This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
There is a lot of discussion in the various media today about FoS, the right to protest and the right to offend and this got me thinking about whether there are limits which should never be crossed, ever. Indeed, there is one particular freedom of speech restriction which had been legitimised in some countries, holocaust denial, including France - by proxy, under the Gayssot Act 1990.
OK, I appreciate this is intertwined with anti-semitism and inciting hate and follows the worst ever of atrocities but if I went to certain countries, I can stand on a pedestal and shout 'the holocaust didnt happen' and land myself in the clink or handed a large fine. This might be my opinion, genuinly, and so why shouldnt I be allowed voice it if i wasnt inciting others to hold my views? Isnt it my right to agree or disagree with the denial of the holocaust and surely the best reaction to this would be for someone to hand me some happy pills and advise me to see a psychiatrist?
So, should freedom of speech be unlimited or are there places that even this most fundamental of rights that everyone is defending today not venture?
Post edited at 13:36
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Freedom of speech should be unlimited -- short of threats of violence or incitement to violence or otherwise directly endangering people's safety.
Freedom of speech should be unlimited -- short of threats of violence or incitement to violence or otherwise directly endangering people's safety.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
...and after no posts for two weeks, FoS comes up and you reply within 10 minutes. Do you have bot checking for this topic!!?
...and after no posts for two weeks, FoS comes up and you reply within 10 minutes. Do you have bot checking for this topic!!?
Post edited at 13:47
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Freedom of speech should be unlimited except where it causes harm (e.g. libel)
Holocaust denial is a strange anomolly, and I would much rather it was dealt with be ridiculing and ostracising deniers than with a flat law, which seems to cover such things as questioning exactly how many victims there were - which is a basic bit of fact finding.
Freedom of speech should be unlimited except where it causes harm (e.g. libel)
Holocaust denial is a strange anomolly, and I would much rather it was dealt with be ridiculing and ostracising deniers than with a flat law, which seems to cover such things as questioning exactly how many victims there were - which is a basic bit of fact finding.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
It was to deal with a particular problem - a lot of French philosopher were against the law.
It was to deal with a particular problem - a lot of French philosopher were against the law.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Holocaust denial is not unique, but what it has is a powerful lobby behind pushing for convictions. If you are a half decent lawyer you could get a large chunk of UKC users banged up for breaching one or more of these laws https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protes...
ETA: For example, this kid got 7 weeks for:
On 30 April, two days after teacher Ann Maguire was stabbed to death by a pupil in Leeds, Jake Newsome, a 21-year-old man who had himself attended a secondary school on the other side of the city, posted on his Facebook page: "Personally im glad that teacher got stabbed up, feel sorry for the kid… he shoulda pissed on her too".
Holocaust denial is not unique, but what it has is a powerful lobby behind pushing for convictions. If you are a half decent lawyer you could get a large chunk of UKC users banged up for breaching one or more of these laws https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protes...
ETA: For example, this kid got 7 weeks for:
On 30 April, two days after teacher Ann Maguire was stabbed to death by a pupil in Leeds, Jake Newsome, a 21-year-old man who had himself attended a secondary school on the other side of the city, posted on his Facebook page: "Personally im glad that teacher got stabbed up, feel sorry for the kid… he shoulda pissed on her too".
Post edited at 14:06
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
FofS nearly always comes with democratically imposed limits.
But whatever you say nothing should allow or excuse you for doing something illegal to silence those you object to.
FofS nearly always comes with democratically imposed limits.
But whatever you say nothing should allow or excuse you for doing something illegal to silence those you object to.
In reply to MG:
Thought Coel would reply! Libel and defamation are different. They're about recompensing someone for real harm that you've done to them, specifically. If you keep doing it, it could amount to harassment, and again it's about causing harm to another person. Freedom to speak your mind isn't barred.
> No libel or defamation?
Thought Coel would reply! Libel and defamation are different. They're about recompensing someone for real harm that you've done to them, specifically. If you keep doing it, it could amount to harassment, and again it's about causing harm to another person. Freedom to speak your mind isn't barred.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
It doesn't exist... Not to excuse the actions of those tossers yesterday.
It doesn't exist... Not to excuse the actions of those tossers yesterday.
In reply to thomasadixon:
son. Freedom to speak your mind isn't barred.
Effectively it is if financial ruin is the outcome. Fos tends to be (rightly) limited when it harms others, as with incitement amd libel. Deciding on what harm is is the tricky bit. Most societies agree it includes violence and financial/reputational damage. Some people think it should include "offence", which is really where the differences lie.
son. Freedom to speak your mind isn't barred.
Effectively it is if financial ruin is the outcome. Fos tends to be (rightly) limited when it harms others, as with incitement amd libel. Deciding on what harm is is the tricky bit. Most societies agree it includes violence and financial/reputational damage. Some people think it should include "offence", which is really where the differences lie.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
You shouldn't be allowed to incite others into violence,especially if those others are easily led tw*ts who do anything in the name of sky fairies.
