logical bob wrote:The historian David Irving was jailed in Austria for Holocaust denial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4449948.stm

Yeah, I knew that had happened somewhere. I was referring specifically to Canada.

Further to my point: I had never heard of Irving until that happened.

I had heard of Irving, but only in the context of protest at his Holocaust denial. Specifically, some people in the Students' Union were petitioning the university library to remove his books from the history section.

I see what you're saying. Years back there was a book in the UK called Spycatcher. It was the memoirs of a former spy and the government prosecuted him for breaking secrecy laws. This made the book an instant best seller when most reviewers thought it would have bombed on its own merits. If the goverment's aim was to keep hidden any secrets the book contained then they failed big time.

On the other hand, if something's offensive then it's fine to call it offensive. I have no problem with people having a go at Irvine. Banning what he has to say doesn't seem helpful though. Surely the student activists would have been better served by having other historians trash Irving's claims using proper argument?

Federico wrote:As you probably know, more and more often incidents are occurring in Europe where bands of youths, certainly spurred by hatemongers preaching for the obliteration of immigrants, illegal and legal, roam the streets of many a great city at night and beat to death, or near death, the poor souls.
We are starting anew to hear speeches made even by University Professors accusing the Jews of being responsible for all the economic problems Europe is facing now. A return to the roaring twenties and thirties. Even to the point of planning to reprint that obscene book "The protocols of the Elders of Zion".
Is this acceptable on the basis of freedom of expression? I don't think so.

As Shrunk said, we established earlier that existing laws on incitement should be equal to he task. At that point you said that it was more about making a symbolic gesture. You need to make up your mind whether the reasons for banning denial are based on the consequences of denial or on expressing our collective outrage at antisemitism.

logical bob wrote:

On the other hand, if something's offensive then it's fine to call it offensive. I have no problem with people having a go at Irvine. Banning what he has to say doesn't seem helpful though. Surely the student activists would have been better served by having other historians trash Irving's claims using proper argument?

The arguments have been trashed though, if people don't want to listen to them, they won't. In general I'd say banning things never really works, but I'm always open to the possibility, depending on the circumstance.

Paul G wrote: The arguments have been trashed though, if people don't want to listen to them, they won't. In general I'd say banning things never really works, but I'm always open to the possibility, depending on the circumstance.

How do we determine what's worthy of being banned? Even if we knew banning it worked? If we ban Holocaust denial, but allow denial of the Armenian genocide, is that not discriminatory? Should it be mandatory to refer to the current situation in Darfur as a "genocide"? I just see no way of practically implementing such a law equally, even if it did work to reduce antisemitism.

Paul G wrote:The arguments have been trashed though, if people don't want to listen to them, they won't. In general I'd say banning things never really works, but I'm always open to the possibility, depending on the circumstance.

Sure, you can't make people see reason. If we discuss the claims of deniers rather than suppressing them we can keep Holocaust denial in the same category as 9/11 and moon landing conspriracy theories.

Shrunk wrote:How do we determine what's worthy of being banned? Even if we knew banning it worked? If we ban Holocaust denial, but allow denial of the Armenian genocide, is that not discriminatory? Should it be mandatory to refer to the current situation in Darfur as a "genocide"? I just see no way of practically implementing such a law equally, even if it did work to reduce antisemitism.

You'd have to have a court recognised panel of historians whose job would be to decide which claims are solid enough to be legally undeniable. Then you're right back to the panels of scientists discussed further up the thread. Which is just silly.

Of course the Holocaust is in a special category for the Western world because it's our shame, it happened on our watch and shakes our own view of ourselves in away Rwanda and Darfur don't, however horrific they might be. Though obviously other horrible things have happened in the Western world, the Holocause is especially symbolic. It also has contemporary resonance because our current concerns about a resergence of racist movements. To deny it is to say that the warnings of history aren't so dire.

logical bob wrote:
Of course the Holocaust is in a special category for the Western world because it's our shame, it happened on our watch and shakes our own view of ourselves in away Rwanda and Darfur don't, however horrific they might be. Though obviously other horrible things have happened in the Western world, the Holocause is especially symbolic. It also has contemporary resonance because our current concerns about a resergence of racist movements. To deny it is to say that the warnings of history aren't so dire.

