Man jailed for racist internet posts.

It never ceases to amaze me that many people seem to think that "freedom of speech" means freedom to abuse and insult people because of their religious beliefs, politics, sexuality, skin colour, ethnicity, nationality, or whatever.

"freedom of speech" was a concept that originally meant that people should be able to speak out against oppression without a fear of persecution.

it was NEVER intended to be a vehicle for the incitement to hatred and persecution of others.

 

if people's freedom to express themselves revolves around the right to make offensive and hate filled statements about others due to race, religion etc etc then they are not demonstrating responsibility. they are demonstrating that they have personal problems.

 

However, there is a difference between discussion on a forum in a specific context, however heated it gets, as unacceptable content may moderated and removed according to the rules of the forum and/or the law of the country hosting the website and putting unacceptable remarks on social networking sites.

Making unacceptable remarks on unmoderated vehicles like Facebook, twitter etc is akin to, for example, standing in the street outside a Catholic Church on a Sunday around the time of service with a megaphone shouting F... the Pope, and not caring who you offend as long as you can offend somebody.

You only have to consider the influence social networking sites etc have on public opinion, as with the London riots lately and the Arab Spring etc to realise that there are a lot of people out there who do take a lot of notice what is being said on them. If the reader is already inclined to bigotry, the more they have their views reinforced by statements (note statements, not discussions or banter which give a different viewpoint as well), the more their attitude gets entrenched.

 

If that were all they were doing you may be right

But consider - in denying the holocaust they are denying the painful memories of millions of people.

 

All countries have similar laws against incitement to violence etc., quite effectively applied in dictatorship s , Saddams Iraq , Afghan Taliban , USSR , Libya - Syria, even Israel.


.....
But questioning Zionist version of and their exploitation of the Holocaust is not denial that Jews were majority in concentration camps , is it. ?

Here's the European Union's position. and a recorded case.:


The European Union's executive Commission proposed a European Union wide anti-racism xenophobia law in 2001, which included the criminalization of Holocaust denial. On July 15, 1996, the Council of the European Union adopted the Joint action/96/443/JHA concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia

During the German presidency there was an attempt to extend this ban.

Full implementation was blocked by the United Kingdom and the Nordic countries because of the need to balance the restrictions on voicing racist opinions against the freedom of expression.

] As a result a compromise has been reached within the EU and while the EU has not prohibited Holocaust denial outright, a maximum term of three years in jail is optionally available to all member nations for "denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."[

The EU extradition policy regarding Holocaust denial was tested in the United Kingdom(UK) during the 2008 failed extradition case brought against the suspected Holocaust denier Frederick Toben[50] by the German government.

As there is no specific crime of Holocaust denial in the UK the German government had applied for Toben's extradition under racial and xenophobic crimes.

Toben's extradition was refused by the Westminster Magistrates' Court and the German government withdrew its appeal to the High Court.


,,,,

 

You should listen to some recordings of speeches made by US politicians re Japs during Pacific WW2 - later S/Eyed *****s - Korean War - and gooks Nam .

btw have you paid any attention to some Islamophic US Bible belt evangelical Pastors ?

....

 

regardless of how we think about speeches of the past, those were different times, and racism was perfectly acceptable.

I have even seen some arguments that a number of events in the last 60 years or so, such as bombings, use of napalm, support for various coups etc would never have been perpetrated by the US and its allies had the victims been white, western anglo saxon protestants.

WRT the hate speech by evangelical pastors - it isn't limited to them by any means - just look at this forum.

 

That's the only speech that needs defending. What a disgusting display of fascism by this court. I'm speechless(punny, huh?).

Seriously a vile ruling. Hard to believe there is not a mass uprising of support for the guy.

 

I doubt anyone can produce credible evidence - that very large numbers of Jews /Gypsie/perpeol with learning difficulties , etc. were NOT killed - on an industrial scale in Nazi death camps. However , some claims appear to have been grossly exagerated for political purposes.

 

That post is another proof that you are not German and do not live in Germany.
If you really live in Germany, then you are probably deliberately misleading non-Germans.

Eveybody can read the following Wiki-Article and find out, that the original law was changed, and the changed law is called 'Gummi- Paragraf' in Germany, which means Rubber-Law, i. e. a law without clear definition, that can be interpreted how you like.

http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

This article is not translated into English, because it would be shocking to non-Germans to learn what this law is about.

Section 3 was added to § 130 on 28. October 1994.

German voters were not asked, if they agree with this change. Especially dubious is the term 'Verharmlosung' (Belittlement).

If you say that Bolsheviks killed more innocent civilians, than NS did, this can be interpreted as 'Belittlement of the Holocaust'.

It is explicitly said in the Wiki-Article that the law was changed to protect the dignify of Jews. No other group in Germany believed that the law must be changed to protect their dignify.

Many prominent German lawyers criticised this change of the law, which was imposed under foreign presure to serve the interests of Zionism.

Winfried Hassemer and Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem are not 'Nazis', they are most prominent mainstream German lawyers:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfried_Hassemer
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Hoffmann-Riem

And these lawyers disagree with the law that eliminates the freedom of speech in Germany.

As we see, this law is considered as very controversial in Germany, and if German voters could decide about this law, they would abolish it.

 

Wow, great observation! Well said.

 

The people with the agenda of discrediting Germany's criminalising holocaust denial fail to mention that the law is very specific in its not permitting same in public gatherings. Personally, like some on this forum, you can call it the holohoax and claim that it is "exaggerated" to your hearts' content but not in public with the intention of disturbing peace.

 

True - such speeches , are no longer acceptable ( a degree of progess)

Of course NOT , as ever its the Arabs/ Imams. Ayatollahs , who get front page news treatment.


cheers.

 

As usual you play detective and resort to personal attacks because the laws do not reflect your point of view.

It is especially funny how you say that the law can be interpreted "how you like" - Artchen, all laws are interpreted by judges and have no objective meaning. That is what courts do. Just look at how judgements exist as precedents of how judges interpret laws (sometimes very differentlyand even inconsistently). Nothing special here Artchen.

Of course meaning will be given to a term by judges interpreation of what the legislators mean. The law makes no mention of jews interests here. Only in your mind is it zionists who control everything...they even got Hitler and Marr to use the term anti-semites for their purposes according to you It is in the interests of all Germans not to deny all the victims of all genocides and we do not want to do so as our law reveals.

That you and two lawyers say otherwise, it not relevant to us.

 

He broke the law he pays the price.

His statements were moronic.. all virulent hate statements are....so I assume you wouldn't have been joining a mass uprising in his support either!

 

Nope....a very nice illustration of a population who won't accept racism and bigotry any longer.

Maybe the US will catch up in time.

Btw, the only difference between citizen and subject lies in the spelling!

 

After reading your comment and others like it in this thread, I think a better nickname would be "Fascist Forum - Full Flavor".

 

I have a feeling that you don't know what you're talking about. There are people who make much more hateful statements than that on a regular basis and are in no danger of being prosecuted for those words. Google "Farrakhan" or "Westboro Baptist Church" and then consider revising your statement.

 

"Right-thinking people"? Let me guess, you define it as people who agree with you, amirite?

 

Like most Yanks , you sound like you talking abt a matter you know sweet f-all about .. Let me educate you + yr robot echo :

The rules about British subject status changed in 1949 and again in 1983, so those dates are important when deciding if someone is a British subject.

Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a British subject. And all citizens of Commonwealth countries were British subjects until January 1983. Since that date, very few categories of people have qualified as British subjects.

You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, up to that date, you were:

a British subject without citizenship, which means you were a British subject on 31 December 1948 who did not become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a citizen of a Commonwealth country, a citizen of Pakistan, or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland; a person who had been a citizen of Eire and a British subject on 31 December 1948 and had made a claim to remain a British subject; or a woman who had registered as a British subject on the basis of your marriage to a man who was in one of the two categories above. If you are a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who was born before 1 January 1949 and you did not make a claim to remain a British subject, as above, you may do so in certain circumstances.

British subjects normally cannot pass on that status to their children if the children were born after 1 January 1983. But a child may be a British subject in certain circumstances.

A person who is stateless may be able to register as a British subject in certain circumstances.

Since 1 January 1983, a person who gains citizenship of any other country can no longer be a British subject. However, this does not apply to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who has made a claim to remain a British subject as explained above.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishsubjects/


toodle- looo .

 

Here's a little hint for those who can't seem to wrap their heads around the concept - If you think that "free speech" only protects civil speech or words that you agree with then you have no idea what freedom of speech means.

 

If I were in that sty of a country I would have sent him money to help pay for his defense.

I read all your posts on this subject. Let me just say that I hope when I reach my 60's I jump off a tall building if I become so mentally challenged that I cannot understand the concept of FREE SPEECH.

 

Liebe, even the Wiki-Article you yourself have quoted says that this law is about Holocaust-Denial and about Jews.

Communists also talked about 'Protecting the dignity of workers' and about 'Hate speech', but in reality they were protecting their own interests.

'Belittlement of NS-crimes' can be interpreted very broadly.

For example, saying the truth about the Katyn-Massacre and doing any historical research that will prove that some crime was not committed by NS, can be interpreted as 'Belittlement' of NS- crimes.

It is silly to say that historical revisionism is someting that only 'Nazis' are interested in.

In fact the first revisionist was a leftist, a prisioner of a NS-camp and pacifist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rassinier

It is idiotic to say that a prisioner of a NS-Camp loved Hitler and that was the reason why he did not accept the official version of the WWII-History.

 

Im pretty sute that there are a few posters here who do not know what free speech means in the US. Absolute free speech does not exist in any country in the world, including America. Free speech in America is governed by laws including those of slander libel and sedition/incitement. Anyone defending hate speech is doing just that, defending hate speech.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the person in question a Scottish national? Would that not make him a "British subject"?