As for holocaust denial.thats hardly causing people to go out and harm others.
You shouldn't be allowed to incite others into violence,especially if those others are easily led tw*ts who do anything in the name of sky fairies.
As for holocaust denial.thats hardly causing people to go out and harm others.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
The issue with holocaust deniers is that they actively are seeking to change other people's minds, ignore basic facts and rewrite history to fit their purposes. I agree it's odd that it's an anomaly in that it's so specific a law but it's not just a freedom of speech issue.
The issue with holocaust deniers is that they actively are seeking to change other people's minds, ignore basic facts and rewrite history to fit their purposes. I agree it's odd that it's an anomaly in that it's so specific a law but it's not just a freedom of speech issue.
In reply to wbo:
Of course it is! What else is FoS intended for if not to change people's minds? The laws about it in some countries result from the second world war and particular horrors that took place. They are probably not very wise because 1) they allow any other group to point out the discrepancy as an argument for why *their* particular beliefs should also be protected and 2) they don't work. Compare the response to David Irving, who fell foul of holocaust denial rules in Austria, and who was held up as something of a martyr by the extreme right as a result, and Brevik who was allowed to spout his nonsense, thereby showing what a delusional fool he is.
> The issue with holocaust deniers is that they actively are seeking to change other people's minds, ignore basic facts and rewrite history to fit their purposes. I agree it's odd that it's an anomaly in that it's so specific a law but it's not just a freedom of speech issue.
Of course it is! What else is FoS intended for if not to change people's minds? The laws about it in some countries result from the second world war and particular horrors that took place. They are probably not very wise because 1) they allow any other group to point out the discrepancy as an argument for why *their* particular beliefs should also be protected and 2) they don't work. Compare the response to David Irving, who fell foul of holocaust denial rules in Austria, and who was held up as something of a martyr by the extreme right as a result, and Brevik who was allowed to spout his nonsense, thereby showing what a delusional fool he is.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: I will rephrase that - David Irving et al are not simply saying 'this is what I think. Take it or leave it'. They are also actively seeking to change , influence others and so it is not simply a matter of simple free speech.
In reply to wbo:
David Irving et al are not simply saying 'this is what I think. Take it or leave it'. They are also actively seeking to change , influence others and so it is not simply a matter of simple free speech.
Eh? What is the point of expression if doesn't "change, influence others"? That is its whole point - so ideas can be examined and tested, and improved or discarded.
David Irving et al are not simply saying 'this is what I think. Take it or leave it'. They are also actively seeking to change , influence others and so it is not simply a matter of simple free speech.
Eh? What is the point of expression if doesn't "change, influence others"? That is its whole point - so ideas can be examined and tested, and improved or discarded.
Post edited at 09:18
In reply to wbo:
What's the point of speaking if you're not speaking to people, trying to influence them? There's not really any rational reason why holocaust denial should be singled out for special treatment
jk
> I will rephrase that - David Irving et al are not simply saying 'this is what I think. Take it or leave it'. They are also actively seeking to change , influence others and so it is not simply a matter of simple free speech.
What's the point of speaking if you're not speaking to people, trying to influence them? There's not really any rational reason why holocaust denial should be singled out for special treatment
jk
In reply to jkarran:
The holocaust is a rather special case and as time passes I can see the laws restricting holocaust deniers will change. One of the key elements behind the Holocaust denying laws is I suspect a desire from Germany to move on (our parents did it, they're bad - but we're not and we're not going to let anyone try to rewrite history), from France not to start hanging out too much dirty washing (there was collaboration but we'd rather not talk about it thank you), and it's an easy and effective way to draw a line under the holocaust discussion/dissention.
The holocaust is a rather special case and as time passes I can see the laws restricting holocaust deniers will change. One of the key elements behind the Holocaust denying laws is I suspect a desire from Germany to move on (our parents did it, they're bad - but we're not and we're not going to let anyone try to rewrite history), from France not to start hanging out too much dirty washing (there was collaboration but we'd rather not talk about it thank you), and it's an easy and effective way to draw a line under the holocaust discussion/dissention.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
In the second paragraph the OP opines that he should be allowed to say what he wants if he isn't attempting to influence others or incite them to hold these views. Clearly many holocaust deniers are trying to influence others.
How do you define the difference between a right to free speech and then deciding where to limit it where it becomes incitement. If a person of influence stands up and says 'I don't believe in the holocaust', 'gays are sinful and will rot in hell' or 'jihad is ok in the eyes of Allah' but then adds the proviso 'that's my opinion and you can take it or leave it' does that make it ok? I don't think so.
We are damn lucky to live in countries where you can say a heck of a lot but there still comes a point where free speech is trumped by not allowing the promotion of hatred, intolerance. The problem is getting the balance right.
