Free Speech Does Not Apply to The Holocaust

...PROKOFSKY NEVA!!


*ducks*


-Kiamat Dusk

No sweat, neither did I your's. Could you please summarize the above?

You said that in the US we don't jail people for denying things, and I am telling you, under certain circumstances, we do.

1 You don't get to decide who is and who isn't a "true freedom loving American"

2 He wasn't jailed based on his opinion. He was arrested because he traveled to Austria and gave a speech to a neo-nazi organization where he stated that the Holocaust never happened. He knew it was a crime in Austria to do so. He could have made his speech over the phone or by webcam, but he chose to travel to that country and break its law. After he left Austria the Austrian authorities became aware of the situation and issued an arrest warrant. They did not seek extradition from any other country. The gentleman in question then traveled back to Austria and was arrested. Not based on opinion, based on actions that the Austrians have decided are illegal.

What was racist in what I said?



Didn't mention a race at all. Do you just go around calling anyone who disagrees with you racist?

That's a shame because it was calm, rational and made a great deal of sense.

Another load of nonsense. The speech was in Farsi and was translated into English by the Iranian government's press people. So you can't use that excuse.

The problem is that you can't separate your likes and dislikes from basic principles. I don't like the law. I would prefer it not be on the books. However, I understand that other democratic societies have their own values based on their own histories. This law does not discriminate based on gender, orientation, race, or religion. It does not make people's opinions a crime. It makes a specific public statement a crime.

And he wasn't jailed for his book, he was arrested for a public speech he gave.

I thought you were for freedom of expression?

Agreed. It was an excellent post and represents my feelings on the issue completely.

More Schadenfreude!

Iran leader faces Holocaust case
Germany has condemned Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks

From the BBC: An Israeli lawyer, Ervin Shahar, says he has asked Germany to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with denying the Holocaust.

Mr Ahmadinejad was widely criticised when he said last year that the Holocaust was a "myth" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map".

Germany passed a law in 1993 forbidding Holocaust denial. It is punishable by up to five years in prison.

Here Kendra is telling us that she does know what the President of Iran was saying.

And here Kendra is telling us that she knows exactly what was being said. She also states her opinion "it is in fact quite true" and that any other interpretation is some sort of war mongering plot.

After the President's statements are criticized, she tries to weasel out of it and tell us that she really doesn't know what was said because it was said in Farsi, and now she doesn't have an opinion. And unless we speak Farsi too, we can't really know what he meant either.


It's odd how she knew exactly what the man meant before the criticism, but after it, somehow none of us can really know.

Are you going to ignore this and just call me a racist again, Kendra?

When has anyone in the USA been jailed for denying an historical event to be fact?

1. Yes, I do.

2. He was jailed for speaking his mind.

As I said earlier, it's fine if the people of a country want this law, as it's fine Iran has blasphemy laws or laws against women drivers, if that's what they want. But they aren't free.

He made a statement based on his opinion. That would mean he was jailed for his opinion.

He was not jailed for his opinion. He was arrested for his statements. Go to Austria and have the opinion that the Holocaust never happened; you won't get arrested. Go to Austria and have the opinion that the Holocaust did happen, but publicly announce that it didn't and you will be arrested, regardless of your opinion.

It is unfair to compare the laws of a democratic nation and those of a religious theocracy. In a democratic state the people can change the laws as they see fit, in Iran this is not the case.

Yes, I am. I recognize social graces though. I also recognize this forum isn't free. We abide by the rules when we agree to the TOS.

You're right, I was being snarky. Still a little miffed at being called a racist (not by you) probably.

Have it your way, he was jailed for voicing his opinion. That means he was jailed based on his opinion in my book though. Not to be contrary mind you.

BTW, Iran holds elections. The Iranian president won to become president.

Iran does hold elections. But elections alone don't make a democracy. The Soviet Union had elections too. In Iran the President is elected, but the Supreme Leader is an unelected ayatollah who has final say on any matter, without oversight from the citizens or their elected officials. That's what makes it a theocracy.

Kinda like the Vatican, huh?

But really...

"Iran's complex and unusual political system combines elements of a modern Islamic theocracy with democracy. A network of unelected institutions controlled by the highly powerful conservative Supreme Leader is countered by a president and parliament elected by the people.

For much of the last decade, Iranian politics has been characterised by continued wrangling between these elected and unelected institutions as a reformist president - and, at times, parliament - struggled against the conservative establishment."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm

Yes. That is my plan.

Well, when you can't win the argument, it's probably all you have left

I'm not arguing with you. At this point I pretty much post stuff to make Mulch giggle.

Well, Kendra, calling somebody a racist is a big deal. Maybe not to you, but some of us actually think its important enough not to throw the word around whenever you can't defend yourself in a simple debate. You tell us that you agree with the Iranian President, then tell us you have no opinion on what he said. Which is it? Are you with him in denying the holocaust happened and in destroying Israel or not? Or don't you have an opinion? Or are you afraid your opinion isn't politically correct?