You are not connected. Please login or register

Holocaust Deniers

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Holocaust Deniers Empty Holocaust Deniers on Thu 31 May - 15:12

Scuffles break out after YouTube star is found guilty of denying Holocaust

Scuffles broke out outside a court where a YouTube star who denied the Holocaust in her pop songs was convicted of creating ‘grossly offensive’ material. Alison Chabloz, 53, who mocked Holocaust survivors and described Auschwitz as a ‘theme park’, is due to be sentenced on 14 June for making three anti-Semitic songs and posting them on YouTube in September 2016.

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/25/scuffles-break-youtube-star-found-guilty-denying-holocaust-7577981/?ito=cbshare

View user profile

2Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Thu 31 May - 15:29

Regardless of the place that the Holocaust occupies in our morality today, punishing people for expressing an opinion is a joke.

View user profile

3Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Thu 31 May - 15:38

Unless you are a free speech absolutist I wouldn't say Holocaust denying was irrelevant to free speech and I suspect the Holocaust deniers wouldn't feel it was either.

View user profile

4Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Thu 31 May - 16:09

Mr. Happy wrote:Unless you are a free speech absolutist I wouldn't say Holocaust denying was irrelevant to free speech and I suspect the Holocaust deniers wouldn't feel it was either.

There's no such thing as 'free speech absolutism', anything less defies the concept.
The idea behind it is that free speech equates to free thought, lack of free thought defies both an inherent human drive to freedom, and obstructs truth - that comprises Science, Philosophy, and all else that makes Humanity meaningfully distinct from other animals. If certain 'truths' cannot be questioned then it damages the assertion that they are in fact true, and if something is explicitly true then we need not suppress alternative thought. Further, the basal Human drive to freedom renders the suppression of 'wrong' ideas somewhat counter-productive.

View user profile

5Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Fri 1 Jun - 17:22

@TiberiusDidNothingWrong wrote:
Mr. Happy wrote:Unless you are a free speech absolutist I wouldn't say Holocaust denying was irrelevant to free speech and I suspect the Holocaust deniers wouldn't feel it was either.

There's no such thing as 'free speech absolutism', anything less defies the concept.
The idea behind it is that free speech equates to free thought, lack of free thought defies both an inherent human drive to freedom, and obstructs truth - that comprises Science, Philosophy, and all else that makes Humanity meaningfully distinct from other animals. If certain 'truths' cannot be questioned then it damages the assertion that they are in fact true, and if something is explicitly true then we need not suppress alternative thought. Further, the basal Human drive to freedom renders the suppression of 'wrong' ideas somewhat counter-productive.

As a sentiment, that's all very nice but surely there are certain reasons where pragmatism overrules idealism. The recent Tommy thing, threats of harm or intimidation and so on, or am I missing something? So are you in favour of free speech, licensed speech (i.e. free within in certain parameters such as a avoidance of hate speech in line with current or future laws) or censored speech? Presumably not the last one.

View user profile

6Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Fri 1 Jun - 18:43

Mr. Happy wrote:

As a sentiment, that's all very nice but surely there are certain reasons where pragmatism overrules idealism. The recent Tommy thing, threats of harm or intimidation and so on, or am I missing something? So are you in favour of free speech, licensed speech (i.e. free within in certain parameters such as a avoidance of hate speech in line with current or future laws) or censored speech? Presumably not the last one.

I am truly a pragmatist at heart, and far from an idealist. Honestly I am largely arguing for its own purpose and amusement than to some idealistic standard of morality. If anything, my major bias towards free speech is that I myself have not enough power to enforce my will beyond the law, and I hate the idea of being constrained in speech and thought – selfish, but I think this can be said of many.
Regardless …
I would argue again that free speech is necessarily absolute and thus ‘licensed’ speech or ‘censored’ speech could not be considered ‘free’ – thus I am arguing for the first.

Certain actions such as ‘threats’ are not truly a question of free speech, by my consideration. A ‘threat’ should only be unlawful as a reasonable anticipation of a future crime – it is not the ‘speech’ that is the problem but the crime they are implying to commit.
Contempt of Court is, likewise, not a question of free speech, speech is just a possible medium for a sabotage of court.

To clarify, when speech is simply a medium to commit another crime – I have no problem with it’s illegality. But I would affirm that this is not what I would meaningfully define as a disruption of free speech, it is not the ‘speech’ that is illegal. Semantics perhaps.

‘Hate Crime’ I absolutely abhor as a concept.

View user profile

7Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Fri 1 Jun - 19:15

@TiberiusDidNothingWrong wrote:Regardless of the place that the Holocaust occupies in our morality today, punishing people for expressing an opinion is a joke.

I think there's a strong, extenuating case for punishing people who deny documented, historical genocide. If you allow such an idea to become normalised and pervasive, there's a strong chance history will repeat itself eventually.

We already ban speech that incites harm towards individuals and groups, as threats and physical violence amount to infractions of the penal code.