And no, I don't think the holocaust should be a special case either.
In the second paragraph the OP opines that he should be allowed to say what he wants if he isn't attempting to influence others or incite them to hold these views. Clearly many holocaust deniers are trying to influence others.
How do you define the difference between a right to free speech and then deciding where to limit it where it becomes incitement. If a person of influence stands up and says 'I don't believe in the holocaust', 'gays are sinful and will rot in hell' or 'jihad is ok in the eyes of Allah' but then adds the proviso 'that's my opinion and you can take it or leave it' does that make it ok? I don't think so.
We are damn lucky to live in countries where you can say a heck of a lot but there still comes a point where free speech is trumped by not allowing the promotion of hatred, intolerance. The problem is getting the balance right.
And no, I don't think the holocaust should be a special case either.
In reply to wbo:
The industrial slaughter of millions of gays, Jews, gypsies, communists etc..... Well if the Holocaust doesn't qualify as a special case in your view, then what would?
The industrial slaughter of millions of gays, Jews, gypsies, communists etc..... Well if the Holocaust doesn't qualify as a special case in your view, then what would?
In reply to atrendall:
Why should it be a special case just because it was bad, I'm after reasons not emotion? There are lots of bad things that have happened before and since, some arguably worse about which there are no restrictions on speech.
jk
Why should it be a special case just because it was bad, I'm after reasons not emotion? There are lots of bad things that have happened before and since, some arguably worse about which there are no restrictions on speech.
jk
In reply to MG:
I guess I wasn't being clear...I'd say that freedom to speak your mind doesn't include when it harms others. Financial ruin's one possible outcome if you attack others, with speech or any other means. Maybe what we need to do is come up with some new terminology that's clear about what "freedom of speech" means, perhaps call it freedom to offend? ;P
Completely agree.
> (In reply to thomasadixon)
> Effectively it is if financial ruin is the outcome.
> Effectively it is if financial ruin is the outcome.
I guess I wasn't being clear...I'd say that freedom to speak your mind doesn't include when it harms others. Financial ruin's one possible outcome if you attack others, with speech or any other means. Maybe what we need to do is come up with some new terminology that's clear about what "freedom of speech" means, perhaps call it freedom to offend? ;P
> Fos tends to be (rightly) limited when it harms others, as with incitement amd libel. Deciding on what harm is is the tricky bit. Most societies agree it includes violence and financial/reputational damage. Some people think it should include "offence", which is really where the differences lie.
Completely agree.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: it's an absolutely special case in that sense, but special and specific laws strictly for holocaust denial? Not sure
I was going to describe it as exceptional, but sadly when I started thinking about it more examples spring to mind
I was going to describe it as exceptional, but sadly when I started thinking about it more examples spring to mind
In reply to thomasadixon:
There's been an interesting, intelligent, broader debate in some quarters on this issue.
I'm grateful to my friend Sridhar Gowda of peakplatform.com and @booksconnect for drawing my attention to these.
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-...
https://aljavieera.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/jesuischarliehebdo/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islamophobia/
There's been an interesting, intelligent, broader debate in some quarters on this issue.
I'm grateful to my friend Sridhar Gowda of peakplatform.com and @booksconnect for drawing my attention to these.
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-...
https://aljavieera.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/jesuischarliehebdo/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islamophobia/
In reply to wbo:
Change Holocaust for Palestine and Gosh! talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
> The issue with holocaust deniers is that they actively are seeking to change other people's minds, ignore basic facts and rewrite history to fit their purposes.
Change Holocaust for Palestine and Gosh! talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Lately I've been thinking about this, over 25,000 people recently signed a petition asking for Katie Hopkins to be arrested for Twitter comments she made about Scotland. Can one pick and choose when freedom of speech is applied, or should it be all or nothing?
Lately I've been thinking about this, over 25,000 people recently signed a petition asking for Katie Hopkins to be arrested for Twitter comments she made about Scotland. Can one pick and choose when freedom of speech is applied, or should it be all or nothing?
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Well, that's 25,000 idiots off the street for a bit whilst they pounded their keyboards with their tiny fists of rage...
Objectionable as the Hopkins creature is, typing nasty things isn't a crime and nor should it be, (usual caveats about incitement, libel etc apply). Apparently calling 999 because "I've been disrespected on Facebook, innit", is the new hobby of the more moronic elements in society.
> Lately I've been thinking about this, over 25,000 people recently signed a petition asking for Katie Hopkins to be arrested for Twitter comments she made about Scotland. Can one pick and choose when freedom of speech is applied, or should it be all or nothing?
Well, that's 25,000 idiots off the street for a bit whilst they pounded their keyboards with their tiny fists of rage...
