EU attack on free speech
I am more Zionist than most Jews but criminalizing what nutcases say just makes it seem as if they might be right
"Australian Holocaust revisionist Gerald Toben has been arrested at London's Heathrow airport. The Metropolitan Police extradition unit executed a European Union arrest warrant issued by German authorities at Heathrow Airport at 11.30am (8.30pm Wednesday AEST).
The arrest warrant accuses 64-year-old Toben, who also uses the first name Fredrick, of publishing material on the internet "of an anti-Semitic and/or revisionist nature" in Australia, Germany and other countries. The alleged Holocaust denier was due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates Court later today.
Source
17 comments:
Yet what about the desirability of defending the truth? When someone knowingly and obviously spreads a lie, should they not suffer consequences?
I know what you're saying Ed and part of me agrees. All the lies being thrown around in the current U.S. elections is pissing me off and I find myself thinking something needs to be done. The problem is, who decides what is true and what is not? I think it is best to just allow all speech.
We already have laws for libel and slander (one is written lies, the other is spoken lies, but off the top of my head I don't remember which is which). The standard used to defend or prosecute such charges is truth. And truth is determined by examining the evidence. Conviction of the crime of libel or slander is achieved by presenting sufficient evidence of what the truth is that the standard of reasonable doubt is met.
In the case of something like the Holocaust, the evidence is so overwhelming (the Nazis were proud of what they were doing and were excellent record keepers) that proving that it actually happened is a walk in the park.
Is that enough of a standard for you?
Both libel and slander are civil charges. That is quite a long way from criminal charges are are being made in this case.
How does that make a difference?
Well, you are correct in that "truth" is a basis for action in libel and slander cases. If you criminalize certain speech, the element of truth goes out the window. All that matters is whether the person broke the law.
Hypothetically and given today's climate of things, imagine if this blog were criminalized because it contains references to the idiocy of elected officials. It doesn't matter whether the comments and posts were accurate. All that might matter before they come and get you is that you posted and commented here.
"Truth" matters not.
"If you criminalize certain speech, the element of truth goes out the window."
Wait… What?!?
Yes, it is possible (and common) for governments to make certain beliefs illegal without regard for whether or not the outlawed belief is actually true. In fact, most of the time governments do this, it actually is the case that the belief being enforced by the government is not actually true.
HOWEVER (Can you tell that I think the "however" is massive?), that does not automatically mean that whatever the law is protecting is always untrue. If the government passed a law stating that claiming that the Holocaust did not happen is a lie worthy of prosecution, would that automatically mean that statements that the Holocaust happened are no longer true? No.
You're right that libel and slander are civil cases. In both of those instances, there is a person or entity which is directly harmed, and can defend itself/themself. A civil suit is the means of that defense.
But truth is not an intelligent being or other entity capable of defending itself. Someone must take up the role of defense on its behalf.
It occurred to me that there is another type of crime against truth which is already routinely enforced. In fact, enforcing laws against this crime are necessary for our legal system to function. That crime is perjury.
If someone lies in court, they face criminal penalties for their perjury. While the motive for perjury may be to harm or defend some person or group, perjury is treated as a criminal matter because the primary victim of this crime is the principle of truthfulness.
Nor is perjury the only crime based on the principle that telling a lie deserves punishment. There are also truth in advertising laws, laws against confidence scams, and so forth. It is not necessary for a specific "this thing is true" law such as one defending the historicity of the Holocaust. It seems to me that a law stating that someone may not deliberately tell a lie for the purpose of manipulating public opinion is entirely appropriate and well within the pattern of other long established and necessary laws defending the principle of truthfulness in important circumstances.
Wouldn't you rather know who your enemies are? If he was really dangerous, you can keep a closer eye on him and see what he's up to in the open. When you arrest him for denying the offial version of events, then 1) you give reason for others to believe his nonsense and 2)you become indistinguishable from the villans he supports.
HOWEVER (Can you tell that I think the "however" is massive?), that does not automatically mean that whatever the law is protecting is always untrue. If the government passed a law stating that claiming that the Holocaust did not happen is a lie worthy of prosecution, would that automatically mean that statements that the Holocaust happened are no longer true? No.
You're missing the point.
In a criminal case, it doesn't matter whether the speech is true or not. All that matters is that the speech was uttered and that speech was contrary to the law.
Assume for a moment that I say that you are are ugly and that current libel and slander laws cover that statement. The truth of whether you are ugly or not is the crux of the charge and the defense.
Howver, if there is a law that is passed that makes comments on appearance against the law, whether you are ugly or not doesn't matter. All that matters is that I have broken the law by making a comment on appearance.
Even your perjury example is a little off. One can say something in court that is not true, but never face a charge of perjury. For perjury, the person must knowingly be telling a lie.
In other words, a conviction of perjury is not based solely on whether the person said something that was not true.
Once again, when you criminalize certain statements, the truth of those statements doesn't matter. All that matters is that you made them.
HATE is a human emotion just the same as LOVE.