Where there's insurmountable evidence that an idea poses a genuine deleterious threat to civil order, and is backed by a particularly virulent and reality-denying strain of sophism, a society should be particularly vigilant in curtailing it.

I'm not talking about banning opinions and ideologies which are extreme, yet offer a different perspective on societal order, like fascism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc, but those notions which aren't be subject to the normal spectrum of intellectual inquiry due to their utterly specious and harmful nature.

View user profile

8Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Fri 1 Jun - 19:19

@TiberiusDidNothingWrong wrote:
Mr. Happy wrote:

As a sentiment, that's all very nice but surely there are certain reasons where pragmatism overrules idealism. The recent Tommy thing, threats of harm or intimidation and so on, or am I missing something? So are you in favour of free speech, licensed speech (i.e. free within in certain parameters such as a avoidance of hate speech in line with current or future laws) or censored speech? Presumably not the last one.

I am truly a pragmatist at heart, and far from an idealist. Honestly I am largely arguing for its own purpose and amusement than to some idealistic standard of morality. If anything, my major bias towards free speech is that I myself have not enough power to enforce my will beyond the law, and I hate the idea of being constrained in speech and thought – selfish, but I think this can be said of many.
Regardless …
I would argue again that free speech is necessarily absolute and thus ‘licensed’ speech or ‘censored’ speech could not be considered ‘free’ – thus I am arguing for the first.


Certain actions such as ‘threats’ are not truly a question of free speech, by my consideration. A ‘threat’ should only be unlawful as a reasonable anticipation of a future crime – it is not the ‘speech’ that is the problem but the crime they are implying to commit.
Contempt of Court is, likewise, not a question of free speech, speech is just a possible medium for a sabotage of court.

To clarify, when speech is simply a medium to commit another crime – I have no problem with it’s illegality. But I would affirm that this is not what I would meaningfully define as a disruption of free speech, it is not the ‘speech’ that is illegal. Semantics perhaps.

‘Hate Crime’ I absolutely abhor as a concept.

Then you seem to be arguing some sort of qualitative essence to free speech that I am unaware of. It's easy to be a free speech absolutist if you can have wave away certain spoken word acts as not 'real' free speech.

So where does free speech rank for you as a priority, I mean does it conflict with a right to privacy or does conflicting with privacy (which I assume also has some qualitative boundaries for you) nullify it as a form of free speech for you?

View user profile

9Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Fri 1 Jun - 19:36

@Boofer wrote:
I think there's a strong, extenuating case for punishing people who deny documented, historical genocide. If you allow such an idea to become normalised and pervasive, there's a strong chance history will repeat itself eventually.

The argument is that an idea will not become ‘normalized and pervasive’ where it is allowed free, and likewise free to criticism. That, further, repressing an idea does more to encourage it.

That ideas, in a universe of free speech, are subject to the law of ‘survival of the fittest’.

This does require a somewhat idealistic assumption that humans are reasonable, but yet:

1. If humans are not reasonable enough to realize the ‘good’ ideas, then how can any human assert that they are reasonable enough to realize this? It damages the assertion that it is in fact true.
2. It requires a somewhat idealistic view of humanity indeed, but our entire concept of ethics and morality is build on a similar degree of idealism – do you see where this road leads?

@Boofer wrote:

We already ban speech that incites harm towards individuals and groups, as threats and physical violence amount to infractions of the penal code.

Where there's insurmountable evidence that an idea poses a genuine deleterious threat to civil order, and is backed by a particularly virulent and reality-denying strain of sophism, a society should be particularly vigilant in curtailing it.

I'm not talking about banning opinions and ideologies which are extreme, yet offer a different perspective on societal order, like fascism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc, but those notions which aren't be subject to the normal spectrum of intellectual inquiry due to their utterly specious and harmful nature.

I very much disagree with the illegality of the first part. I would argue that where speech is but a medium for another crime – something tangible, not including a concept of ‘encouraging’ something ‘bad – it is justifiably illegal in the crime, where the speech is irrelevant: threats for instance where there is a reasonable anticipation of the ‘threatened’ crime.

I agree that society should be with the second paragraph: society should discourage it – but it should not be the realm of the law.

On the third paragraph, the issue here is the is no axiomatic difference between what you consider to be an ideology that justifies legal penance under speech, and one you don’t. It’s arbitrary. This alone is contrary to standards of law.

View user profile

10Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Fri 1 Jun - 19:53

Mr. Happy wrote:

Then you seem to be arguing some sort of qualitative essence to free speech that I am unaware of. It's easy to be a free speech absolutist if you can have wave away certain spoken word acts as not 'real' free speech.

So where does free speech rank for you as a priority, I mean does it conflict with a right to privacy or does conflicting with privacy (which I assume also has some qualitative boundaries for you) nullify it as a form of free speech for you?

