Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Or, how I lost a measure of respect for the otherwise very respectable Elie Weisel. As Orac reports, Weisel recently participated in a debate in Canada against Salman Rushdie during which he argued that there should be an exception to freedom of speech to outlaw Holocaust denial.
Canada, of course, already has multiple exceptions to free speech based on the premise that "hate speech" should be coercively stamped out from society. And they have denied entry to the country to Holocaust deniers in the past. The National Post reports on the debate:
He said the sole exception should be Holocaust denial, which must be banned. And the sole exception to that exception, he said, is America, where he lives, and where free speech is regarded as such a fundamental part of life."I don't want to touch the First Amendment," he said.
This is quite confused. If he thinks that the sole exception to free speech should be Holocaust denial, then he certainly should want to touch the First Amendment. Logic does not change when one crosses lines on a map; people should either be free to deny the Holocaust or not be free to deny the Holocaust, period. The notion that they should be free in one place but in no other is logically untenable.
Of course, the very idea that one should not be allowed to make any false historical claim is patently absurd in the first place. Yes, I recognize Weisel's compassionate motives. I know he means well. But the road to hell -- and to losing our free speech rights -- may well be paved with such good intentions. And good intentions do not erase the inherent injustice in punishing false opinions.
Making an exception for Holocaust denial sets a precedent that will then be used to justify outlawing other false historical claims. Once that exception is passed, how could one make a principled argument against outlawing denial of Stalin's crimes? After all, he killed more than twice as many people as Hitler did. Or the crimes of Pol Pot. Or Milosevic.
Or -- and here is an interesting hypothetical -- how about the crimes of the United States, which has been responsible for its own fair share of genocide (and if you don't believe me, ask the Cambodians or the Vietnamese)? Or the crimes of the KKK? Or how about those who downplay the horrors of slavery in America?
All of those forms of denialism are bad, of course. I have no problem attacking those who advocate such ideas and I do so gleefully and regularly. But once you give government the power to police false claims about history, where does one draw a principled line before one has reached, quite literally, a state not unlike Orwell's 1984, where there is a single agreed upon history and no one may deviate from it?
No. Rushdie was absolutely right:
"It would be very inappropriate to think of any system of ideas as something that should be protected from debate," Mr. Rushdie said. "This is in a way at the heart of the free-speech argument, that you should by all means protect individuals against discrimination by reason of whatever their belief system may be. But the beliefs themselves are open for debate, criticism, satire, and all kinds of disrespectful remarks."
Amen.
Politics
Comments
Ed Brayton: But once you give government the power to police false claims about history, where does one draw a principled line before one has reached, quite literally, a state not unlike Orwell's 1984, where there is a single agreed upon history and no one may deviate from it?
By limiting such action in all the senses required for libel, such as making it a civil claim rather than criminal, requiring to initiate the suit that the party of standing must show actual harm, requiring showing of actual malice, and having truth a sovereign defense.
Even then, caution might be called for.
Posted by: abb3w | June 8, 2010 9:41 AM
A disturbingly large number of Americans are great advocates of free speech until it comes to certain pet issues of their own, and this seems true on both sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives might wish to suppress criticism of religion or burning of the flag, whereas liberals might wish to suppress racist or homophobic views. What these people miss is that freedom of expression is a high-level principle which must be defended even when you disagree with a particular example of it.
Posted by: Greg Esres | June 8, 2010 9:43 AM
"Canada, of course, already has multiple exceptions to free speech based on the premise that "hate speech" should be coercively stamped out from society."
Can you point to any objectively measurable metric by which Canada has performed worse than the US since these laws were introduced?
Posted by: Ian Gould | June 8, 2010 9:58 AM
Weisel's view is completely untenable. The idea that there should be an exception for denying one specific historical event is an impossible ad hoc solution. Once it's applied to the holocaust then other oppressed groups will rightly argue that the factual history of the their oppression deserves legal protection as well. How could we deny them, once we've accepted that some historical facts are legally protected?
As Ed pointed out there were a number of atrocities committed in the 20th century and earlier that rank with the holocaust in inhumanity. What about Turks who deny the Armenian genocide (which is very common)?
Posted by: penn | June 8, 2010 10:01 AM
abb3w wrote:
How does one show actual harm from someone else making a false claim? The only possible argument is that I am harmed because someone else's beliefs about history upset me so much that it harmed me in some way. But this is just as dangerous a precedent as the criminal application of such a standard; the applications are virtually limitless.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 8, 2010 10:03 AM
Ian Gould wrote:
I can't imagine why I would need any such "measurable metric." I merely need to point to specific instances of specific people being unjustly prosecuted under such laws, being forced to spend a great deal of money and time and effort defending themselves from laws that punish pure speech with no advocacy of violence even if they were ultimately found innocent, and/or to those who were found guilty of violating such laws and forced to pay fines. I have pointed out many such cases over the last few years. I don't care what the quantitative measure is, I care that the laws are unjust and punish people merely for advocating a position that someone else does not like. If that is true, as I believe it is, it is true whether it happens to one person or a thousand people (just as the fact that Bush only tried to eliminate habeas corpus for one American citizen does not make that one instance any less unjust, regardless of whether it happened to anyone else or not).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 8, 2010 10:07 AM
"I merely need to point to specific instances of specific people being unjustly prosecuted under such laws..."
I don't think you even need to do that. The law is unjust, even if it's never used.
Posted by: Captain Mike | June 8, 2010 10:13 AM
Hey Ed: "and if you don't believe me, ask the Cambodians or the Vietnamese"
Although I have not myself been to Vietnam, according to everyone I have talked to who has been there in recent years, our involvement in Vietnam is surprisingly insignificant to the Vietnamese. They are very much a let bygones be bygones society. They could also be too busy hating the Chinese to care much either way about us.
Posted by: Jim | June 8, 2010 10:17 AM
"Yes, I recognize Weisel's compassionate motives. I know he means well."
I don't think so in this situation. I see no coherent and justifiable reason why he would want the denial of this particular historical event to be protected by criminal law, but no other event, other than the fact that it is his ox, so to speak, that is being gored in holocaust denialism. To me, that's nothing but blatent special pleading.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | June 8, 2010 10:20 AM
...according to everyone I have talked to who has been there in recent years, our involvement in Vietnam is surprisingly insignificant to the Vietnamese. They are very much a let bygones be bygones society
The Vietnamese have moved on with reason. Because the horror of the war visited upon them is too much to think about, not because nothing happened.
Posted by: Marichi | June 8, 2010 10:42 AM
Wiesel is just giving the current government of Israel cover for its own genocide. Shhh! Can't talk about THAT!
Posted by: kehrsam | June 8, 2010 10:47 AM
And good intentions do not erase the inherent injustice in punishing false opinions.
"False opinions?" Really? Opinions are neither true nor false. It's the statements we base our opinions on that are true or false.
Fifty lashes with a wet noodle for the Orwellian Newspeak.
Posted by: MTiffany | June 8, 2010 10:55 AM
What is libel/slander other than revisionist history writ small? If I falsely claim that you routinely falsified your interviews and quotes in your reporting, you could claim actual harm to your livelihood--but it is a historical belief (albeit on a historical topic of very minor scale). Should this be protected? What if the belief was that the entire staff of the Washington Post falsified quotes and stories as a matter of policy...is this protected revisionist history, or unprotected libel? At what scale does something cease to be libel and become protected revisionist history?
I think abb3w has the right of it--if harm cannot be demonstrated from an act of revisionist history, then no civil act will succeed. But, to make a blanket statement that revisionist history cannot cause actual harm seems more like a comment on the limits of your imagination more than a comment on the properties of revisionist history.
Posted by: Shygetz | June 8, 2010 11:03 AM
I have been to Vietnam, about nine years ago and one thing stands out is that it is fundamentally a young society. There are huge numbers of people, I think it may be a majority, who were born after the American war and know it as history not personal experience. I think this youthfulness contributes to the public culture of Vietnam being very much focused on the future including any benefits they can get from US tourists and trade and less on the past.
Not that there aren't scars, I met an NVA vetran who couldn't bring himself to discuss those years but the war does not define Vietnam the way some people expect.
Posted by: Matty | June 8, 2010 11:12 AM
While the of outlawing ideas is flawed. I understand the desire to do so.
When a society can come up with an idea like the extermination of an entire group of people and effectively implement it, killing millions of people before it is stopped, it's not too far of a stretch to come to the conclusion that not all ideas are worthy of protection.
Even in our time we have some really bad ideas that have managed to gain traction and enjoy the support of a majority. The idea that waterboarding prisoners will extract the information needed to prevent future terrorist attacks comes to mind.
So how does society protect itself from these ideas?
Posted by: Owen | June 8, 2010 11:17 AM
Re Kehrsam @ #11
Wiesel is just giving the current government of Israel cover for its own genocide. Shhh! Can't talk about THAT!
All I can say is that if the Government of Israel is committing genocide, they're completely incompetent at it. Thus far, the number of Palestinians killed since the start of the 2nd intifada in 2000 amounts to about 6000, including those killed in operation Cast Lead. Hafaz Assad killed that many in the first 3 hours of the bombardment by the Syrian Army of the City of Hama in 1982. The US has killed an estimated 100 times that number during our adventure in Iraq. Not to mention the number killed so far in Afghanistan.
I suggest that Mr. Kehrsam is tossing rocks from a very thinly glassed house.
Posted by: SLC | June 8, 2010 11:37 AM
It's less "confused" -- meaning self-contradictory -- if you consider his highest guiding principle to be Respect -- translated as protecting individual sensibilities. Changing the First Amendment would apparently bother people in America, and hurt their feelings.
Posted by: Sastra | June 8, 2010 11:45 AM
"So how does society protect itself from these ideas?"
With vigorous, informed, and reasoned debate.
Christopher Hitchens said it best about banning holocaust denial. It ends up giving credibility to holocaust deniers because people will assume they might onto something if they're willing to defy an official orthdoxy.
Posted by: Bill in NC | June 8, 2010 12:37 PM
Ed, I think you're misreading Wiesel's quote. He said that he wants countries without a First Amendment guarantee of free speech to outlaw Holocaust denial. As you quote: "And the sole exception to that exception, he said, is America, where he lives, and where free speech is regarded as such a fundamental part of life." Which I read as meaning that the only country that should NOT outlaw Holocaust denial is the US with its unique free-speech culture.
I still think he's way off-base here - the precedent set by outlawing Holocaust denial does more harm than good IMHO. But let's be fair - he doesn't want a ban here.
Posted by: Jeff | June 8, 2010 1:07 PM
Sounds a little to me like that invisible hand of the market guiding our economy allowing only the best products, people and ideas float to the top. Thing is, very often shit floats too. George W. Bush seemed very proud of the water torture thing.
Holocaust deniers already consider the holocaust a great conspiracy that is being protected by those unseen people who are really controlling all the world's governments. I doubt there is any way they could be any more paranoid about those who argue against them.
Posted by: Owen | June 8, 2010 1:16 PM
Sounds a little to me like that invisible hand of the market guiding our economy allowing only the best products, people and ideas float to the top. Thing is, very often shit floats too. George W. Bush seemed very proud of the water torture thing.
Take a look at Holocaust Denial in Western Europe, then take a look at it in the U.S. Looks to me like (in this case) the invisible hand of the marketplace of ideas.is working just fine. I'm not claiming its perfect, but it seems to be doing at least as well as the regulated speech model, without the ethical problems associated with restricting speech.
Posted by: eric | June 8, 2010 2:07 PM
"I think abb3w has the right of it--if harm cannot be demonstrated from an act of revisionist history, then no civil act will succeed. But, to make a blanket statement that revisionist history cannot cause actual harm seems more like a comment on the limits of your imagination more than a comment on the properties of revisionist history."
We already have laws that protect individuals from false (and even some true) statements. Defamation, false light, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress. Nothing prevents a person from bring an action under a theory of revisionist history (including Holocaust denial) under any of these legal theories. I don't see how a private cause of action for historical revisionism would be much different from a claim under current law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The aggrieved person must show standing, causation, fault and harm. Do we really need a need a new cause of action relating specifically to revisionist history?
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | June 8, 2010 2:13 PM
Examples of false historical claims I'm currently not allowed to make in the US (at least, where because they are false they can be punished):
"Yes, the words in that published article are mine."
"Your honor, [insert any false historical claim here]."
"Officer, my cousin was with me at the time of the incident."
"My product was developed using only the finest Swiss spring water."
Those are all in some way context dependent, of course. But there are more general existing exceptions to First Amendment protection, and rightly so: (some) content-neutral restrictions on speech and restrictions based on harm. Moreover, the Supreme Court used to have a much more nuanced view of the First Amendment, where political speech was most protected, but other forms (like "puffery" of consumer goods) was not. This nuanced view was justified in light of a conception of the role of free speech in a democracy, and so principled distinctions between more- and less-protected speech could be made. The slippery-slope problem about free speech is, I think, well overblown in this post, even though in some contexts I also think it is a danger. But, what matters are the reasons given, not simply the fact of a restriction on speech.
Posted by: Pete M | June 8, 2010 2:24 PM
A secondary (but very disturbing) issue is that to prosecute people for making false statements requires the government to certify truth. It is not only "false" claims that are problemmatic. Governments tend to be very "flexible" in defining truth. Can a Turk talk about the Armenian genocide? Could a Soviet citizen under Stalin talk about purges, mass starvation, or the relocation of whole ethnic groups? IMO, in the US it is more likely that people will be prosecuted for telling the truth, when that truth contradicts the official government story, than it is for outright falsehood.
Posted by: shargash | June 8, 2010 2:45 PM
Ed, I wouldn't use the National Post as any sort of authoritative or unbiased news source. They are notorious for not validating the information they publish and are perhaps the go to source in Canada for wrong information about AGW, and possibly evolution.
Posted by: GaryB | June 8, 2010 2:51 PM
It's seems almost like he's making an argument from convenience:
"Yes, holocaust denial should be the one exception to freedom of speech everywhere, but in America, the first ammendment is so ingrained there that it is too hard to fight, and not worth it, so we'll make an exception."
Muddled? Yes indeed.
Posted by: amphiox | June 8, 2010 3:06 PM
Not just individuals, but corporations (who are people, too). I'm arguing for protection--if it currently exists, great! But Ed was arguing that any protection against revisionist history was improper, even one limited to actual damages; he did not specify if such protection exists now or not.
Posted by: Shygetz | June 8, 2010 3:06 PM
I'm still not clear on the issue: What sorts of "actual damages" have arisen because of historical revisionism that should be remedied, but are not remedied in the current system? What are the advantages and disadvantages of providing that remedy, and how costly practicable is it? Since historical revisionism is currently protected speech and not privately actionable, there must be some cases out there that a proponent can point to. Or is this a problem that doesn't really exist?
Note: It is not enough to say again that "if harm cannot be demonstrated from an act of revisionist history, then no civil act will succeed."
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | June 8, 2010 4:00 PM
If I make a false claim about you (like publicly alleging that you raped a killed a 9 year old girl in 1990), I have harmed you by damaging your reputation.
If I make a false claim about the holocaust, I have harmed...who? How?
Those making an analogy between libel and holocaust denial are making a very fundamental error in failing to recognize that one harms an individual, and the other does not.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 8, 2010 4:15 PM
Another point that I don't think has been made clearly: Wiesel wants an exception to the First Amendment, which limits government action, but not individual action. He wants GOVERNMENTS to censor and/or punish historical revisionism.
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | June 8, 2010 4:21 PM
Ed Brayton: How does one show actual harm from someone else making a false claim?
How is it shown in a libel case?
Ed Brayton: The only possible argument is that I am harmed because someone else's beliefs about history upset me so much that it harmed me in some way.
Ah; it looks what you're trying to ask is "how does one show actual harm from someone else making a false claim about history?" The simple answer to that is that I'm not sure that can be done in most cases.
However, setting up a hypothetical, suppose Bull Shi'ite History Inc puts out a "Secret Protocols of Zion" type anti-Semitic history textbook (including but not limited to Holocaust denial), Sturmabteilung Private Elementary School uses the textbook, and members of the school's Skinhead Student Club decide to go and burn down Jewish Temple Beth Israel. Assuming a chain of causality could be established, it would seem to constitute actual harm resulting from a false claim, and grounds for legal claim by JTBI against BSHI... possibly even under current law (though IAmNotALawyer am not sure on that). Of course, there's still the problem of showing actual malice, and an uphill fight on showing the chain of causality.
Exceedingly difficult, but nonetheless not impossible.
Shygetz: What is libel/slander other than revisionist history writ small?
Technically, history may also attribute guilt/blame for offenses to social groups as well as individuals, while IReallyAmNotALawyer don't think libel/slander can be pursued as a class action.
Shygetz: At what scale does something cease to be libel and become protected revisionist history?
There is also a vital question of time under US law; to wit, you cannot (ordinarily) libel the dead. Thus, as IStillAmNotALawyer understand, if I were to go around claiming that Grover Cleveland raped and murdered a young girl in 1890, his surviving relations would have no cause of action against me (even beyond the usual difficulties involving public figures).
Owen: Sounds a little to me like that invisible hand of the market guiding our economy allowing only the best products, people and ideas float to the top.
True; however, this is part of the Great American Experiment: will the result be dominance by the cream, or by the scum?
RobNYNY1957: Do we really need a need a new cause of action relating specifically to revisionist history?
I am inclined to say not, at least until some case such as my example is thrown out for lack of standing. At that point, legislation to explicitly recognize standing might be in order.
Of course, since there don't seem to be a lot of such cases at present, this will have limited practical impact on the holocaust denial racket... unless and until they start making a lot more kook converts.
shargash: A secondary (but very disturbing) issue is that to prosecute people for making false statements requires the government to certify truth.
Only for cases where harm is asserted, and competing claims as to what OUGHT be done requires as prerequisite arbitration between competing claims as to what truth IS. This is already required in (almost) any civil, criminal, or equity dispute brought to the courts. (Cases with all facts stipulated by both sides and only questions of law or equity remaining are more than a little unusual, IHopeYouCanTellIAmNotALawyer would think.)
Posted by: abb3w | June 8, 2010 4:29 PM
James:
You are right that the proponents are trying to blur that issue.
Someone above did mention the necessity for "standing," which presumably involves a showing some sort of individual harm. But I don't see that the argument got much beyond that, because it really has nowhere to go. It would certainly greatly limit the number of people who could bring a lawsuit. Who has standing to sue on behalf of history? Who could plausibly show they were harmed by a book on a shelf that disputes events of 60 years ago, to such an extent that censorship or damages were the appropriate remedy?
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | June 8, 2010 4:37 PM
What would be the basis for standing in the Holocaust denial legislation that you propose? Do you have to be Jewish? Do you have to know the non-revisionist history? Do you have to get very, very upset?
There "dont's seem to be a lot of such cases at the moment"? Could you identify the few that there are?
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | June 8, 2010 4:48 PM
@Bill in NC #18:
And how's that working for you in the USA? Remember how the birthers, once the light of reason and honesty was shone upon them (hah!), scurried back under their stone, taking only a minute 48% of GOP voters with them. that worked out well, didn't it?
Somebody once commented that a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on - and protecting the freedom to lie really doesn't help that situation. The National Review was wrong.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 8, 2010 5:10 PM
"Moreover, the Supreme Court used to have a much more nuanced view of the First Amendment..."
That "nuanced" view would be that it doesn't mean what it quite clearly says. I think that's the same "nuance" that the Bush administration applied to the Fourth Amendment.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 8, 2010 5:23 PM
It would help if we had a good definition of Holocaust denial before we wantonly through that accusation at someone. Many literature experts will take issue with some of the details that Wiesel gives in his writings such as his famous book "Night". Maybe the trauma affected his memory and maybe he is using literary techniques but the reviewers are usually not accused of being deniers for doubting the veracity of some of his claims.
Posted by: Gavin Cato | June 8, 2010 5:25 PM
"And how's that working for you in the USA?"
Pretty damned good, actually. Holocaust denial, the topic of this thread, is practically nonexistent here.
"Remember how the birthers, once the light of reason and honesty was shone upon them (hah!), scurried back under their stone, taking only a minute 48% of GOP voters with them."
And what are the birthers other than a bunch of sideshow clones?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 8, 2010 5:26 PM
@34 The point you're missing about the birthers is that they are racists, plain and simple. They don't like Obama being President because he's black. But since racial prejudice is no longer socially acceptable, the birther movement has to have some marginally plausible, albeit transparent, cover to hide their racism behind. Presto! Angry whitey says: "He's not eligible to be President because he's black, oops, pardon me, that's not what we agreed on at the Klan meeting last week errr, uhm, let me see here in my notes... oh yeah, 'he was born somewhere else' (just look at how dark that darkie is!)"
Seriously, I have yet to see anyone NOT white get in front of a camera to say that President Obama was not born in the US.
Posted by: MTiffany | June 8, 2010 5:32 PM
Actually, Mr. Levett, a damn sight better than allowing government to limit speech is working out for most other peoples in this world. Are you going to try to persuade us that the UK has found some particularly enlightened method for banning only bad speech, and that it's had the salutary effect of actually eliminating such bad thoughts from public discourse and the people's private thoughts?
If not, then exactly what justifies the particular snarkiness of your question?
Posted by: James Hanley | June 8, 2010 6:09 PM
@Tyler DiPietro #37:
Really? Tell me where Stormfront is based/hosted? Who were Arthur Butz, Willis Carto and Bradley Smith? You have a denialist problem, did you but actually look at it. It is only the fact that several Western European countries have laws against it that are enforced that gives the impression it is widespread here.
I'm not saying that criminal penalties for Holocaust denial are appropriate (certainly outside Germany), but the idea that Holocaust denial has lost/will lose the battle of ideas in the media is simply absurd.
...who have managed to persuade nearly half of one of your major parties' voters that there is something in their claims, to the extent that even some of your national elected politicians will kowtow to them.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 8, 2010 6:14 PM
Re MTiffany
Seriously, I have yet to see anyone NOT white get in front of a camera to say that President Obama was not born in the US
Alan Keyes.
Posted by: SLC | June 8, 2010 6:20 PM
Regarding holocaust denial (revisionism), how does claiming that there is evidence that millions were not murdered constitute 'hate speech'? Is suggesting that some Jews would lie worse than accusing Germans of being homicidal murderers?
Posted by: KurtB | June 8, 2010 6:32 PM
Well, we certainly do have denialists, but they're not really taken seriously, so it's not at all certain that it's a "problem." And exactly what would banning their talk accomplish?
Posted by: James Hanley | June 8, 2010 6:50 PM
A bunch of people having the law sent after them simply for being stupid, I'd imagine.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 8, 2010 6:57 PM
Yes, Gretchen, but like me you're just a backwards colonist. Mr. Levett's British, so you know that with his melodious accent, whatever argument he makes will sound reasonable to our uncultured ears.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 8, 2010 7:04 PM
The ADL has commissioned numerous antisemitism surveys in the US and Europe. Here are the findings for Europe in 2009:
http://www.adl.org/Public%20ADL%20Anti-Semitism%20Presentation%20February%202009%20_3_.pdf
Here are the findings for the US in 2007:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/5159_12.htm
ADL commentary on the 2007 survey laments the continuing presence of antisemitism in the US, but suggests that the situation in Europe is more troubling.
By the way, I'm a Northwestern graduate and still live near the school. Butz was universally hated for years. Now he's just a laughingstock.
Posted by: Dr X | June 8, 2010 8:00 PM
Most of Europe has already gone far beyond Orwell's wildest dreams. Sweden prosecuted Ditlieb Felderer for ''wrongly translating Holocaust,'' something the Roman Catholic Church in its most Inquisitorial form never did. It also passed a law forbidding criticizing homosexualism, resulting in a clash with the Pentecostal churches who regularly preach against it. Germany passed a law forbidding the claim that 4 million did not die at Auschwitz. That even, though later the number was lowered. In a recent case, the Judge, honestly stated that truth and facts have no right in court and that it is the politicians who decide what is truth. Many European countries maintain their Blasphemy laws. Sweden has a criminal law baked inside their ''treason law,'' giving you two years in jail if you say so and so's grandmother, now dead, picket her nose in church. Sweden has also prosecuted numerous cartoons. Each time after prosecution, the prosecutor receives a high position job. Sweden even declared that in imprisoning cartoonists, writers, etc., they are fulfilling UN direction! As for Elie Wiesel, why he is at it, is probably in order to deflect numerous peculiar things about his person, evidently showing this man to be a fraud. A form of a Cagligostro. Simon Wiesenthal belonged in the same category. All of Europe's censorship laws have their origin the the Old Testament, which then were interpreted in a Christian way. Putting people in jail for their thoughts, cartoons, etc., is the surest way for a prosecutor to receive promotion. The corrupt prosecutor that in a Star Chamber Court manner prosecuted Ditlieb Felderer, then became Sweden's top prosecutor. Not long after he helped his friend prosecutor out of a nasty drug case. Corruption is the going thing in all these cases. Nothing new here. It's all the same old music. There is a special section in: http://ditliebfelderer.blogspot.com which deals on Sweden's censorship activities that should open eyes. There assassinations, violence, and persecution is shown to be the practice of the day. And this is what they want Asians and others to take after! kimc@asia.com
Posted by: GEORGE ORWELL | June 8, 2010 9:32 PM
Robin Levett,
I know that stupidity and ignorance are often more persuasive.But who gets to determine what's true? A government capable of banning falsehood is a government just as capable of banning the truth. Turkey bans mention of the Armenian genocide. You're assuming that those in power will always uphold correct ideas. Too often they don't, and they need to be questioned.
Posted by: Bill in NC | June 8, 2010 9:55 PM
"It also passed a law forbidding criticizing homosexualism.."
What the heck is "homosexualism?"
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 8, 2010 11:00 PM
I've always found the European approach to free speech fascinating, especially with regard to anti-semitism and Nazism. Part of it is because I completely understand and agree with their motives and think in theory one could ban one type of speech and be justified. In practice, however, this is impossible. After all, what is wrong with saying, "we've had Nazis, we've seen what happens when these assholes run rampant, we've been overun by the bastards in the past and had our people shoved into camps and gassed en masse, maybe this is the one exception to the rule that free speech is good." And as Americans is there anything comparable to the experience of Europeans in WWII in our experience? Isn't our radical position on free speech pretty easy having not been overun by these fascists or having an equivalent historical experience?
The problem is that one can not just ban one type of speech. It's just not practical to have governments judge one type of speech as bad as invariably, other groups will fight to have the speech they dislike also be proscribed by the government. If it were possible for European countries to actually say, "no more Nazism period" and have it end there, I think they'd be perfectly justified in doing so. I think we're not adequately incorporating their historical experiences when we knee-jerk against this practice. The better argument is that such free speech rules are not practical and will either spread to create generally government-sanctioned and forbidden speech, or justify the oppressive speech rules of countries that will use such laws for suppression of minority views/enforce majority views.
Posted by: MarkH | June 8, 2010 11:03 PM
daniel rotter "What the heck is 'homosexualism?'"
It's like Existentialism, but with a lively soundtrack.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 8, 2010 11:16 PM
@42: I don't understand how your question in your second sentence logically follows the question in your first. Are you actually suggesting that a group of people cannot be labeled "homicidal murderers" as long as the murdering in question doesn't reach the "millions" number? Let's say thousands, instead of millions, of Jews were killed by Germans during WWII (that's not to say that the "Jews" and "Germans" categories are mutually exclusive. Some of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were Germans themselves). Wouldn't the Germans responsible for these murderers still be quite accurately labeled as "homicidal murderers?"
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 8, 2010 11:20 PM
"...who have managed to persuade nearly half of one of your major parties' voters that there is something in their claims, to the extent that even some of your national elected politicians will kowtow to them."
Yes, about a quarter of our electorate here is absolutely bugshit crazy. But things are still pretty peachy. When it comes to threats to democracy as we know it, I'm much more worried about Obama's continuation of Bush's policies than I am about the 25 percent of Americans railing about a birth certificate.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 9, 2010 12:27 AM
A quick look at the website of "George Orwell" (I'm not really recommending it) explains a lot about his post.
Posted by: dean | June 9, 2010 8:01 AM
@52. I was referring to the 'collective guilt' imposed upon all Germans by such people as author Daniel J. Goldhagen's 'Hitler's Willing Executioners'. Today this imagined guilt is expanded to include anyone who expresses opposition to the Zionist colonization of Palestine.
Posted by: KurtB | June 9, 2010 8:52 AM
@all assuming I am arguing for banning holocaust denialism:
Read my comment.
@James Hanley #39:
No, I am not. Had you read my comment, you would have realised that. My point is that, if the arguments of the free-speech absolutists commenting here and elsewhere actually worked out in the real world, the level of your political discourse would be so far above ours that we would have to use a helicopter to watch your news shows. It isn't; indeed, in many respects, it appears that it is far below Western Europe's. That Palin still survives as a political force, that the birther movement has the support of nearly half the GOP's vote and actually has influence on national elected politicians, just as two examples, are sufficient testament to that. Both Palin and the birthers come to the battle of ideas virtually unarmed, and yet they survive.
I was snarky because I am fed up with the sanctimony of so many USAan commentators on free-speech issues in relation to Western Europe (and the UK in particular) when by any objective standard in practice we actually use free speech at least as effectively as you in holding power to account. What wouldn't you give for a Jeremy Paxman, for example; and there are plenty more where he came from, both on TV and radio.
The USA has had constitutional guarantees of free speech for over 200 years, yet truth in the USAan public square doesn't seem to have any greater advantage over lies than in Europe.
#43:
What makes you think that we in the UK take denialists seriously? Irving used to have a reputation as a serious historian, until he took the denialist path.
Personal anecdote: I used to contribute (?) to talk.origins quite extensively. My path there was via sci.archaeology, where I'd got into a debate with Matt Giwer/Kainee over the Irving/Lipstadt case. My first direct contact with a denialist was with a USAan denialist.
I don't advocate banning denialism in the UK. I do think that the argument is rather more nuanced than free speech absolutists believe.
#45:
Just quoted for attention to be paid to it. Take the chip off your shoulder - the war ended over 200 years ago.
@Dr X #46:
I've looked at the two references. Two things struck me; firstly, that the USA is overall no better than the UK on the two directly comparable questions (better on loyalty to the USA, worse on killing the baby Jesus). Secondly, the questions asked are sufficiently different that I am not sure that the results are comparable. So far as they can be seen as comparable, the split is more between the Anglo-Saxons and the others, than between the USA and Europe.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 9, 2010 9:10 AM
Good morning, Mr. Levett (well, it's morning over here anyway).
You have completely misunderstand the primary point of us free speech absolutists, of which I am one.
I'm sure you're aware that those arguing good speech beats bad speech in a marketplace of ideas are just echoing your countryman, J.S. Mill. But since you've been reading this blog regularly, you should know that most of us free speech absolutists don't actually believe that (we may wistfully look toward that ideal, but many of us are just too pragmatic to fall for it). So your argument about "level of discourse" is the a bright red herring.
What most of us free speech absolutists argue is that government should not be trusted with the power to decide what are legitimate ideas and what aren't. And that argument really has nothing to do with level of discourse--we're eager to protect individuals from the power of governments that would try to regulate what they can think and say, with full recognition that openly allowing holocaust deniers, racists, and bigots of every stripe to speak open does not in itself improve the level of discourse. And on those grounds, the apparent eagerness of Britain and their Western European counterparts reinforces our concerns, rather than allaying them. If you properly understand the dominant absolutist's argument, there is less cause for being so sanguine as you appear. However I can't simply sneer across the pond at you, because my own country has far too often fell into that temptation, particularly at the local level. It is our own experience, even more than yours, that leads us absolutists to argue against granting the power to regulate speech--which is really an attempt to regulate thought.
As to the differing levels of political discourse, while I willingly agree that the British/European level of discourse is somewhat superior to the U.S.'s--in that they are far more aware of the world outside their own borders, and much less gung-ho about bullying other countries--my experience with those I've known has been that their discourse is rather shallower than they themselves often perceive it to be. A reflexive pro-governmentalism often stands in correspondence to Americans' reflexive anti-governmentalism, but not necessarily with any deeper insight or more analytical thought given to it. I could wish it were indeed better, as it would give me hope that humanity is capable of higher level discourse, collectively, but from my observations I remain pessimistic.
As to "I am fed up with the sanctimony of so many USAan commentators" and "Take the chip off your shoulder - the war ended over 200 years ago": My tongue-in-cheek comment was a shot at the sanctimonious attitude of so many Brits and Europeans toward the U.S., a sanctimoniousness quite on display in your previous comments on this thread, which is in fact what stirred me to start poking at you. Pots and kettles, and all that, dear fellow; you can hardly complain about another's sanctimoniousness while wrapping yourself in the self-same cloak.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 9, 2010 9:36 AM
While I'm an absolutist with a twist*, I don't think Robin Leavett's argument about results is a red herring to your argument James regarding your fear of a government who gets to determine what is acceptable vs. prohibited speech.
From 1989 through 2000 I spent quite a bit of time in a number of European countries. I found their political debates in the public square to not merely be marginally better than our own, but instead far superior. The fact they have such laws and get far better results should not be so easily discarded, in fact it appears you are doing so out of convenience, especially since Mr. Leavett refers to tangible results while we worry about potential ramifications in spite of Europe's mostly positive results.
I'm not stating Robin Leavett's overall argument is correct and your's is wrong, only that his framing has earned our consideration which we Americans are far too quick to dismiss out of fear of a future event. I think our fear is justified and that it creates a chicken and egg paradox as well, I.e., if we had less bad speech, we should have a better crop of politicians to pick from, but if we put such laws in place now we know the current type of U.S. politico would make our fears come true and we'd end up with good speech prohibited.
*I believe it should be far easier for a citizen or group to obtain standing to sue for libel and slander. I also believe juries should have the complete freedom to establish damages for such. My objective is to minimize dishonesty in the public square, by both punitive measures and cultural ostracization. Currently conservatives are increasing their wealth and standing within the movement if they are perceived as being willing to lie for the cause, e.g., Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 9, 2010 11:13 AM
Michael,
I think that to the extent their debate is superior to ours, it's all--100%--a function of culture (including a better culture of education, and the cultural experience of being much more familiar with people from other countries), and 0% to differing ideas on whether certain speech can be restricted.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 9, 2010 11:26 AM
Levitt blathered:
The fact that you waste time and effort fining them and putting them in jail. If you didn't take them seriously, you would, as we do with tea-baggers, just point and laugh, and then go have a beer.
Posted by: Chuck C | June 9, 2010 3:55 PM
And, in the interest of disclosure, I am NOT an absolutist on free speech. Or much of anything, for that matter. (The closest I come to absolutism in my premises are the Robbins Axioms, Zermelo Fraenkel Axioms, and the assumption of ordinal hypercomputational complexity to Experience; and those, I'll listen to argument about.)
I'm also inclined to think a diversity of approach has advantages; thus, that the US and EU having different rules may avoid a "brittle" aspect to society.
Posted by: abb3w | June 9, 2010 4:50 PM
@Chuck C #60:
We don't. Any further questions?
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 9, 2010 6:28 PM
James @ 59:
Yes, but I would argue that bad speech here is a root cause for our inferior culture regarding education. This would be a second Catch-22 we Americans confront when it comes to maintaining free speech while at the same time suffering frequently inferior results because our speech is so free.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 9, 2010 7:31 PM
Michael Heath,
Hmmm, I would have completely reversed that had I written it. Perhaps we have a chicken-egg problem, or more accurately, a very dismal positive feedback model, wherein bad education promotes bad speech with promotes bad education, and so on, and so on.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 9, 2010 10:05 PM
@James Hanley #57:
It might be fair to point out that my initial comment in this thread was in direct response to the claim that society protects itself from "these ideas" with "vigorous, informed and reasoned debate".
And that your immediate reply to me was utilitarian rather than principled.
However, let me explain.
I also value other freedoms than freedom of speech. The freedom to call goverment to account for its actions is an important part of freedom from overbearing government. The effect of absolute free-speech in practice in the USA however appears to be corrosive of that freedom. The political coverage of your broadcast media appears to be dominated by dishonesty (both by politicians and pundits)and servility (on the part of the media). I say "appears to be" because while I have access to some USAan broadcast channels I am not immersed in it; but that view is formed in large part from comments by many - including yourself - on this blog. (I am however comforted by Michael Heath's reply to you, informed by rather more knowledge of both continents, as to the level of policitcal discourse).
Perversely, therefore, the nation which claims to have greater freedom of speech appears at greater risk of loss of other freedoms...
I have to say however that I am not altogether sure that there is any significant free-speech difference between the UK and the USA in terms of "the government should not be trusted with the power to decide what are legitimate ideas and what aren't." We have no holocaust denial laws. We do have hate speech laws, but they are directed largely at speech with physical consequences; and do not involve government proscription of ideas. Nor do our defamation laws.
Certainly on radio and TV, the most prominent programmes are far more often accused of being reflexively anti-government* than pro-; the aforementioned Jeremy Paxman** and others on Newsnight (BBC2 TV) and John Humphreys and most of the presenters of Today (Radio 4) make sure of that.
By the way:
was derision, not sanctimony...
*In fact, the Tories when in power accuse them of being pro-Labour, and Labour when in power accuse them of being pro-Tory, but the description is close enough for government work..
**Who has been accused of having "Why is this lying bastard lying to me?" as the dominant thought in his head when interviewing policitians of any stripe - although he denies this.
Final disclaimer - "Europe" is not a monolith, although free speech is a right conditionally guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 10, 2010 9:02 AM
Well, two things in your critique of Weisel need to be addressed, but I'll start by saying that he is, of course, absolutely wrong about criminalising Holocaust denial.
That said, his "exception to the exception" idea makes a sort of unfortunate sense in light of the First Amendment. I am not wild on gun rights, but I know that the kind of gun control I would like in an ideal world would be blatently unconstitutional. It would set a dangerous precedent to legislate against firearms to the degree I would like, as to achieve this would further weaken a constitution that is already under constant threat from politicians on both sides of the aisle. I may disagree with the Constitution on this matter, but as a whole document I can acknowledge it is certainly worth sacrificing my stand on guns, at least as far as regards legislature, to protect it.
Secondly, I'm always a little distressed to hear someone advocating others' First Amendment rights by predicting a future in which their own rights are no longer safe. I want my opponents to have the right to say whatever they like, not because I think this would benfit me in the long run, but because authoritarian hushing of a debate is wrong no matter what the end. In that sense, Weisel's motives are not pure, and his intentions are certainly not good.
Posted by: Mill | June 14, 2010 1:26 PM
This is really simple folks. The truth will always defend
itself. The facts NEVER change. Only lies need dogma,threats
and laws to protect them. Only lies.........
Posted by: Fred54 | June 15, 2010 1:31 PM
Mill, #66:
One of the most important reasons I wouldn't want to infringe others' use of free speech is that I might be wrong. No matter what the subject is, no matter how certain I am that I am right, in the end I might be wrong. It'd be a shame if I ended up stifling the truth, and ironic if I did it because I thought I was protecting the truth.
Posted by: Chiroptera | June 15, 2010 1:46 PM
He must really be afraid of the truth.
Posted by: j r | June 15, 2010 2:47 PM
I wonder if Elie Weisel plans can be used to stop the denial of Israels, Christianities, and Gods crimes also.
Posted by: Zon | June 15, 2010 2:50 PM
Truth and facts require no law to protect them. If legitimate questions have arisen as to the number of victims who died in the Holocaust and the methods used to exterminate them, then why would any rational person object to discussing and answering those questions? And why would any rational person object, or be unwilling to produce the historical facts and forensic evidence to forever put those questions to rest?
Posted by: carroll price | June 15, 2010 4:23 PM
"Holocaust denial" does not need the protection of law, when forensic examination will provide it all the legitimacy it needs. They should hold a forensic examination of it sometime.
Posted by: Paul | June 15, 2010 4:39 PM
If The Holocaust(tm) had actually occurred, there would be no need for laws to prevent people from denying it. The fact that there are such laws is one proof that The Holocaust(tm) is a hoax.
As for Weasel, he's told so many lies during his lifetime that he no longer knows the difference between the truth and lies.
Posted by: Doug | June 15, 2010 6:41 PM
Doug, reality called. It's rescinding your licence.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 15, 2010 6:46 PM
Modusoperandi,
What an appropriate name because your response is the typical MO of the Zionist propagandists. You don't have facts to back up your assertions, so you turn instead to ad hominem attacks, profanity and threats of violence, including the threat to jail people for expressing alternate opinions.
The world is waking up to your lies and getting fed up with your tactics.
Posted by: Doug | June 15, 2010 7:27 PM
Doug "What an appropriate name because your response is the typical MO of the Zionist propagandists."
It is? I didn't even know "cheeky" was a tactic!
"You don't have facts to back up your assertions..."
I used to, but haven't kept that data in memory, since the case is closed. You can't hide six million corpses. The Germans, in particular, can't, since they love efficiency so much that they kept track of everything (to the point that they used early computers to help out).
"...so you turn instead to ad hominem attacks..."
It's not a logical fallacy to point out that you don't have the facts on your side.
"...profanity..."
Golly!
"...and threats of violence"
Really? I have? I haven't even seen such things from others, to the best of my recollection. The worst I've seen is anger. The neo-Nazis, on the other hand...
"...including the threat to jail people for expressing alternate opinions."
You must have me mistaken for someone else. I will fight for your right to be wrong. And you are.
Besides, the First Amendment keeps the nuts above ground, where they can be seen (and self-revealed) as the nuts that they are.
Doug, I've seen this before. A bunch of times.
Let me make the rest of your argument for you:
Step 1: It didn't happen.
Step 2: It did happen, but not on that scale and nobody up the chain knew or approved of it.
Step 3: It did happen on that scale, but nobody up the chain knew or approved of it.
Step 4: It did happen on that scale and people up the chain knew and approved of it.
Step 5: They deserved what they got.
Step 6: (Leave)
There, I just saved us all a bunch of time.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 15, 2010 8:30 PM
Are we talking about THIS Elie Weisel??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr8_JaKde2Q
All he needs to do is add an "Sm" in front of his first name and... and... wait a minute! Now I'm really starting to sound "anti-Semitic". I'm sorry people. Please disregard everything I've said, and the link too. I realize that when the truth hurts other people's feelings, IT MUST BE BANNED!!
Posted by: G-Money | June 15, 2010 8:58 PM
The Holocaust(tm) is a comprehensive set of core beliefs, all of which must be believed to avoid the label "Holocaust Denier". These include:
* Six million Jews were murdered for no reason other than an irrational and spontaneous hatred of Jews by the Nazis
* The Nazis had a policy of exterminating all Jews
* Hitler ordered the policy of extermination to be implemented and carried out
* Gas chambers were used to exterminate Jews with ruthless efficiency
There are many holes and inconsistencies in these beliefs, which is why such an effort is expended to criminalize and marginalize any critical study of the issue.
For example, the Six Million figure originally included 4 million at Auschwitz. This number has since been revised down to 1.5 million, but the sacrosanct Six Million figure remains as critical dogma. Why?
Perhaps it is useful to realize that the Six Million Jews Murdered lie had been tried before, back in 1919, when the claim was being made about Bolshevik Russia. Ironically, the core members of the Bolshevik leadership were Jews, which may explain why the claim was dropped to await another European war for exploitation.
Perhaps it is also useful to note that Talmudic prophecy claims that Six Million Jews must be consumed by fire before the nation of Israel is to be born again. Ahh, perhaps we are getting at the core of the claim.
You mention German efficiency, but I don't see any evidence of that. In six years of war they only managed to murder Six Million Jews and millions more escaped with their lives. By comparison, the US Army allowed 1.5 million German soldiers to die in concentration camps in only a single year after the war. It seems the US Army is accidentally capable of killing more prisoners than the vaunted efficient Germans are when they supposedly have a policy of extermination.
These are just a couple of the many holes in the official dogma, which reveal that The Holocaust(tm) is really nothing more than a political tool to give legitimacy to the creation of Israel and to diminish the monstrosity of the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine of its native population.
Since it is demanded that I believe the entire dogma or be labeled a "Holocaust Denier", and since I cannot believe that which I know to be false, I choose to be a "Holocaust Denier".
And I owe all of it to Deborah Lipstadt and her campaign against David Irving. If she hadn't pushed to deny him the right to publish his books, I would never have embarked on my journey of discovery and would still be a believer in The Holocaust(tm) in its entirety. Thank you, Deborah. Your efforts have opened more eyes than you would care to know!
Posted by: Doug | June 15, 2010 9:59 PM
*sigh*
Start with these.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 15, 2010 10:22 PM
Doug states:
The four million figure was never the Auschwitz factor in the six million total calculated and peer-accepted by scholars. Four million represented a number used by the Auschwitz museum and on its plaque. Citation: http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-02.html
This false assertion is to Holocaust denialism what Haeckel's embryos are to young earth creationism. Its assertion reveals a denialist in our midst and one not even up to speed on their best set of denialist arguments.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 15, 2010 10:30 PM
Doug "By comparison, the US Army allowed 1.5 million German soldiers to die in concentration camps in only a single year after the war."
Ah, so you've read Other Losses, or something like it?
Congratulations, you can read. On the other hand, you should raise your bar higher. It's on the ground right now.
Oh, and I forgot to ask you before, Doug, but are you also...
* ...an AGW denier?
* ...an evolution denier?
Posted by: Modusperandi | June 15, 2010 10:53 PM
Good on you Doug thanks for the effort: I had my eyes opened initially around David Irving too. The way the media attacked him in Australia had nothing to do with truth and all to do with an agenda. I dont care how many of you think I am a denier though i am interested to know how many of you are on the payroll. You real people out there who are not shills and still suggest that holocaust denial should be a crime want to wake up to yourself. Free speech is in the US constitution because it is imperative for a socity that wishes to look after the rights of an individual. Go and read some Voltaire you lunatics.
Posted by: Justin | June 15, 2010 11:08 PM
Michael Heath,
"The four million figure was never the Auschwitz factor in the six million total calculated and peer-accepted by scholars. Four million represented a number used by the Auschwitz museum and on its plaque. Citation: http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-02.html"
So say the people that run the Nizkor site. There was once a time when The Holocaust(tm) believers swore up and down about the "fact" that the Nazis made lamp shades and soap out of murdered Jews. Forensic testing put that lie to rest, though it still pops up from time to time and, in some countries, such as France, it is a crime to not believe it.
As George W Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, uh... won't get fooled again."
Posted by: Doug | June 15, 2010 11:30 PM
Modusoperandi,
I'd never heard of "Other Losses", but thanks for the recommendation. I find it amusing that some of the same criticisms of the book on the Wikipedia site you linked could easily apply to The Official Holocaust(tm) myth.
"Oh, and I forgot to ask you before, Doug, but are you also...
* ...an AGW denier?
* ...an evolution denier?"
I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand, but I'll humor you:
No, I do not believe in Al Gore's Warming theory. He doesn't really believe in it either, though he does believe he convince enough people to believe it to get richer from trading "carbon credits".
I do not believe in the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god or any other imaginary invisible sky monster. I generally believe in evolution, though I don't really care too much one way or the other. I think that where we are going is far more important than where we came from.
Posted by: Doug | June 15, 2010 11:37 PM
Justin,
"Free speech is in the US constitution because it is imperative for a socity that wishes to look after the rights of an individual."
Conversely, the suppression of free speech is critical for the success of the Zionist project. Just as the Zionist state felt it necessary to jam communications on the Gaza relief flotilla before their assault, Zionist propaganda requires suppression of free speech, lest the truth about them and their lies be revealed to the public at large. If the public, especially the masses in the US, knew to what extent they have been lied to and manipulated for the benefit of the Zionist project, there would be a backlash of epic proportions.
Posted by: Doug | June 15, 2010 11:44 PM
"If you don't believe in freedom of expression for those you most despise, you don't believe in freedom of expression."
--Noam Chomsky
Posted by: Matt | June 16, 2010 12:31 AM
Justin "The way the media attacked him in Australia had nothing to do with truth and all to do with an agenda."
Wait...so you're saying that "the media" did a shitty job? They chose imagined conflict over actual conflict? They almost always do. Good investigative journalism is terribly rare. It's also expensive (or, at least, costs more than doing little to no research at all).
"I dont care how many of you think I am a denier though i am interested to know how many of you are on the payroll."
I am. Obviously.
"You real people out there who are not shills and still suggest that holocaust denial should be a crime want to wake up to yourself. Free speech is in the US constitution because it is imperative for a socity that wishes to look after the rights of an individual."
Odd. You have read the site, right? And the post? And the comments?
"Go and read some Voltaire you lunatics."
How about you read this page first. It will save you from having to pull outrage out of your ass. You're gonna stretch it all out. Then when you fart, it'll sound like Keanu Reeves*.
Doug "There was once a time when The Holocaust(tm) believers swore up and down about the "fact" that the Nazis made lamp shades and soap out of murdered Jews."
Yes, the lamp shade tale is unlikely and researchers like Thomas Blatt found that it was unlikely that human soap production ever made it out of the experimental stage. Thomas Blatt was a Holocaust survivor, by the way.
"...and, in some countries, such as France, it is a crime to not believe it."
And, and I can't stress this enough, you're on a site full (for the most part) of people who think that even bad, dumb and wrong speech should be protected.
"As George W Bush said, 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, uh... won't get fooled again.'"
No he didn't. He said: "There's an old saying in Tennessee...I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once...shame on...shame on you. You fool me, fool muh...you can't get fooled again."
It's probably the Genetic Fallacy, but I should point out that if you're looking to Dubya for philosophy to live life by, there are better examples.
"I'd never heard of 'Other Losses', but thanks for the recommendation."
I mention a bad, poorly backed and poorly cited book and you thank me for the recommendation? Are you mad?
"I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand..."
We in the Reality-based Community are researching the hypothesis that "denials" are linked. That YECs are commonly AGW deniers is a link that's easy to document (IDers less so, but if the Discovery Institute's recent push into AGW denialism, it's at a higher level than the average).
"...but I'll humor you:"
What follows that isn't funny at all! You monster!
"No, I do not believe in Al Gore's Warming theory."
You're an idiot. No, that's not one of them ad hominems.
"I generally believe in evolution, though I don't really care too much one way or the other."
Well, that's...something, although your attitude towards the subject lacks verve. Almost as if you know very little about it.
"I think that where we are going is far more important than where we came from."
Ah, but knowing where we're from teaches us why we are the way we are; illuminating our past casts light on the path to the future.
"Conversely, the suppression of free speech is critical for the success of the Zionist project. Just as the Zionist state felt it necessary to jam communications on the Gaza relief flotilla before their assault, Zionist propaganda requires suppression of free speech, lest the truth about them and their lies be revealed to the public at large."
Are you Captain Hyperbole? Israel's Hawks are quite good enough at making themselves look bad (saying "We want peace" while bulldozing Palestinian's homes and moving "settlers" in the forcibly vacated space, among other outrages…) without adding conspiracy theory to the mix.
"If the public, especially the masses in the US, knew to what extent they have been lied to and manipulated for the benefit of the Zionist project, there would be a backlash of epic proportions."
They have been lied to, just not in the way your quivering jelly of an imagination thinks. They've been told that the only proper support of Israel is unquestioning and absolute support and that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. Some of them even believe it.
* "Woah."
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 16, 2010 12:47 AM
Modusoperandi,
"How about you read this page first. It will save you from having to pull outrage out of your ass. You're gonna stretch it all out. Then when you fart, it'll sound like Keanu Reeves*."
"We in the Reality-based Community..."
"You're an idiot."
"Are you Captain Hyperbole?"
"..your quivering jelly of an imagination..."
----
You just cannot help yourself, can you? You seem completely incapable of engaging in a discussion without making personal attacks. Thank you for proving once again my point about Zionist Propagandists and their Modus Operandi.
If you think you are being clever or witty, you are wrong. You are just being rude, uncouth and uncivilized. If you think you are going to convince people that your position is the correct one, you are wrong. You are just proving that you have nothing of real substance to offer and that you can only play the bully.
But please, by all means, continue using the same MO. Your approach does more to discredit your side than a million pages of facts and logic from our side. As I said before, the world is getting wise to your lies and getting fed up with your tactics.
Posted by: Doug | June 16, 2010 1:36 AM
Good job feigning outrage. "You are so mean!" is not an argument. I particularly enjoyed when you used the "quivering jelly" bit while ignoring the bit that came right after it. While I have trouble arguing in good faith, you don't even try ("So say the people that run the Nizkor site" in no way invalidates the data, for instance. Nor is "There was once a time when The Holocaust(tm) believers swore up and down about the 'fact' that the Nazis made lamp shades and soap out of murdered Jews. Forensic testing put that lie to rest" do much more than smearing "the rest" with "some". It's roughly equivalent to, say, Piltdown Man). Kudos.
"If you think you are being clever or witty, you are wrong."
I don't know about that. That Keanu Reeves joke amused me for at least three seconds.
"You are just being rude, uncouth and uncivilized."
See the beginning of this comment.
"If you think you are going to convince people that your position is the correct one, you are wrong."
I'm not here to convince others of the facts. I'm here because this blog, believe it or not, has some pretty smart people on it. People who know what they're talking about. (Mr Heath, for instance, whose contribution you brushed off with the Genetic Fallacy). I, it must be admitted, am not counted among those people.
"You are just proving that you have nothing of real substance to offer and that you can only play the bully."
Look again at your first comment. Assertion. Conclusion with facts not in evidence. Assertion. That's not an argument. That's an argument starter. If this is our sandbox, you pissed in it. Now you're complaining that it smells like pee.
"You seem completely incapable of engaging in a discussion without making personal attacks."
This isn't a discussion. This is a denier stumbling into a social libertarian's blog (after, I assume, a googling "holocaust denial") and spouting nonsense, to which I replied with better nonsense and smattering of some minor facts.
That you're an AGW denier as well just takes the cake.
"Your approach does more to discredit your side than a million pages of facts and logic from our side."
Except the facts are not on your side. Only distortions, half-truths and lies are.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 16, 2010 2:56 AM
"Except the facts are not on your side. Only distortions, half-truths and lies are."
Yet, ironically, ours is the side that is willing to discuss issues in a civilized manner, while yours is the side that resorts to ad hominem attacks. Indeed, your side is not averse to using Nazi Brown Shirt tactics, with physical assaults and intimidation on people who voice an alternate opinion.
Ours is the side that supports free speech, while yours is the side that wants to criminalize speech and send people to jail for voicing alternate opinions.
If you had facts on your side, your side would be able to take the high ground and not wallow in the gutter.
Posted by: Doug | June 16, 2010 5:55 AM
All I want to do is meet one person who can provide me with one single document that proves that there was a program of extermination in Nazi Germany as I want to claim the reward
Posted by: UninformedLuddite | June 16, 2010 6:11 AM
It is NOT denial weasel wants to criminalize. It is RESEARCH. I have questions such as,
1. The Nuremberg trials "brought out" the "fact" that 6 million jews were gassed or killed in other ways. This was the reason used to institute israel. At LEAST 4 million jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau alone. RESEARCH showed that number to be much less. one and one half million and mostly not jews.The plaque at the camp was quietly changed to reflect this but not the textbooks, media whores blatherings ect. So of course publishing RESEARCH into ww2 was criminalized as hate speech but it went on and now the figure for these camps is less than 750,000 with most deaths by disease and most of the dead not jews! If these facts are "hate" then the truth IS hate according to jews anyway. Is this acceptable to the rest of us?
2. Where was it said "HERE THE TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE"? Without knowing the background of that verbal "hate" one cannot claim to be in the know about this issue. Hint. it was said in a COURT by a judge to a defendant! This is the crux of "hate" laws, to punish disseminating the truth!
3. Would YOU sign a false confession if your testicles were crushed because you refused and your family was to receive similar treatment? Without knowing the background of that "hate" and its victim one cannot claim to be in the know about this issue.
4. Is it EVER fair to not allow a defendant to use PROVABLE CLAIMS as a defense? This is the CORE of all "hate" laws.
Posted by: Joe | June 16, 2010 7:55 AM
Ah Doug, if I say "you're an idiot" it's a personal attack, if I say "your argument is false because you're an idiot" that's an ad hominem.
You made the bold claim, now provide the bold evidence. Prove to me that Jews weren't exterminated in Nazi Germany. - Dingo
-----
PS: What occurred at Wansee Villa, January 20th, 1942?
Posted by: DingoJack | June 16, 2010 8:01 AM
Joe - again, the 4 million @ Auschwitz was never used as the Auscwitz factor to derive the 6 million figure. I suggest going back to what grade teaches addition and give it another go. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 16, 2010 8:07 AM
UninformedLuddite, #91:
I think the documentation is kept in the same vault as Obama's birth certificate.
Posted by: Chiroptera | June 16, 2010 8:19 AM
Historically,the only people that wish to make speech illegal are lias and hucksters.
The church did it with their silly claims of the geocentric theory and backed it up with the death penalty.
Now Jews want this tyranny imposed upon us for their scam called the holocaust
The holocaust did happen,but only 200,000 died from starvation and typhus as the US red cross estimated after visiting some camps.
Posted by: dave | June 16, 2010 9:13 AM
Come on, Am I the only one who laughted to the point of nearly suffocating when I read that sentence? In Doug's imaginary universe, "reality" is so powerfull that there is no need to forbid the act of bearing false witness.
"Some people want to make holocaust denial illegal, therefore holocaust does not exist". Why not "Some people want to maintain creationism outside of schools, therefore, creationism is legal", or "Some people want to criminalise hate speech, therefore, racism and biggotery do not exist"
For a while, I thought this guy was actually role-playing, doing the "I am an antisemitic douche who think he is so much smarter than everyone else" act for fun: after all, everyone wants to play the role of the villain, but nope: he obviously takes himself veeeeery seriously.
Now, Doug is an excellent exemple of why people like Elie Wiesel might feel the temptation of making holocaust denial illegal. Doug says "Show me one proof": everyone elses says "There are (literally) billions of evidences", Doug answers "You did not show me the one magic proof I demanded, therefore I am right and there is no Holocaust". There is no way Doug believes in his own rhetoric: no human being on this planet is brain dead to the point of believing such rhetoric: Doug is lying: he knows he is lying, he now everyone knows he is lying, including the people agreeing with him, and I am pretty sure he enjoy doing this charade a lot.
Holocaust denial is not a matter of opinion: it is a matter of publicized lies, this is where it becomes a tricky problem, since one is never entitled to their own facts, and libel can be seen as the first step toward murder:
"Lincoln wants to become a tyrant!": he ended up being murdered
"People within the communist party of USSR are plotting against the revolution and its new leader, Comrade Stalin": the Moscow trials purged any member of the old bolshevick guard who might still have been an idealist and consolidated Stalin's totalitarian regime
"Yitzhak Rabin is about to give back Israel to the arabs": he was murdered alongside the peace process
"Iraq is stockpilling WMD and helping Al Quaeda": seven years later, more than half a million civilians have been killed
"Jews are plotting against the Christian/White/Arian people": the Shoah happened
Wether it involve an individual, a group of people, a nation, whatever, history shows us that libel can be the first step leading to murder and/or slaughter, and Holocaust denial is nothing more than the attempt made by antisemites to make their desire of murder appear rational and principled (The Holocaust is a lie => Jews are liars => I want to kill them all because they are nasty liars and since I am a defender of the truthiness I have the moral high ground and the right to want to kill them all).
I am personnaly very ambivalant about this: I understand the arguument in favor of banning Holocaust denial: "the freedom to lie cannot encroach upon my right of not being killed" and I understand the idea that as despicable as it is, Holocaust denial does not represent a danger big enough to be outright banned: I do not think that one side as the moral high ground of this one.
Posted by: Laurent Weppe | June 16, 2010 9:16 AM
Read "Debating The Holocaust" by Thomas Dalton. This book examines the controversy from both sides and debunks practically every myth that has been put out by the Holocaust Industry. Among other things, this book makes reference to the extensive research and physical examinations (ground penetrating radar test and actual excavations) that were conducted at every major concentration camp site where "eye witnesses" claimed to have seen thousands of Jews being gassed and shot on a daily basis. Each of these forensic test show that large mass graves never existed at any of those sites, and that the mass graves that were found contained only the number of bodies that would have been produced by disease, sickness, old age and other normal occurances. Which brings up some important question: Where did the Germans bury the millions of bodies they produced, and since it requires vast amounts of fuel and many hours to burn even one human body, how did the Germans obtain this much scarce fuel during war time, and how could they have burned that many human bodies in the relatively short period of time (about 2 years) that the mass executions were said to have been carried out?
Posted by: carroll price | June 16, 2010 10:34 AM
Let the facts of the holocaust continue to be revealed truthfully and speak for themselves. And the "6 million". And the holocaust that Israel has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate against the Palestinians...
Those who live in glass houses...
Posted by: Dinks | November 14, 2011 1:36 AM
carroll price:
Um, fuck you. Sorry, that's all I got for a response to some braindead piece of shit like you.
Dinks:
Let's talk about scale, shall we?
Posted by: democommie | November 14, 2011 6:49 AM
"Historically,the only people that wish to make speech illegal are lias and hucksters."
What does that have to do with making lies illegal?
I'm pretty sure that liars and hucksters would hate the idea of lies being illegal.
Posted by: Wow | November 14, 2011 11:23 AM
"RESEARCH showed that number to be much less. one and one half million and mostly not jews."
Only if your RESEARCH finds that Germans can't count.
I would also like to hear where in the Nuremberg Trials it was claimed that 6 million Jews were killed. AFAIR, 6 million died was the claim, including 1.5 million Jews.
Posted by: Wow | November 14, 2011 11:25 AM
"If you don't believe in freedom of expression for those you most despise, you don't believe in freedom of expression."
--Noam Chomsky
I see your Chomsky vote and raise it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj7zi9Tp5s4
Does Noam support copyright? Trademark? Patents? Then he doesn't believe in freedom of expression.
Posted by: Wow | November 14, 2011 11:31 AM