Posted on 02/15/2007 10:57:59 PM PST by Muentzer2005
As with most defenses of speech, the issue is not solely what this person said, but whether another's speech may also result in prison. Incitement to violence is speech that should be sanctioned, as should defamation and fraud. Hate speech, including the denial of events that clearly occurred, should also be sanctioned, just not legally by imprisonment, in my opinion. If by some twisted logic this guy is viewed as a martyr by some, that is further reason to respond to him with ridicule, rather than jail. If, outside of the incitement language, others act because of his words, they should be imprisoned for their wrongful ACTS, not the thought or hate that inspired those acts.
He broke the law he pays the price. Boo hoo.
See my Post 99.
Martyrs can be extremely dangerous people even if they never utter another word. It is far less dangerous to have a proven fool than a silenced martyr.
Last time. Streicher walked nobody into the gas chambers. Yet, he was convicted at Nuremberg. If you want take issue with the Nuremberg trials, that's a big piece to bite off.
Talk about going from guardrail to guardrail: First the Krauts imprison and then kill people for who they are, and now they jail people for what they think.
Fear not, it's not the world that has gone mad.
Regards, Ivan
Wrong! America got involved two years after WW2 started, when Germany declared war on it - and even then, 2 1/2 years passed until real action was taken (and Germany´s Eastern front already moving fast towards Berlin). So, the "American viewpoint" is one without any touch to the horrors of a Nazi government. America went to war, just like it went to war in Korea or in Nam. You never experienced the Nazi terror first hand. And imagine being a Jew today - if it were allowed for Neo-Nazis to display the swastika during a march through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin! No, it´s completely understandable to prohibit expressions of support for the Nazi regime. It´s not that the thoughts are criminal - expressing the thoughts in public is.
What is next? Five years in jail for those who deny global warming? I thought Germany got rid of the Nazis. Evidently they are still running the show.
Poland was the first country to fight Nazi Germany, yet in Poland such law was introduced recently.
Interestingly this law penalizes also views denying, disparaging or diminishing the suffering of the POLISH people as well.
So one could imagine the situation when some Jewish guy who argued with Poles about WWII could be judged and imprisoned in Poland for denial. How would you like that?
You are equating the murder of millions of innocents with the jailing of one law-breaker? Wow...
Speech is dangerous and must be controlled by government for our own good.
First they came for the Nazis...
Free speech and all that. ;)
That surprises you, this is a conservative site after all?
Purveyors of child porn have their supporters as well.
Yeah, it's so sad. Who will speak for the poor put-upon Neo-Nazis. *sniffle*
See Post 99.
Imagine being a Jew 50 years from now when new generations have rebelled against believing what their elders tried to force them to believe rather than proving to them, time and again, that what their elders claimed was absolutely true and successfully defending that position against all challengers.
**************
Free speech brings personal responsibility with it. Holocaust denial is in many ways not free speech. Free speech means you can have an opinion, but not necessarily that you can deny a horrible fact and in doing so you in fact advocate another genocide since you do not even recognize the first one.
I know it is a fact. You know it is a fact. How will future generations know that is was a fact?
Because they will be jailed if they even raise the question?
Would raising the question that the Katyn Massacre was not a Nazi atrocity be a punishable offense?
As it turned out, the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet atrocity and even Russia belatedly admitted it.
If you jail those who question or argue a position, with time, new generations will wonder if, like the Soviets, the powers that be are trying to hide the truth.
The way to combat such lies is to prove them wrong after the fool has given his best effort. Jailing the fool only gives him the glory of martyrdom and makes young minds wonder why you must resort to forcibly silencing him rather than proving him wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt.
99 posted on 02/16/2007 6:42:04 AM PST by Polybius
**************
As I wrote to Veronica, "Martyrs can be extremely dangerous people even if they never utter another word. It is far less dangerous to have a proven fool than a silenced martyr".
Banning a symbol is one thing.
Banning debate can be very dangerous.
It's sad that you don't see the difference between inciting violence and simply having a stupid opinion. By your logic, you are inciting violence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.