish to control the thoughts and expressions of others. The freedom of speech only protects one from state oppression of speech. Persons are still free to bring civil or criminal actions against others if they are threatened with imminent harm. Libel, slander , assault etc.

 

kaiser wrote:

I did. My point was that the situations envisioned by the Bill of Rights haven't changed in any fundamental way. Perhaps you can elaborate on how the situations have changed to the extent that the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are no longer applicable?

 

The original text of art.11 of the declaration of human rights:"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man.Every citizen may accordingly speak, write and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by the law."

[/quote][/quote]

But what if there is no law against such insults?

 

castelot wrote:

Could it possibly be more vague? "As shall be defined by the law"?
Even then though it doesn't prohibit speech that others find offensive..it just states that you shall be respnsible...etc

[/quote]

Fine. Who said it should be made a crime to merely insult? Who thinks that the state should monitor all private intercourse?
Some people seem to long for 1984 and a totalitarian tyrannical "big brother" state that knows all and sees all.
Not me

 

Fine. Who said it should be made a crime to merely insult? Who thinks that the state should monitor all private intercourse?
Some people seem to long for 1984 and a totalitarian tyrannical "big brother" state that knows all and sees all.
Not me [/quote]

No one here is asking for that dystopia of a world. You sound like you are Winston Smith, Grieg.

All i am saying is that the human nature change(don't tell me it can't be changed!). For example, people then are more likely to behave appropriately with ladies around. Another example: People use to think slavery was right.

As for something relevant, the people in these days ,especially American hollywood movies(now i am just listing what's representative) seems to enjoy using the vulgar language.This unrestrained form of language can only lead to unrestrained behaviour. And your language controls your thoughts.Since you have read 1984,i am sure you are familiar with newspeak which is to limit one's vocabulary and thus limit one's thoughts?In the same way,if people were to have absolute freedom of speech and can only wait for the people involved to bring a lawsuit,by then the damage would have been done.

If someone will to hold something like the Nuremburg rally today,surely waiting after his speech was delivered and then offering a lawsuit would be,imo,a little late.

 

kaiser wrote:

Comment on my remarks but personal characterizations are inappropriate and harm rather than help the debate process.
I'm not saying that anyone here is asking for that world. Instead I'm saying that it can be the result whether intended or not.

I don't think you have made clear what things have changed that make the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights no longer necessary.
If you don't like Hollywood movies then don't watch them. If the state forced you to watch them, that would be different. The Bill of Rights being fully recognized as applying to all Americans no matter their race is what allowed slavery to be ended in the US. Because one abuse, slavery, no longer exists in the US it does not follow that the rights guaranteed by the Consitution are no longer necessary. Far from it. New challenges to individual liberty arise every day (see the Patriot Act for instance)

 

Human nature does not change in these examples, it is the human value system that changes. The thought that slavery is wrong was easily abandoned in Nazi Germany, for example, where whole populations were considered no better than slaves.

People are able to follow thoughts and experience emotions they do not have a word for. If this were not so, how could language ever have been developed?

 

No Roel,supposed you never knew the word "happy",How would you know what you were feeling?And as we all(ok,almost) might know,failure to understand a feeling and having no words to describe it can be very,irritating.Suppose now i take away a whole chunk of your vocabulary,how are you going to express your disastisfaction?And mind you,you don't know the word "rebellion" or "rebel" and hence will find it hard to rebel against me.Of course that is arguable.We used to debate on this for hours in utopian classes.

even if it is the human value system that change,it is because our human nature allowed it to be changed.For it is my belief that the nature and values are inseparable,but that is my opinion of course.

and then there will be the debate on the beginning of languages of course.You are evolutionist,so language is learnt.I am creationists,language is a given.Hence,it would be hard for us to find out if lkanguage can control our thoughts or not.However, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley seems to agree with me there.

 

The slavery example,was an example my dear friend.You don't use my example to counter an argument that wasn't there.
Now,in which part of my typed word,did i mentioned that i didn't like Hollywood movies?
Pardon me,Grieg,but isn't the patriot Act,in many's opinion,an attack on basic freedom?