Eager non-theist wrote:Actually, what I'm saying is that the plan TREATED them equally, and that is not an opinion.

Federico wrote:

ChasM wrote:My point was to keep them on the lunatic fringe and challenge their bullshit in the civil courts. By making it a crime, you might feed into their "liberal politically correct" conspiracy theories and create martyrs.

The way I see the problem -- and we are not far apart -- is these people are getting to be less and less in the lunatic fringe and more and more in the main stream of national politics in some countries such as The Netherlands, France, and Belgium. The hate these far right people express towards immigrants of all shades is also focussed on Jews and Moslems, both considered aliens to the beloved Nation.

ChasM wrote:

Eager non-theist wrote:Actually, what I'm saying is that the plan TREATED them equally, and that is not an opinion.

So are you saying that it was primarily a Jewish persecution, but that all "undesireables" were treated equally? I'm not sure if even the latter proposition holds up, given the goals of the "Final Solution" outlined at the Wannsee Conference.

The Wannsee Conference was about what to do with the fact that when they defeated Russia (they celebrated too soon,ha,ha,ha) around 4 million Jews would be a part of Germany, so the question for them was, what were they going to do with all those Jews in Germany? It wasn't about Hitler's "master plan" for Germany ( I've been referring to it as the final solution in my previous posts, so the confusion is my mistake, sorry).

I'd have to see the rationale and numbers on which you base your assertion - since you state it is not merely an opinion. One would need to analyze the populations of the concentration camps and their more sinister iteration, that of the work/death camps during the war, to determine if, indeed, all were treated equally.

To my knowledge, there was a hierarchy of "undesireables" in the camps. For example, in Auschwitz, Poles were often given foreman duties, supervising and terrorizing their Jewish charges. And, of course, they were given better rations and better living quarters. That's simply not persecuting all equally.

If Nazi Germany would have won, they would've ALL been sterilized anyway in accordance with the plan, so it wouldn't have made a difference.

Eager non-theist wrote:If Nazi Germany would have won, they would've ALL been sterilized anyway in accordance with the plan, so it wouldn't have made a difference.

Federico wrote:

ChasM wrote:
I'd be the first one to arrest a neo-nazi, solely on the basis of his stupidity, arrogance and inhumanity. But curtailing free speech of a particular group can have a dangerous side effect - by creating a precedent, it may give whoever's in power the opportunity to choose what he/she deems is speech crime (e.g., one's critics).

My point was to keep them on the lunatic fringe and challenge their bullshit in the civil courts. By making it a crime, you might feed into their "liberal politically correct" conspiracy theories and create martyrs.

The way I see the problem -- and we are not far apart -- is these people are getting to be less and less in the lunatic fringe and more and more in the main stream of national politics in some countries such as The Netherlands, France, and Belgium. The hate these far right people express towards immigrants of all shades is also focussed on Jews and Moslems, both considered aliens to the beloved Nation.

Federico wrote:A new proposal has been made in Italy to pass a law making denial of the Holocaust a crime, since the first time the law was approved it was never implemented.
Do you think it is right and eventually useful to approve such a law in view of the increase of anti-Semitism in Europe?
Although in Germany it is already considered a crime, in Italy there is no general consensus for approval of this measure.

gleniedee wrote:

Federico wrote:A new proposal has been made in Italy to pass a law making denial of the Holocaust a crime, since the first time the law was approved it was never implemented.
Do you think it is right and eventually useful to approve such a law in view of the increase of anti-Semitism in Europe?
Although in Germany it is already considered a crime, in Italy there is no general consensus for approval of this measure.

Holocaust denial is a crime in Austria (and Canada) [and 14 other countries]The obnoxious David Irving was sent to prison because of it.

I do not support such laws. The right of dissent,even to give gross offence is crucial to free speech. This has been explicitly recognised by the US supreme court in its protection of vile human specimens such as Fred Phelps and the famous "F--- The Draft" case.(Cohen Vs California,1971)

Federico wrote:After giving plenty of thought to this subject, and reading the comments of forumists (most of them very useful, a few just offensive and partisan), I have reached the conclusion limiting freedom of expression in a Democracy can and should be used in exceptional cases when the survival itself of Democracy is threatened by the revival of nationalistic and hateful acts
Parading through the streets of Europe dressed like Storm Troopers, making the Nazi salute, and chanting death to the Jews, while at the same time denying the Holocaust ever happened, may result in it happening again, and therefore it is considered a crime in 16 EU States, and IMO, rightly so.

Federico wrote: I have already had a very lively discussion in previous posts of this thread with GreyICE and Shrunk about exactly this point, and, in the end, I demonstrated with plenty of links that even in the US there are limits to freedom of expression.

Shrunk wrote:

Federico wrote: I have already had a very lively discussion in previous posts of this thread with GreyICE and Shrunk about exactly this point, and, in the end, I demonstrated with plenty of links that even in the US there are limits to freedom of expression.

You did nothing of the sort. You only demonstrated that you don't understand the meaning of the term "freedom of expression."

