flamingjimmy Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 Whilst it is not formally illegal in the UK, we do ban holocaust denying publications like the rest of europe under the provisions of the public order act as Hate speech. Even the US does similar and has banned websites although they are generally a little more lax than us. On your more general point, I would agree if it were not for the fact that holocaust denial is not about reason or argument, it is about providing a feeble excuse to legitimise violent racism and repression of minorities. If it was about reason it would be revisionism, not denial. Something that does need to be protected. There can be a fine line to be drawn in some cases. But in cases where there are convictions like David Irving or Zundel they have been involved in fabricating evidence, that clearly is not a legitimate scientific method and as such claims they are revisionists and not deniers are clearly false. Denial on the otherhand serves no purpose and we have nothing to lose with it being banned either directly or indirectly as hate speach. By the same logic creationist literature should be banned as well. It is not about reason and argument it is about denial, and they also are not above fabricating evidence or just plain making up things. The point I'm making is that in a free society that cannot be grounds for banning something. We do have something to lose from banning it, and that is freedom. I don't know about you, but I think that's quite important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy talk Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I wonder..... they must be nearing election time... A centre right politician playing the race card.... she must be desperate to achieve the clear majority she failed to achieve at the last election. My bold. So being anti Islam/immigration would be popular in Germany? whats wrong with her giving the German public what they want-if that is what they want?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 But it is illegal for the press to, for example, print that the holocaust didn't happen. It has nothing to do with press freedom. Well, countries will ban things that most of their populus will find offensive. I'd hazard a guess that things like goose stepping, doing a nazi salute with a Hitler tash using a finger, or denying the Holocaust, are all things that cause offence in Germany and so they are banned. However drawing cartoons of Mohammed is not specifically banned in Germany, as it's unlikely to cause widespread offence to Germans. Since it is not banned, the press should be free to print it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 But it is illegal for the press to, for example, print that the holocaust didn't happen. It has nothing to do with press freedom. I'm confused, I thought freedom of the press was about, y'know, the press being free. If restrictions are placed on them by the state, then they are not free. simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I wouldn't ban 'hate speech' either. If someone wants to say something hateful, then let them. Where's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 By the same logic creationist literature should be banned as well. It is not about reason and argument it is about denial, and they also are not above fabricating evidence or just plain making up things. The point I'm making is that in a free society that cannot be grounds for banning something. We do have something to lose from banning it, and that is freedom. I don't know about you, but I think that's quite important. No, that is not the same logic. Creationism meets most of those criteria but it has nothing to do with promoting violent racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 I'm confused, I thought freedom of the press was about, y'know, the press being free. If restrictions are placed on them by the state, then they are not free. simples. Freedoms and rights come with responsibilities, they are not absolute. There is no Freedom to shout fire in a crowded Cinema, there is no freedom to express yourself by urinating on a war memorial, there is no freedom to make up lies about individuals or groups that would do them harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KamalJoe Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 I wouldn't ban 'hate speech' either. If someone wants to say something hateful, then let them. Where's the problem? So terming holocaust as HOAX and awarding Hitler or Iran's president shouldn't be problem at all.....where's the problem??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stackrock Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 the media crusade against islam continues. German chancellor angela merkel is set to pay tribute to the danish cartoonist who caused uproar in the muslim world by drawing insulting cartoons of prophet mohammed (pbuh). full story its not just a media crusade, but its against jihadists not muslims. Good on merkel well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 ..Homer Simpson as Abu Hamza, that would be funny I think they made that episode, I remember seeing it I think. Or maybe it was just a funny dream I had Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.