Don't Agree With Us?

But consider this: If I bury you 6 ft under, am I guilty of murder ? It is just my opinion that you are already dead, and so thought I was doing my hygenic duty.

 

Do you really believe your own analogy? Are you saying that in future years, Mr Irving could be proved right - the Holocaust might not have happened after all?

Are you seriously putting belief in the Holocaust in the same category as belief in the Earth being the centre of the solar system?

This isn't about faith, or belief. This is about facts, and evidence, and the attempt to deliberately falsify facts and evidence to promote hatred.

He is only vulnerable to prosecution because it can be proven that he has falsified evidence. Let's see your evidence that God exists or the Earth is flat before we start talking about whether someone can misrepresent that evidence. <_<

Yes it does. And that's part of the problem America has at the moment. It's gone too far. Facts have become irrelevant - you seem to have degenerated into a big soup of opinions. Creationism, global warming, Iraq are all recent examples of this. Endless self-serving lies, and no redress.

And American's keep saying "freedom of speech, freedom of speech" as if it were some sort of religious mantra [a common problem they have with their Constitution - many seem to treat it as a religious text handed down from the heavens, rather than a document written by politicians].

Most of the rest of the world has a slightly more pragmatic view. People can do a lot of harm to other people if given the unrestricted cover of "freedom of speech", so there are limits.

And it's not as if the American government won't suppress dissent when it suits them (remember all those "free speech zones", and endless people ejected from Presidential speeches).

Anyway, I saw a good letter in the newspaper today:

 

You know, KMO, I'd put on my tin foil hat out of worry you are in my head, but for the fact you are much more eloquent than I am capable of.

Especially the point regarding the debate on global warming and evolution. For every meritorious scientist, one goofball to provide equally 'valid opinion'.

Isn't America the country that punishes nudity in public, and harshly punishes desecration of the flag ?

 

Guilty as charged. We Americans are rather fond of our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, etc. (In fact, didn't we throw off the yoke of British rule over these trivialities? ) It doesn't solve all problems and it does expose a lot of negative ideas you'd rather see suppressed. I suppose if you don't trust your people to make sensible decisions you'd be right to limit their exposure to ideas. Democracy is messy that way.

Austria is free to decide their own laws. They can suppress Nazi speech today, or speech from political dissidents tomorrow. That's the problem. Once you draw a line and say "this" is acceptable but "that" is not, then it can be moved at will by whoever controls it.

 

I think I should make it clear though that I'm not a huge fan of having such a law about Holocaust denial. On balance I'm not in favour of it, but then maybe it's easy for me to say that from outside Austria.

My point is that it's not black-and-white. I think such a law is justifiable, if it is believed that the damage caused to freedom of expression and debate having it in place is less damaging than letting neo-nazis run riot.

There are dangers here. It's not too many steps from barring Holocaust denial to barring any research into the event. What if new evidence did come up that showed that 10% fewer Jews than thought were executed? I would hope that people would be able to present that evidence without being accused of "anti-semitism". Or are you only going to be able to revise the estimate upwards?

And supporters of Israel do find it convenient to cast the charge of "anti-semitism" whenever anyone objects to them bulldozering down communities. How long can you use atrocities against your people as an excuse for your atrocities against others?

Also, the law upsets people who somehow think that because it's illegal to deny facts, it should also be illegal to draw a cartoon of their deity of choice with a bomb strapped to his head.

The whole thing is a minefield, and you've just got to try to pick your way through it with the minimum of explosions.

Ah, just got to jbarnhart's reply. Hmm. So suggesting the Holocaust didn't happen is just an "idea"?

I'm sure America does have laws against ideas anyway. I thought it was an offence to advocate the assassination of the president. That's just an "idea". Whereas the Holocaust not happening is a lie that can be disproved. Big difference.

For the record, I'm greatly opposed to many of the things the UK government is trying to push through at the moment - such as the "Incitement to Religious Hatred" bill, which seems to want to suppress ideas. So I do basically agree with much of jbarnhart's point of view.

I'm just trying to reinforce the difference between a point of view, and a deliberate, falsifiable lie.

(PS didn't you try to impeach your last president for a lie? Shouldn't he have had freedom of speech to lie?)

 

Personally, I am partial to the practice of Sunday(?) at Hyde Park assuming it still exists.

 

IMHO "Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre" has less to do with Freedom of Speech and more to do with actions directed to and likely to incite "imment lawless action" (riot/panic) This was established in Brandenberg v. Ohio by the Supreme Court. It overturned a previous Supreme Court decision which established the standard as "Clear and Present Danger." That court ruled that it was illegal to distribute fliers opposing the draft during World War I. The Brandenberg court overturned and contended that publising/distributing the fliers was more like yelling fire outside a burning building to prevent people from entering than it was trying to encourage people to stampede out.