Federico wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Federico wrote: I have already had a very lively discussion in previous posts of this thread with GreyICE and Shrunk about exactly this point, and, in the end, I demonstrated with plenty of links that even in the US there are limits to freedom of expression.

You did nothing of the sort. You only demonstrated that you don't understand the meaning of the term "freedom of expression."

Maybe so, but fortunately I'm in good company with many good people who think likewise while living in very democratic countries such as France and Germany.

Shrunk wrote:
You seem to have misunderstood my point. I mean that you literally don't understand the meaning of the term, and are confusing it with something else.

If you are referring to laws banning the denial of the Holocaust, then those are examples of laws which limit freedom of expression.

Laws banning people from threatening the life of the President are not at all the same thing. There, it is not the expression of an idea that is being banned, but the act of threatening. It is still possible to express the idea "The President should be killed" or even "I want to kill the President"and if there is no actual threat attached to it, then no crime is committed. This is shown by the fact that, even in some of the examples you gave yourself, in the end no charges were laid.

I keep bringing this up because part of your argument seems to be that restrictions on freedom of expression are unavoidable in a society that seeks to protect the safety of its citizens. That argument is false.

Federico wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
You seem to have misunderstood my point. I mean that you literally don't understand the meaning of the term, and are confusing it with something else.

If you are referring to laws banning the denial of the Holocaust, then those are examples of laws which limit freedom of expression.

Laws banning people from threatening the life of the President are not at all the same thing. There, it is not the expression of an idea that is being banned, but the act of threatening. It is still possible to express the idea "The President should be killed" or even "I want to kill the President"and if there is no actual threat attached to it, then no crime is committed. This is shown by the fact that, even in some of the examples you gave yourself, in the end no charges were laid.

I keep bringing this up because part of your argument seems to be that restrictions on freedom of expression are unavoidable in a society that seeks to protect the safety of its citizens. That argument is false.

I totally disagree. IMO, there is no practical difference between a person who publicly (even while teaching at a University) denies the Holocaust ever happened as being the fabrication of Jews and Jew-lovers, and Naziskins who parade in the streets chanting their hate for Jews and thus subliminally advocating for a really final solution and who take support and sustenace from publicity-seeking negationists.

BTW. Are you aware of the existence of "Hate Laws and Hate Crime" in the US? I wasn't. I'll give you a couple of links link.

The first one says:
"Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail)

The second one:
"Hate crimes are based, at least in part, on the defendant's belief regarding a particular status of the victim. Hate-crime statutes were first passed by legislatures in the late 1980s and early 1990s in response to studies that indicated an increase in crimes motivated by prejudice. Approximately 30 states and the federal government have some form of hate-crime statute. Many localities have also enacted their own hate-crime ordinances....
....The U.S. Supreme Court has been called upon to examine the constitutionality of hate-crime laws....
....In a separate opinion, the concurring justices argued that the majority opinion weakened previous First Amendment JURISPRUDENCE. Specifically, the majority opinion protected fighting words, a form of speech that provokes hostile encounters and is not protected by the First Amendment....
..Advocates of hate-crime laws concede that those laws do not root out all hate crimes, but they note that no CRIMINAL LAW is completely effective. They also contend that the difficulty in determining prejudiced motivation is no different from the difficulty that judges and juries face every day in determining whether the evidence presented in a case supports the charge. Supporters dismiss free speech and privacy concerns by reminding detractors that protections for such categories of rights regularly give way when public safety requires their restriction.


Quite an eye opener for those who believe in the existence of total freedom of speech in the US of A.

Federico wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
You seem to have misunderstood my point. I mean that you literally don't understand the meaning of the term, and are confusing it with something else.

If you are referring to laws banning the denial of the Holocaust, then those are examples of laws which limit freedom of expression.

Laws banning people from threatening the life of the President are not at all the same thing. There, it is not the expression of an idea that is being banned, but the act of threatening. It is still possible to express the idea "The President should be killed" or even "I want to kill the President"and if there is no actual threat attached to it, then no crime is committed. This is shown by the fact that, even in some of the examples you gave yourself, in the end no charges were laid.

I keep bringing this up because part of your argument seems to be that restrictions on freedom of expression are unavoidable in a society that seeks to protect the safety of its citizens. That argument is false.

I totally disagree. IMO, there is no practical difference between a person who publicly (even while teaching at a University) denies the Holocaust ever happened as being the fabrication of Jews and Jew-lovers, and Naziskins who parade in the streets chanting their hate for Jews and thus subliminally advocating for a really final solution and who take support and sustenace from publicity-seeking negationists.

BTW. Are you aware of the existence of "Hate Laws and Hate Crime" in the US? I wasn't. I'll give you a couple of links link.

The first one says:
"Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail)

The second one:
"Hate crimes are based, at least in part, on the defendant's belief regarding a particular status of the victim. Hate-crime statutes were first passed by legislatures in the late 1980s and early 1990s in response to studies that indicated an increase in crimes motivated by prejudice. Approximately 30 states and the federal government have some form of hate-crime statute. Many localities have also enacted their own hate-crime ordinances....
....The U.S. Supreme Court has been called upon to examine the constitutionality of hate-crime laws....
....In a separate opinion, the concurring justices argued that the majority opinion weakened previous First Amendment JURISPRUDENCE. Specifically, the majority opinion protected fighting words, a form of speech that provokes hostile encounters and is not protected by the First Amendment....
..Advocates of hate-crime laws concede that those laws do not root out all hate crimes, but they note that no CRIMINAL LAW is completely effective. They also contend that the difficulty in determining prejudiced motivation is no different from the difficulty that judges and juries face every day in determining whether the evidence presented in a case supports the charge. Supporters dismiss free speech and privacy concerns by reminding detractors that protections for such categories of rights regularly give way when public safety requires their restriction.


Quite an eye opener for those who believe in the existence of total freedom of speech in the US of A.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been called upon to examine the constitutionality of hate-crime laws. In 1992 the Court struck down a St. Paul, Minnesota, ordinance on the ground that it violated the First Amendment (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 [1992]). In R.A.V. several juvenile defendants were tried and convicted after they allegedly assembled a crude, wooden cross and set it on fire in the yard of an African-American family in St. Paul. The teenagers were arrested and charged under St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance (Minn. Legis. Code § 292.02). Under the ordinance, a person who placed "on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika" and who had reason to know that the display would arouse anger or alarm in others based on "race, color, creed, religion or gender" was guilty of a misdemeanor.

The trial court dismissed the charge on the grounds that it was overbroad and unconstitutionally content-based. Specifically, the court ruled that the statute criminalized too much behavior and infringed on First Amendment rights of free speech. The city of St. Paul appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court's ruling. The teenagers then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court was unanimous in striking down the St. Paul ordinance. However, it was divided in its legal reasoning. According to the majority opinion, the ordinance violated the First Amendment. Justice ANTONIN SCALIA, writing for the majority, declared the statute unconstitutional because it prohibited "other-wise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." Scalia illustrated this point by noting that a government may proscribe libelous speech, but that it may not proscribe only libelous speech that is critical of the government. The St. Paul ordinance violated this constitutional rule by proscribing only hate speech delivered through symbols.

In a separate opinion, the concurring justices argued that the majority opinion weakened previous First Amendment JURISPRUDENCE. Specifically, the majority opinion protected fighting words, a form of speech that provokes hostile encounters and is not protected by the First Amendment. By holding that "lawmakers may not regulate some fighting words more strictly than others because of their content," the majority had forced legislatures to criminalize all fighting words in order to legally prohibit the most dangerous ones.

According to the concurring justices, the statute was merely overbroad—that is, it legitimately regulated unprotected speech, but it also impermissibly prohibited speech that can cause only hurt feelings or resentment. With more careful wording, the concurring justices argued, hate-crime laws could pass constitutional muster. However, under the Court's majority opinion, this did not seem possible.


Read more: Hate Crime - Do Hate-crime Laws Restrict First Amendment Rights?, Further Readings - Court, Based, Speech, Crimes, Statute, and Supreme http://law.jrank.org/pages/7291/Hate-Cr ... z16ViHJ4rZ

ChasM wrote:

Eager non-theist wrote:If Nazi Germany would have won, they would've ALL been sterilized anyway in accordance with the plan, so it wouldn't have made a difference.

I take it that this embedded quotation is your response to my post. Pardon me, but I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. Does this somehow add to your original thesis that the Holocaust was not primarily a Jewish persecution? Or does it support your subsequent thesis that "all were treated equally." Please explain.

Maybe so, but fortunately I'm in good company with many good people who think likewise while living in very democratic countries such as France and Germany.

No one has the right not to be offended (JohnCleese)

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

Eager non-theist wrote:I don't deny the brutality that was met upon prisoners in concentration camps, nor do I deny the massacres commited by Nazis (in short the real holocaust). What I do deny is the trademarked version of the holocaust which includes, the exagerrated stories that A.F.(Allied Forces) soldiers came home with, the numbers at Aushwitz (which were changed twice over the course of the 19th century), and the religious status it's been given by Judaism and hippies alike,which makes questioning ANY detail an instant hate crime, has anyone read the seminar by the way? In short I deny the fake holocaust, you know, the one that gives WWII a "good vs.evil" flavor.

Federico wrote:
Are you aware of the existence of "Hate Laws and Hate Crime" in the US? I wasn't. I'll give you a couple of links link.
Quite an eye opener for those who believe in the existence of total freedom of speech in the US of A.

Shrunk wrote:..... completely irrelevant to my point. American Hate Crime legislation only mandates more severe sentencing if some one commits an act that would already be considered criminal which is felt to have been motivated by hatred of a particular protected group. It does not criminalize hate in and of itself.

Shrunk wrote: You also seem to have overlooked this part of your second link:

Federico wrote: Maybe so, but fortunately I'm in good company with many good people who think likewise while living in very democratic countries such as France and Germany.

gleniedee wrote:
Oh please.Is argument ad populum the best you can do?
Plus,admitting ignorance does not excuse it unless one is willing to learn.That does not seem to be your position.Your 'Maybe so----" answer just makes you look like a fool.
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."