Objectionable as the Hopkins creature is, typing nasty things isn't a crime and nor should it be, (usual caveats about incitement, libel etc apply). Apparently calling 999 because "I've been disrespected on Facebook, innit", is the new hobby of the more moronic elements in society.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Freeze peach is often used as an excuse to just be an insulting dick. It is more nuanced than just being able to say what you want without fear of repercussions.
This is a pretty good wiki on the issue
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Free_speech
Freeze peach is often used as an excuse to just be an insulting dick. It is more nuanced than just being able to say what you want without fear of repercussions.
This is a pretty good wiki on the issue
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Free_speech
Post edited at 20:04
In reply to Ridge:
I thought this:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/scotland-no-country-for-fr...
was characteristically spot on by Alex Massie.
I thought this:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/scotland-no-country-for-fr...
was characteristically spot on by Alex Massie.
In reply to Indy:
Are you trying to make the point that to object to holocaust denial you are somehow an apologist for the perceived wrongs of the Israeli government.
It's an odd equivalence to make
Are you trying to make the point that to object to holocaust denial you are somehow an apologist for the perceived wrongs of the Israeli government.
It's an odd equivalence to make
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: i think thats a mild description of it . It is best to keep the Holocaust and Israels treatment of Palestine as two separate issues as much as possible. Balancing one against the other will not end well
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Odd... no Hypocritical... yes!
Which reminds me of the who killed Jesus Christ debate.
Odd... no Hypocritical... yes!
Which reminds me of the who killed Jesus Christ debate.
In reply to atrendall:
Denial of the Holodomor isn't illegal, why?
> The industrial slaughter of millions of gays, Jews, gypsies, communists etc..... Well if the Holocaust doesn't qualify as a special case in your view, then what would?
Denial of the Holodomor isn't illegal, why?
In reply to Indy:
Nobody did, he was/is a fictional created by some anti-semites as propaganda to get people to sign up to the new religion (at the time) - Christianity.
> Which reminds me of the who killed Jesus Christ debate.
Nobody did, he was/is a fictional created by some anti-semites as propaganda to get people to sign up to the new religion (at the time) - Christianity.
Post edited at 20:41
In reply to Indy:
Nope. still not with you.
you'll have to expand and make it simple, no references to the gospel of St John (in Greek).
Nope. still not with you.
you'll have to expand and make it simple, no references to the gospel of St John (in Greek).
Post edited at 20:41
In reply to wbo:
Why?
The Israeli's always want to define the narrative on there terms anything else is anti-semitic. You only have to look at how they've increasingly appropriated the holocaust at the cost of marginalising the 5 million (according to the BBC) non jewish victims.Throwing around the holocaust makes it easier to shell densely populated civilian areas of Gaza with white phosphorus (a war crime) and then ignore any outrage.
Norman Finkelstine's
The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering
is a fantastic read.
> It is best to keep the Holocaust and Israels treatment of Palestine as two separate issues as much as possible. Balancing one against the other will not end well
Why?
The Israeli's always want to define the narrative on there terms anything else is anti-semitic. You only have to look at how they've increasingly appropriated the holocaust at the cost of marginalising the 5 million (according to the BBC) non jewish victims.Throwing around the holocaust makes it easier to shell densely populated civilian areas of Gaza with white phosphorus (a war crime) and then ignore any outrage.
Norman Finkelstine's
The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering
is a fantastic read.
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
"Jewish groups and leaders around the world are welcoming a clear declaration from Pope Benedict XVI that the Jewish people are not collectively responsible for the death of Jesus."
> you'll have to expand and make it simple, no references to the gospel of St John (in Greek).
"Jewish groups and leaders around the world are welcoming a clear declaration from Pope Benedict XVI that the Jewish people are not collectively responsible for the death of Jesus."
In reply to Indy:
Well that's nice. all friends together, but since my recollection of the pogroms of medieval Europe are hazy you'll still have to help me out.
Well that's nice. all friends together, but since my recollection of the pogroms of medieval Europe are hazy you'll still have to help me out.
In reply to Indy:
More than 30% of the Jews in Europe were murdered in the Holocaust. The world's Jewish population was reduced by a third, from roughly 16.6 million in 1939 to about 11 million in 1946. Even sixty years later, there are still fewer Jews in the world today than there were prior to 1940.
i don't really thing Israel or the world's Jews really need to big up the holocaust. If anything, you are marginalising the non Jewish victims of the Holocaust by lumping them all together and using them as a means of denouncing Israel.
More than 30% of the Jews in Europe were murdered in the Holocaust. The world's Jewish population was reduced by a third, from roughly 16.6 million in 1939 to about 11 million in 1946. Even sixty years later, there are still fewer Jews in the world today than there were prior to 1940.
i don't really thing Israel or the world's Jews really need to big up the holocaust. If anything, you are marginalising the non Jewish victims of the Holocaust by lumping them all together and using them as a means of denouncing Israel.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...