Government cannot and should not legislate against emotions.
The crux of the matter is whether or not government should legislate against the indicidual's or group's inciting hatred.
European countries believe they can. America has the first ammendment which, in which, is enshrined the right of free speech.
Obviously, the guy in question actually believes that the holocaust didn't happen and is airing his views.
I, personally, don't believe in God. Some countries would arrest me for blasphemy if I aired my views.
What I'm saying is: Truth is in the mind of the believer."
An orthodox view of history is simply Orwellian.
However, it seems most holocaust-deniers actually only deny the scale of it, and accept there were some concentration camps and death camps which can hardly be denied in view of the film-footage.
Ed, you forgot to mention that the cases you state, such as perjury, must be "proven" in an open court. I know of no one who has been able to prove the various claims, (aside from the fact that atrocities did happen) made about the Holocaust (ie: 6 million jews killed, etc.) even after all these years.
"you forgot to mention that the cases you state, such as perjury, must be "proven" in an open court."
Of course! I didn't mention it because it's so blinkin' obvious.
"I know of no one who has been able to prove the various claims, … made about the Holocaust (ie: 6 million jews killed, etc.) even after all these years."
Do you mean "proven in a court of law", or simply proven as in "we know for certain that somewhere between x and y people were murdered by the Germans"?
The Nuremberg Trials were certainly the first instance of the Holocaust being proven in a court of law. Of course, they could not have established the precise extent of the murders during that trial, but the extent was obvious enough that there was no question that the Nazis were engaged in systematic genocide.
The 6 million figure apparently came from Adolf Eichmann, the "architect of the Holocaust." Do you suppose that he might have had some idea of the actual numbers? According to this FAQ most research puts the number between 5 and six million. It also mentions that more than 4 million of those have been explicitly identified by name.
What is frequently forgotten is that the Nazis also murdered millions of non-jews. The Jews were the single largest group, while other groups were smaller. For instance, according to this Wikipedia page, the Nazis murdered between 2 and 3 million Soviet POWs, between 1.8 and 2 million ethnic Poles, and between roughly 500,000 and 970,000 members of other groups such as Romas (Gypsies), the disabled, and so forth.
The evidence for these atrocities are so overwhelming that only the willfully blind can deny that the Nazis murdered at least 9 million people, and almost certainly more than that.
Just how much proof do you need? A personal visit to each grave site and a sworn statement verified by a lie detector from that person's executioner? Or maybe a time machine to let you personally witness each murder?
The standard of proof for any criminal trial is "reasonable doubt." The overwhelming evidence for the occurrence and general extent of the Holocaust simply does not allow any doubt beyond "the range of deaths was between x and y millions" to be "reasonable."
I provided a link to the page with the list. You can read just as well as I can (at least I hope so), so why should I bother listing every single group here?
Sheesh!
Besides, why do we need to have death camps for homosexuals when their own behavior is shortening their average lifespans an average of 24 years. The whole point of opposing such behavior is because of the harm it causes, both directly (to the homosexuals themselves) and indirectly (those infected with diseases—including, but not limited to, AIDS—as a result of contact with infected people and damage to the institutions of marriage and family and the impact such damage has on society as a whole).
Get a grip and stop straining to find a boogeyman around every corner. Such an overactive imagination is especially bad when you what you imagine as a boogeyman is exactly the opposite.
Dear Mr Boogeyman, you're just masking your dislike of homosexuals in a fake concern for their health and welfare; such crocodile tears are unconvincing!
(And why blame homosexuals for failures and infidelity in "heterosexual" marriages? - a convenient scapegoat like blaming jews and foreigners for everything.)
Presumably your figure of a reduced average lifespan includes the many cases of suicide caused by the "cruel world" created by heterosexuals especially for young homosexuals - bullying, physical attacks, ostracism, discrimination, etc.
But surely the figure can't average out on the many "invisible" homosexuals living anonymous lives and as much monogamous and disease-free in general as their heterosexual neighbours. Or is it using a demographic of the more visible subset of "gays" that conform to the stereotype of promiscuity and exposure to STDs? But perhaps they wouldn't be so promiscuous if they had the opportunity to settle into socially approved marriages, but many in society can't see that connection!
By socially approved marriages I mean of course "same sex" ones, to encourage monogamy and thus healthier living (as clearly they are not going to be turned into heterosexuals).
"you're just masking your dislike of homosexuals in a fake concern for their health and welfare;"
Wow! That's so amazing! It's just incredible how you know what I'm thinking even better than I do!
Have you ever thought of selling your services to the justice system? You could make a fortune, and still save the government major money. After all, getting rid of that pesky due process thing will significantly shorten trials! Just think, you could stand up there and tell the court exactly what the defendant is thinking, and it doesn't even have to be accurate! That would even clear up the massive congestion faced by the legal system. Everybody wins! Right?
Do it again! Tell me what I really think of you!
You make it so obvious what you think on a variety of subjects - you are what is called a BIGOT!
Post a Comment