I believe there is a meaningful difference between what I am regarding as a crime of ‘speech’ and a crime through a medium of ‘speech’.
Rendering speech that is ‘offensive’ as illegal is making illegal of speech itself. There is no end crime. Offending somebody or spreading an idea ought not to be crimes.

Physically harming somebody is and ought to be a crime, under Assault. ‘Threatening’ somebody, in this context, is making the impression of physically harming somebody. If it is an idle threat on the internet – it should not be a crime. If it is a threat that can be reasonably assumed to be genuine – it should be a crime. It is not the ‘speech’ that is the issue.

‘Doxing’ is a crime for good reason. Obviously there must be considered how ‘public’ the information was in the first place, and the effects of the doxing – including the Mens Rea element and an objective prediction of effect. Again, it is not the ‘speech’ that is the issue, but that the speech sabotaged a person’s security.

View user profile

11Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Fri 1 Jun - 20:06

OK, that makes things clearer, thanks. That's a fairly consequentialist view. I think perhaps the lines would be blurred a little regarding the debate about the death penalty as that is a debate that could literally kill people. But your argument is consistent.

View user profile

12Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Sun 3 Jun - 11:11

Exclusive: Holocaust Denier Chuck C. Johnson Pays $25,000 to Settle Defamation Lawsuit

Last February, a defamation lawsuit was filed against Holocaust denier Chuck C. Johnson, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft (the fabled Stupidest Man on the Internet), far right weirdo Gavin McInnes, and a slew of other right wing bloggers and social media personalities, after they all parroted a report by Johnson that recklessly identified the wrong person as the perpetrator of the attack on counter protesters at the Charlottesville white supremacist rally last year.

The goal of this fake story was the same as it always is with these people: to try to blame an attack by a Nazi (that in this case resulted in the death of protester Heather Heyer) on liberals. It’s what they always do, but this time they tried to pin it on someone who fought back.

Today we can report exclusively that Chuck C. Johnson (who is NOT ME) has agreed to a settlement that will require him to pay nearly $5,000 personally, and nearly $20,000 from his “GotNews” business (a website that’s now pretty much abandoned). The documents are all linked here.

An interesting note: Johnson apparently agreed to pay these settlement amounts only a few days after hiring a new, very expensive attorney — which suggests that he was advised not to fight the suit because he would lose, and decided to cut his losses while he could.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/48214_Exclusive-_Holocaust_Denier_Chuck_C._Johnson_Pays_$25000_to_Settle_Defamation_Lawsuit

View user profile

13Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Mon 4 Jun - 0:54

Where do we draw the line on this? For example, I believe it happened and would never deny it. But what if I were to say it has been exploited for political gain (theoretically, not my own opinion). Would that be counted now as hate speach?

View user profile

14Holocaust Deniers Empty Re: Holocaust Deniers on Mon 4 Jun - 1:56

ften seek legitimacy by calling themselves revisionists. There is a genuine revisionist view which is that Hitler either didn't know what people below him were doing or that it was something that happened much later and wasn't planned. I think there are various speeches and quotes from Mein Kampf that would disprove the later.

The view you raise is rather similar to this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry#Reviews_and_critiques
The issues the book raises seem to be fair ones, although I haven't read it, unless you assume that people are unimpeachable and they rarely are. But I can speak for its veracity.

Then there was the journo that semantically nitpicked by saying the Greek etymology of the word Holocaust refers to fire and the Nazis didn't always burn them so it wasn't a holocaust. That semantic pedantry is pointless and blurs the lines in an unproductive way. I think he won a legal case about this, stating that he had been misrepresented as a holocaust denier.

Simply, I think stating that the figures were largely overestimated or the event never happened is de facto holocaust denying and wrong.

They even found more documents recently https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/hungary/12009564/Nazi-holocaust-documents-found-behind-wall-of-Budapest-apartment.html

And the UN opened some up for access last year https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/apr/18/opening-un-holocaust-files-archive-war-crimes-commission

This is wrong on the other end of the spectrum https://ph.news.yahoo.com/polands-president-signs-controversial-holocaust-bill-law-115137562.html

Poland's president signs controversial Holocaust bill into law

The law sets fines or a maximum three-year jail term for anyone ascribing "responsibility or co-responsibility to the Polish nation or state for crimes committed by the German Third Reich -- or other crimes against humanity and war crimes."

This...

Holocaust denier to become Republican nominee for Illinois congressional seat
Art Jones the sole GOP candidate for third congressional district
Anti-Defamation League calls Jones ‘a long-time neo-Nazi’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/04/neo-nazi-holocaust-denier-art-jones-illinois-republicans
...I don't think he was in a seat he could have realistically wone so it was a bit moot

Very informative thread on Holocaust Denial here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/57w1hh/monday_methods_holocaust_denial_and_how_to_combat/



Last edited by Mein Kampfy Slippers on Mon 4 Jun - 2:06; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum