David Irving

[novium]

Well said; no need for me to add to that

Quoting Al from 17:46, 22nd Feb 2006
"You could not be charged with reckless endagerment for shouting fire in an empty theatre"

But you could be charged for shouting it in a crowded theatre. And that was the point as originally made.

"you could be charged with denying the holocaust if you stood up in an empty theatre in austria and did so."

Leaving aside the point that there wouldn't be anyone in an empty theatre... There would be no proof if there was only one person in a theatre and he/she stood and denied the Holocaust.

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[novium]

the problem is that when someone is that far gone, all the reason in the world will not convince them to shut up.

I cannot completely agree with it. But I understand it. I am not going to condemn them for what those countries have chosen to do.
And why shouldn't they be scared stiff?

Quoting Jono from 11:44, 22nd Feb 2006
Holocaust denial is slightly more contentious than violent pornography!

To me, Censoring an opinion (however false or misguided) from open debate isn't confronting it or solving it, its sweeping it under the carpet. I mean come on! The Deniers' arguments are basically that the post-war administrations set about falsifying the holoucaust, and thus the Mountains of documentation of the final solution are all clever forgeries that happen to match the meticulous German administration dispatches perfectly, the Death camps and videos of corpse piles are all faked, and all the survivors have been taught correlating, false recollections of the camps. All this of course occured during a time when the countries in Europe were crippled economically and logistically!

Its an absolutely ludicrous argument that could be easily countered by any half decent GCSE history student! There's no reason to lock the moron up! His professional reputation is in tatters, and the only people who believe him are a die-hard clique of pointless Hitlerites. And yet because Austria's scared stiff about this ridiculous party coming to power again they lock up anyone who even sniffs of the 3rd reich!

[hr]

Don't mention the Nazi's!

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[novium]

Complete fallacies. Especially thing about "it applies everywhere"
Completely ignoring history.
And in America, no one is really too worried seriously about a second civil war starting up... but the civil war is beyond living memory, it did not equal the horrors of nazism, and the country is not experience a rise in confederate sentiment!

Quoting Bonnie from 13:07, 22nd Feb 2006
Whoevers making those comments about how things don't get so bad in this country on this thread needs to open their eyes.
BNP etc
KKK
the various (and numerous) white supremacy and christian supremacy groups in America.

If you believe in silencing someone's stupid comments and labelling him a criminal for it, then you have to apply that same principle everywhere.

And then when the administration in power claims that dissent is dangerous and starts taking out the opposition... well, we'll be exactly like the Nazis.

fascism exists in so many forms.

[hr]

I love cheese.

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[novium]

Do you, or do you not believe in the right of the people to form their own governments and laws? Or should everything for them be dictated by people who do not live there and do not understand the situation?

I wouldn't be throwing around accusations of stupidity, if I were you...as to pompous? No need to worry about that deary. for people as self-righteous as you, being accused of being pompous it the least of your problems. But nice dodge, by the way.
As to the last bit....then by your own standards you are damned.

Quoting graduated before registration from 08:39, 22nd Feb 2006

I really do not believe that is the question at all. It was a question of whether you approve of Irving being locked up for what he said or whether you think he had a right to free speech.



If I answer that I make myself appear pompous and you appear stupid.

My principles do not prevent me from believing war to be sometimes necessary.

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[Bonnie]

I'll go inform all the people murdered every year due to their race that they weren't really important anyway because some people like to have a "it can't happen here" mentality.

And you've completely ignored history by equating the Civil War with white supremacy groups. That's US History Day 1: Why the Civil War was about economics.



Human rights exist everywhere. Even where they are denied, they still exist.
People have the right to be wrong.

[Not really, it just reads well, because wrongness in and of itself is not a right.] However, humans have the inalienable right to express their opinions, whether that is with prevailing views or not.

How is that ignoring history? That is actually taking into account the history of civilisation (and pre-civilisation into natural law or even divine law if so inclined), the great human lesson we have learned is that humans, as inate in our beings, have qualities about us which are inseparable from our existence. One of these is our mental capacity to form thoughts and opinions, which cannot be taken away.

Your interpretation of history suggests that physical memory is the utmost important aspect of human nature. This suggests that the square meterage surounding an event is the only place that is affected by that event. If it happened in Austria and Germany, they're the only ones who have to deal with it.

I say that what happened in the holocaust was a crime against humanity, and thus in this case especially, the laws which govern humanity regardless of national boundary must be followed. Unfortunately, one of these laws is that people have the right to expression, including stupid people.

In this case the state has dictated the this man cannot have such expressions, even though they are not inherently incendiary. Again, if his expression took the form of "hurt Jewish people", then there would be no argument for him not to go to jail. But he didn't say that. He said "I have not reached the same conclusions as countless others in my field." He has the right to say that. Austria, though, denies him this right.

Quoting novium from 23:20, 22nd Feb 2006
Complete fallacies. Especially thing about "it applies everywhere"
Completely ignoring history.
And in America, no one is really too worried seriously about a second civil war starting up... but the civil war is beyond living memory, it did not equal the horrors of nazism, and the country is not experience a rise in confederate sentiment!

Quoting Bonnie from 13:07, 22nd Feb 2006

[hr]

I love cheese.

[Bonnie]

Quoting novium from 23:25, 22nd Feb 2006
Do you, or do you not believe in the right of the people to form their own governments and laws? Or should everything for them be dictated by people who do not live there and do not understand the situation?

The right of people to form their own govrnment is not exclusive to the right of expression.

An example of legal permissability gone wrong. Just because it's a law does not make it good.

[hr]

I love cheese.

[novium]

But could you reasonably object if an entire community decided something like that? Disagree, sure, but actually tell them: you must change that?

Quoting Bonnie from 02:57, 23rd Feb 2006

Quoting novium from 23:25, 22nd Feb 2006
Do you, or do you not believe in the right of the people to form their own governments and laws? Or should everything for them be dictated by people who do not live there and do not understand the situation?

The right of people to form their own govrnment is not exclusive to the right of expression.

An example of legal permissability gone wrong. Just because it's a law does not make it good.

[hr]

I love cheese.

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[novium]

On day one of civil war history as a kid they told me it was all about freeing the slaves. ON day one of the same subject in high school, they told me it had nothing to do with slavery, and was in fact all about state's rights. Now I realize that neither is really correct. It was all about slavery, yes, but not necessarily the slaves. or state's rights. or economics. or politics. or class issues. it was all of the above, to different degrees, and it changed over time.
To simplify it any more than that seriously skews any intepretations and does no0t explain very well the chains of events and trends that it set in motion. I could go on, but I doubt a 3000 word essay on causes and themes of the civil war is what you are looking for.

And it wasn't wrong of me, most of the white supremacy in the states we know and love came out of the civil war. Or rather, reconstruction, but that's a different matter.

I didn't mention anything about "can't happen here" As I've said many times, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is their right to chose to do that, and as they are the ones who are in the best position to run their country, and given their history, if they feel that this is a necessary step I will not lecture them on it.

Argh. My original point was meant to be things that are necessary are not always right.

And yet I always end up playing devil's advocate, arguing something much more extreme than I actually believe.
Undoubtedly if I forgot that the name "novium" was me and was posting under a different name, I would argue with myself.

Quoting Bonnie from 02:53, 23rd Feb 2006
I'll go inform all the people murdered every year due to their race that they weren't really important anyway because some people like to have a "it can't happen here" mentality.

And you've completely ignored history by equating the Civil War with white supremacy groups. That's US History Day 1: Why the Civil War was about economics.



Human rights exist everywhere. Even where they are denied, they still exist.
People have the right to be wrong.

[Not really, it just reads well, because wrongness in and of itself is not a right.] However, humans have the inalienable right to express their opinions, whether that is with prevailing views or not.

How is that ignoring history? That is actually taking into account the history of civilisation (and pre-civilisation into natural law or even divine law if so inclined), the great human lesson we have learned is that humans, as inate in our beings, have qualities about us which are inseparable from our existence. One of these is our mental capacity to form thoughts and opinions, which cannot be taken away.