Very well written, logical bob. I wrote the same thing a few posts before.

Today, I came across an interesting piece of news which again reflects the old fight Freedom of expression vs potential harm caused by such freedom:
Amazon.com title defending pedophilia sparks boycott call

"The author of the controversial tome said he published it to address what he considers unfair portrayals of pedophiles in the media.
"True pedophiles love children and would never hurt them," Phillip R. Greaves II said in a phone interview with CNN on Wednesday."

Although Amazon.com didn't return CNN calls, a spokesperson said on the phone:

"Let me assure you that Amazon.com does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts; we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."
"Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable."

A few Amazon.com users defended the author's right to free speech, and a discussion on the site titled "Why Amazon is Right" delved into the constitutional implications of the controversy.

GreyICE wrote:How about atheism? It clearly has served as an encouragement for serial killers and suicides, and its nihilistic doctrine has sparked revolutions and bloodshed around the world.

It clearly causes harm to individuals and society, and we should lock up the evil monsters who attempt to brainwash children and indoctrinate them into their insane suicide cult.

Then Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Democracy, Monarchy, sports teams, relationships, and property must also be banned, seeing as they "clearly [cause] harm to individuals and society".

Think Floyd wrote:

GreyICE wrote:How about atheism? It clearly has served as an encouragement for serial killers and suicides, and its nihilistic doctrine has sparked revolutions and bloodshed around the world.

It clearly causes harm to individuals and society, and we should lock up the evil monsters who attempt to brainwash children and indoctrinate them into their insane suicide cult.

Then Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Democracy, Monarchy, sports teams, relationships, and property must also be banned, seeing as they "clearly [cause] harm to individuals and society".

That's a bit extreme.

Federico wrote:

logical bob wrote:
Of course the Holocaust is in a special category for the Western world because it's our shame, it happened on our watch and shakes our own view of ourselves in away Rwanda and Darfur don't, however horrific they might be. Though obviously other horrible things have happened in the Western world, the Holocause is especially symbolic. It also has contemporary resonance because our current concerns about a resergence of racist movements. To deny it is to say that the warnings of history aren't so dire.

Very well written, logical bob. I wrote the same thing a few posts before.

Today, I came across an interesting piece of news which again reflects the old fight Freedom of expression vs potential harm caused by such freedom:
Amazon.com title defending pedophilia sparks boycott call

"The author of the controversial tome said he published it to address what he considers unfair portrayals of pedophiles in the media.
"True pedophiles love children and would never hurt them," Phillip R. Greaves II said in a phone interview with CNN on Wednesday."

Although Amazon.com didn't return CNN calls, a spokesperson said on the phone:

"Let me assure you that Amazon.com does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts; we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."
"Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable."

A few Amazon.com users defended the author's right to free speech, and a discussion on the site titled "Why Amazon is Right" delved into the constitutional implications of the controversy.

Amazon would also be right to refuse to sell the book. Whether the book itself could be legally banned is another issue.

Edgar_Fudge wrote:

Think Floyd wrote:

GreyICE wrote:How about atheism? It clearly has served as an encouragement for serial killers and suicides, and its nihilistic doctrine has sparked revolutions and bloodshed around the world.

It clearly causes harm to individuals and society, and we should lock up the evil monsters who attempt to brainwash children and indoctrinate them into their insane suicide cult.

Then Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Democracy, Monarchy, sports teams, relationships, and property must also be banned, seeing as they "clearly [cause] harm to individuals and society".

That's a bit extreme.

I think that's kinda the point.

Shrunk wrote:

Edgar_Fudge wrote:

Think Floyd wrote:
Then Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Democracy, Monarchy, sports teams, relationships, and property must also be banned, seeing as they "clearly [cause] harm to individuals and society".

That's a bit extreme.

I think that's kinda the point.

Precisely.

Think Floyd wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Edgar_Fudge wrote:

That's a bit extreme.

I think that's kinda the point.

Precisely.

That's BS and you both know it. Worse: It's provocative BS, and tonight, in my sleep, I think about something nasty to write in answear.

Can you include an accurate fact or two in the next provocative insulting screed? Think about it, it would be a fun change of pace!

GreyICE wrote:Can you include an accurate fact or two in the next provocative insulting screed? Think about it, it would be a fun change of pace!

And your original argument was ever so fact-based?

Federico wrote:That's BS and you both know it. Worse: It's provocative BS, and tonight, in my sleep, I think about something nasty to write in answear.

In case you didn't see, I was responding to this witty comment:

GreyICE wrote:How about atheism? It clearly has served as an encouragement for serial killers and suicides, and its nihilistic doctrine has sparked revolutions and bloodshed around the world.

It clearly causes harm to individuals and society, and we should lock up the evil monsters who attempt to brainwash children and indoctrinate them into their insane suicide cult.

I realize that my counterargument was bullshit, that was the point.
Edit: And my argument was meant to be dripping with sarcasm.

OK. Here it comes and you have earned it:
Both of you have been using Strawman arguments, and this is not allowed by this Forum.

At this point I see no valid reason to continue my discussion on Negationism since its acceptance and rejection are based on entirely emotional, subjective grounds.

However, I would like to comment further the story of a on-line book entitled "Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" on sale by Amazon.com but now yanked off the Internet because of a large negative reaction from a disgusted clientele.
The story has reverberated around the world as a further example that total freedom of expression is impossible. And I'll give you copy of some comments which have appeared in Teamliquid.

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

"While the majority seem to agree the book should be removed. Many have argued that free speech is universal. And that it's no different to censor a book aiding pedophiles than it is to censor Darwin's On The Origin of the Species. Or that a book cannot be attributed human characteristics such as moral or immoral."

" kataa United Kingdom.
In previous threads I've spent a lot of time defending free speech. However, in this case it's pretty inexcusable. Pedophilia is a crime in western society, and a book on how to execute it no more should be legal than a book on how to make a very nice nail bomb.
The book shouldn't be banned because of it's offensive content, Lolita is a perfectly fine novel. However, if the book does directly instruct people in how to commit a crime, then it should be banned".

"AlienAlias United States.
There is always a limit to freedom of speech. For (drastic) example, threatening to assassinate the president is illegal. However, I believe that censorship is up to Congress to make something illegal, not Amazon to play hero and remove the book from their website.

.....pedophilia is against the law because it is deemed that the younger kids are not mature enough to engage in such acts with someone older than them. So you could construe this as a way of harming the person if not physically. IE freedom of speech about teaching people to do this does not apply.

Well, as you can read, there is a large spectrum of reactions to this sickening story, however the majority of the contributors do agree there should be a limit to free expression and that making pedophilia sound almost idyllic is like saying teaching people how to build a bomb is a way to improve their knowledge.

Federico wrote:OK. Here it comes and you have earned it:
Both of you have been using Strawman arguments, and this is not allowed by this Forum.

Oh? I was using a strawman argument? OF COURSE I WAS! My entire premise was to show GreyICE that his argument was ridiculous by being even more ludicrous myself.

Federico wrote:However, I would like to comment further the story of a on-line book entitled "Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" on sale by Amazon.com but now yanked off the Internet because of a large negative reaction from a disgusted clientele.
The story has reverberated around the world as a further example that total freedom of expression is impossible.

This proves nothing of the sort. The writer of that book has the right to make his views known. However, no one is obliged to help him do so. If Amazon were required to sell the book, that would be infringing on their freedom of expression to decide which books they choose to sell.

If the government had acted to either a) ban the sale or distribution of the book in any form, or b) required that Amazon advertise and sell every single book they are sent including this one, then that would have been a limitation on freedom of expression. AFAIK, that has not happened in this case.

Shrunk wrote:

Paul G wrote: The arguments have been trashed though, if people don't want to listen to them, they won't. In general I'd say banning things never really works, but I'm always open to the possibility, depending on the circumstance.

How do we determine what's worthy of being banned? Even if we knew banning it worked? If we ban Holocaust denial, but allow denial of the Armenian genocide, is that not discriminatory? Should it be mandatory to refer to the current situation in Darfur as a "genocide"? I just see no way of practically implementing such a law equally, even if it did work to reduce antisemitism.

I was talking in generalities, not in terms of free speech or criticism/denial of genocides.