Holocaust Denial

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I haven't even spoke about any potential future societies. You seem to be arguing that it is sensible to shut up particular people in order to foster cooperation. Well that doesn't sound sensible at all from a libertarian perspective. When powerful groups silence others it would appear to me to be something that would lead to discord when the silenced have to react to such unjustifiable control.

[Bananaman]

I haven't even spoke about any potential future societies.

 

You asked me why I said 'You of all people'.

 

 

 

You seem to be arguing that it is sensible to shut up particular people in order to foster cooperation.

 

 

I wasn't arguing anything, I was making a point. And if Utopia involves people shutting up and getting on with it so that we're all happy. Well that sounds like a winner to me.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Not my idea of how I would like things to go -any ideal society wouldn't be one where power is used to shut people up. A happy society is not going to be one where views and opinions cannot be expressed through threat of punishment.

[Bananaman]

A happy society is not going to be one where views and opinions cannot be expressed through threat of punishment.

 

Go and clean the dishes, then put the washing out!

[Rog]

The problem arises when the implications of the statements being allowed to be made are seen as authenticating their truth.

Can you explain what you mean please?

 

In the Middle East and especially in countries such as Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others with ”governments” that are strict in ways most people might not even begin to believe the permitted publishing of a thing verifies its authenticity simply because if it were not so the publisher, his business, his family, and everything associated with him would be turned into hamburger meat.

 

Because if a mix of ignorance and experience it follows that “in the souk” if a thing is allowed to be seen it is then de facto absolute fact. The people simply can’t understand the principle let alone the practice of Free Speech and the permitting of garbage to be published.

 

This isn’t my imagination, I’ve seen it and experienced it more than once and particularly in the case of “The Principles” and other junk and are believed absolutely on the basis as has been said by different people at different times “well if they weren’t true your government wouldn’t let the things be printed” --- and they MEANT it.

 

It’s a different world in such places, a different world with different a mind set, different reality, different in ways that set it and its people so far apart from us and our world as to make the idea of a coming together of our ways of life ludicrous as the common ground between theirs and ours is so limited as to be meaningless.

 

And what are those values in this case? What really is the worry?

 

The worry is that what we recognise as so much BS others read as fact because we permit the publication of BS within our society and they do not.

 

It shouldn't override people's ability to say what they think.

 

In our society, no, I agree, but when what we say in OUR society creates harm for us as a result of what some prick has been allowed to say in our society it’s time to prevent him and his ilk from doing so.

 

I could shout fire in my workplace now, people would maybe worry, look at me and around the office. It wouldn't take long to realise I was talking bullshit and I would then suffer the consequences by social exclusion. I don't really buy the 'fire in the theatre' argument.

 

Then you plainly don’t understand the argument. It is that if free speech is allowing someone to come out with something false that will cause great harm to others then that abuse of free speech must be prevented.

 

Prevented for two reasons, firstly because of the harm it is causing in the particular instance, and secondly because it is abusing a right that we have that must not be abused for fear that right will be reduced, a thing that would adversely affect us all.

[pongo]

abuse of free speech must be prevented ... because it is abusing a right that we have that must not be abused for fear that right will be reduced

 

You are saying that we should not be free to be free because if we freely misuse the freedom to be free then our freedom to be free might be taken away ?

 

In the Middle East ... publishing of a thing verifies its authenticity

 

Not so different then.

[Rog]

You are saying that we should not be free to be free because if we freely misuse the freedom to be free then our freedom to be free might be taken away ?

 

No, what I’m saying is that we should be free to be free but if we do misuse that freedom it might be freely taken away. (Gawd! Now you’ve got ME at it!)

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It's not much in the way of freedom of speech when it can be withdrawn if people say things others do not like. I have to say that I am astounded by the very idea that people actually think punishing others for what they say and recognising the authority of the State in doing so is just plain ok. It seems a very sorry state of affairs that we are such servile children.