Your interpretation of history suggests that physical memory is the utmost important aspect of human nature. This suggests that the square meterage surounding an event is the only place that is affected by that event. If it happened in Austria and Germany, they're the only ones who have to deal with it.

I say that what happened in the holocaust was a crime against humanity, and thus in this case especially, the laws which govern humanity regardless of national boundary must be followed. Unfortunately, one of these laws is that people have the right to expression, including stupid people.

In this case the state has dictated the this man cannot have such expressions, even though they are not inherently incendiary. Again, if his expression took the form of "hurt Jewish people", then there would be no argument for him not to go to jail. But he didn't say that. He said "I have not reached the same conclusions as countless others in my field." He has the right to say that. Austria, though, denies him this right.

Quoting novium from 23:20, 22nd Feb 2006
Complete fallacies. Especially thing about "it applies everywhere"
Completely ignoring history.
And in America, no one is really too worried seriously about a second civil war starting up... but the civil war is beyond living memory, it did not equal the horrors of nazism, and the country is not experience a rise in confederate sentiment!

Quoting Bonnie from 13:07, 22nd Feb 2006

[hr]

I love cheese.

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[exnihilo]

Hmm, indeed, it was about neither slavery nor economics and yet about both and lots of other things besides. It was, in short, complex and can't be summed up on Day One of history.

As for these inalienable rights, they sound suspiciously like bits of the US Declaration of Independence, which most assuredly does not yet hold sway over the world.

Or perhaps the US should intervene to protect free speech in Austria? After all, people have the right to free expression "regardless of national boundary", which will come as a surprise to billions.

[Guest]

Quoting Al from 17:46, 22nd Feb 2006
"You could not be charged with reckless endagerment for shouting fire in an empty theatre"

But you could be charged for shouting it in a crowded theatre. And that was the point as originally made.

And my point was that your punished for the consequences of your actions not the act themselves - if an actor shouted fire as part of a play, they would not be charged. But if an actor denied the holocaust, they would.

[graduated before registration]

Quoting novium from 23:25, 22nd Feb 2006
Do you, or do you not believe in the right of the people to form their own governments and laws? Or should everything for them be dictated by people who do not live there and do not understand the situation?

I wouldn't be throwing around accusations of stupidity, if I were you...as to pompous? No need to worry about that deary. for people as self-righteous as you, being accused of being pompous it the least of your problems. But nice dodge, by the way.
As to the last bit....then by your own standards you are damned.

Quoting graduated before registration from 08:39, 22nd Feb 2006

I really do not believe that is the question at all. It was a question of whether you approve of Irving being locked up for what he said or whether you think he had a right to free speech.



If I answer that I make myself appear pompous and you appear stupid.

My principles do not prevent me from believing war to be sometimes necessary.

Im not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you genuinely dont understand.

I have chosen my principles - they dont conflict. You have indicated that yours do - that is up to you.

I believe utterly and truly in free speech - you do not. I believe that war can sadly sometimes be necessary - you wrote that religion prevented you from doing so - once again that is up to you, that is entirely understandable and laudable. If you choose to think that principles are beliefs that you can give up and apply when the circumstance seems to suit you that is up to you.

I have no idea why you think that I am against democracy. Is free speech not a fundamental principle of democracy?

By the way it was hardly a dodge - I replied to you grudgingly, I would not have done so but for your last paragraph, when i did reply it was to all you wrote - I do not enjoy offending people. I did attempt to make the point that I avoid holding principles that conflict and that I avoid holding principles that make me hypocritical. What you choose to hold as principles is your matter, whether you keep them or not is your matter.

[Smith]

I don't think our society is very democratic at all. We're moreorless told how to live and run our lives, wether we realise it or not.

[hr]

We're not drunk, we're multi-millionaires...
IMAGE:img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/ryanlewisjones/burlyman.jpg

[exnihilo]

An aside, in response to Smith...

"I, for one, do not wish to live in a world where everything is planned: I would much rather have the liberty to make a fool of myself than become an ideal citizen by regulation."
George Taylor, respondent to the Mass-Observation Project, writing in 1946.