So if you yell FIRE in a crowded hall and nothing happens then no crime has been committed. If people rush out but no injuries result was there a crime? Probably, I could argue that I was deprived of the full use and enjoyment of the ticket I held and therefore montary damages should be paid. But that is a civil action and not a criminal action.

Tis a Slippery Slope that Austria finds itself upon with this ruling, where does it end?

Yes, I am very happy to be an America and in America at this time.

Wildkow

 

No it is not. Plese read my previous post about the standard used to limit these types of actions.

Wildkow

 

Nope, not before a Grand Jury you don't and that's why he was impeached .

Wildkow

 

I'm curious why, whenever I click on this topic that something tries to access my computer's port 8042. My firewall alerts me to it each time. Someone got something posted here that they shouldn't?

 

Inbound our outbound? My signature is hosted on my personal computer on port 8042, so if it's outbound that's probably it.

 

I found this website on flag burning very informative. A snippet:

So. . is flag burning legal or not?

Kind of. Here's how I understand it (remember, I'm not a lawyer. If you're in prison right now, and relying on this page to get you out, I highly suggest contacting someone more qualified than I am)

Most states have laws against flag burning. But Texas V Johnson (a 1989 Supreme Court decision) ruled that those laws are unconstitutional. Now, the states haven't taken them off the books, so I guess it's still "illegal." After the Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which was also overturned in a Supreme Court ruling (US vs Eichman). It, as well, is still on the books. But prosecuting attorneys aren't likely to enforce those laws, so police probably won't arrest you for flag burning. But -- cops still might harass you and hold you in jail for 24 hours for being an Anti-American person. That ought not to happen, but it does.

Well, what about using the flag for commercial purposes?

Interestingly, that one's clear-cut. It's absolutely illegal. The Supreme Court decision Halter v Nebraska way back in 1907 held that you can't use the flag in advertising. Other cases have upheld that commercial speech doesn't have the same protection as political speech. So the Republican Party, which uses flags printed on its letterhead, is in clear violation of the Flag Protection Act of 1989, as well as all the other state and federal laws against flag desecration. It's a wonder no one ever goes to jail for those crimes -- especially used car dealers with those flag pennants.

-----------------

 

I guess it depends on how you define "illegal." In the strict sense, there are laws against it, so that might make it "illegal." However, the Supreme Court has ruled that these laws are an unconstitutional limit on free speech. Since, in the US, the Constitution trumps all local, state, and federal laws, those laws which are unconstitutional (as judged by a court), are not valid and cannot be enforced.

I don't know what happens after a law is judged unconstiutional; is it taken off the books, or can it just not be enforced? (the snippet you put up would seem to suggest the latter)

 

It's too expensive to take laws off the books so they just sit there and nothing is done about them. Here are some weird laws still on the books. . . some of my favorites. . .

Idaho Pocatello

"It is prohibited for pedestrians and motorists to display frowns, grimaces, scowls, threatening and glowering looks, gloomy and depressed facial appearances, generally all of which reflect unfavorably upon the city's reputation."
That wouldn't happen if everyone was driving a Prius now would it?

Montana Bozeman (My hometown)

Bozeman, has a law that bans all sexual activity between members of the opposite sex in the front yard of a home after sundown-if they're nude.
(Hurry up! Its almost sundown and here comes Officer Schmika!)

D.C.

The only acceptable sexual position in Washington D.C. is the missionary-style position. Any other sexual position is considered illegal.
(Oh to be a federal judge during Bill Clinton's tenure! :lol: Of course that would all depend on what your definition of is, is. :blink: )

Texas

In LeFors, it is illegal to take more than three swallows of beer while standing.
(Probably not George's favorite watering hole during his younger years.)

Utah

. . . adultery, oral and anal sex, and masturbation are considered sodomy and can lead to imprisonment. Sex with an animal - unless performed for profit - however is NOT considered sodomy. Polygamy - provided only the missionary position has been applied - is only a misdemeanor.
(Soooo.. I can use other style's with my first wife but I have to use the missionary position for all the rest? OK I can see that it's not considered sodomy but what is it considered then?!?)


HERE ARE SOME MORE ENJOY

http://www.md.lp.org/weird_laws.html

 

It says that the web browser wants to connect to an address that suggests my ISP on TCP port 8042. It hasn't done that before or on any other post. I did a Grab on the event that just happened.