 

Because if a mix of ignorance and experience it follows that “in the souk” if a thing is allowed to be seen it is then de facto absolute fact. The people simply can’t understand the principle let alone the practice of Free Speech and the permitting of garbage to be published.

Then there is the possibility of introducing more facts into the mix. If they receive books or information saying one thing and then hear another, what is the problem? This all tends to assume that people in the Middle East don't have the capability to believe one thing could be a lie and another the truth.

[Rog]

It's not much in the way of freedom of speech when it can be withdrawn if people say things others do not like. I have to say that I am astounded by the very idea that people actually think punishing others for what they say and recognising the authority of the State in doing so is just plain ok. It seems a very sorry state of affairs that we are such servile children.

 

So how else are you going to do what needs to be done? The guy KNOWS what he's doing, he KNOWS it's illegal, he KNOWS the RC church didn't like what he had been doing and had ex-communicated him in the past, he KNOWS the effect his outrageous lies will have, and yet he continues. What you gonna do? Call Ghostbusters?

 

Because if a mix of ignorance and experience it follows that “in the souk” if a thing is allowed to be seen it is then de facto absolute fact. The people simply can’t understand the principle let alone the practice of Free Speech and the permitting of garbage to be published.

Then there is the possibility of introducing more facts into the mix. If they receive books or information saying one thing and then hear another, what is the problem? This all tends to assume that people in the Middle East don't have the capability to believe one thing could be a lie and another the truth.

 

Nice idea, but won’t work.

 

The intelligentsia are certainly no fools, and for the most part know “tuther from which”, but the guy in the souk? He’s a different matter and what’s more he’s KEPT a different matter by the powers that be who exploit his ignorance to further their own ends.

 

What’s more crap such as the ex ec-communicated Bish is coming out with reinforces their preexisting bigotry and hatred, and there’s few things more likely to be well accepted than to tell people what they want to hear and already expect.

 

You’ve only got to look at the utter BS believed by the conspiracy nuts in the West, even a couple on this forum who support the lunacy that Bush blew up the Twin Towers to realise the truth in that.

[jimbms]

Well the issue is really whether such a law should exist.

 

 

No it isn't. It's a very sensible one.

 

 

You of all people should be against inciting bigotry, hatred and violence.

In that case we need to ban all religion

[Terse]

It wouldn't take long to realise I was talking bullshit.

The first time you've managed to say anything perceptive.

[grant]

It wouldn't take long to realise I was talking bullshit.

The first time you've managed to say anything perceptive.

 

 

Terse, I've just sprayed my keyboard with coffee!

[rolandkirk]

I think it's illegal in France also but it' above all stupid to deny that histrical fact. I dedicate my answer to Claude Levi Strauss.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So how else are you going to do what needs to be done? The guy KNOWS what he's doing, he KNOWS it's illegal, he KNOWS the RC church didn't like what he had been doing and had ex-communicated him in the past, he KNOWS the effect his outrageous lies will have, and yet he continues. What you gonna do? Call Ghostbusters?

Yeah, there is a law there and he knows he will be punished for breaking it. But I am talking about the awfulness of this law. It shouldn't exist.

 

The intelligentsia are certainly no fools, and for the most part know “tuther from which”, but the guy in the souk? He’s a different matter and what’s more he’s KEPT a different matter by the powers that be who exploit his ignorance to further their own ends.

Not sure I quite understand what you mean. If you are talking about the propaganda and the information passed to the masses to keep them in order and maintain control whether it is true or not then yes, I agree, the people of almost all countries are the target for brainwashing. And intellectuals in many countries align themselves with the powerful. But the issue for me here then is one of power and the need for its removal, not the outcome of such power.

[Rog]

But the issue for me here then is one of power and the need for its removal, not the outcome of such power.

 

For me the issue in this case is one of the maintenance and even escalation of ill founded hatred by the promulgation of lies.