Man jailed for racist internet posts.

Historically, the ban on Nazi speech and Holocaust denial made sense for Germany.

However, it has been over half a century since WW2, so I figure these policies are a bit outdated. It's your business though.

 

Time does not alter facts.

 

Sure, but time does allow society to adapt back towards freedom.

After WW2, a lot of people in Germany still sympathized with the Nazi regime. Now that most of that generation has died off, it seems a bit excessive to keep the same policies in place.

I mean... It's not like most modern Germans would support another movement like the Nazies. At least, I don't get that impression. Am I correct in assuming that your society has radically changed since then?

 

Contrary to the impression you may be under based on some German posters on PF, I do agree that most Germans are very anti-nazism/anti-semitism/anti-handicapped etc BUT laws that have an historical basis are seldom reversed. Who would have an interest in pushing for this except the neos and that would mean that the law should be retained after all.. see what I mean?

Plus there is an EU principle that does not allow genocide to be denied generally, which is consistent with the holocaust/nazi laws so these laws actually are still appropriate.

 

Heh... I guess Turkey might have some problems with that last part... lol

 

That's not 'freedom of speech ' any more than ' hands up and give me your wallet ' is freedom of speech. You have to able to determine shades of values, as I would suggest that my good friends Oddquine and Zulu contemplate.

If two people are sitting in a theatre and one says to the other- ' I think this theatre may be on fire ' then that is a responsible expression of opinion. If somebody stands up in a theatre and yells ' FIRE ! ' and there is in fact a fire then that is a responsible expression of opinion. If somebody yells ' FIRE ! ' in the belief that there is a fire- even if there is not- then that is a responsible expression of opinion. However, if somebody yells 'FIRE ! ' maliciously, knowing with near certainty that there is no fire then that is irresponsible and could be termed criminal. The latter example could never be classified as ' freedom of speech ' whilst all of the former examples are.
However, this is a very clumsy example to use in any discussion of freedom of speech. I've simply repeated it in order to demonstrate shades of expression.
Looking at the more obvious example which has actually caused some societies to legislate- the example of holocaust denial- the same principle applies. If two people are sitting together and one says ' I think that historic records of the holocaust may be inaccurate ' then that SHOULD qualify as freedom of expression. If she says ' The historic records of the holocaust are inaccurate ' then that should also be her right to express her beliefs- particularly if she is correct. If she states that the historic record is incorrect and she is wrong then she should be free to be wrong . Actual historic inaccuracies are brought to light by people questioning received wisdom. Finally, if she stands up with a megaphone and announces to a city square crammed with people that there was no such event as the Holocaust then she should still be permitted to express that belief. It may be offensive to many people but it doesn't cause them any danger. To argue that it is dangerous to people presupposes a society which doesn't exist. Only cranks would claim there was no Holocaust and criminalizing cranks is not a sign of a healthy society. Likewise jailing boys for four years for promoting a riot which never took place or victimizing a soccer lout for colorful expressions of enmity towards opposing teams and their supporters. A skillful judge can discern the shades of expression and act accordingly. That skill is currently lacking , apparently.

 

Tell you what.live in Glasgow.....or just about anywhere in Scotland for a lifetime....then come back and tell us that!

What was once a purely Glasgow/ Central belt mental abberation is spreading.

All that is necessary for the bigots and racists to triumph is for good men to do nothing to restrict them because they want the freedom to be ********s if that's what takes their fancy some time in the future.

 

It's your country, Odd. You get to decide what laws are acceptable and what aren't, but personally, I find this sort of legislation to be rather close to "thought crimes."

 

Wow. It makes one truly appreciate the First Amendment here in the U.S.

Even the most offensive of speech is protected and the notion that the Government could imprison a person for exercising that right sounds like the old Soviet KGB or something that could only occur in Iran or Venezuela.

I'm wondering if they also purge their libraries of literature that might offend some?

 

Israel is a better example. We should be asking ourselves why the US funds and supports a State which forbids politicians to challenge its ' nature '. We should be asking ourselves why America funds and supports a State which forbids its oppressed minorities to commemorate their oppression. Iran and Venezuela ? Paradise and Shangri La.

 

Of course, they do. Here's an incomplete list of some of the books banned in Iran:

List of books banned in Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_Iran

 

Wasn't one of the main things nazis did was to use the laws that were put in place to stop them against their enemies when they got in control? I seem to remember something along those lines..

 

Crytid crap.

 

Israel? Didn't they just trade one thousand prisoners many of them terrorists from the death cult Hamas for one single Israeli soldier?

Many families of the terrorist victims denounced the decision vociferously. That would imply a form of free speech principals being available to the citizenry.

Meanwhile in Iran:

And in Chavez Venezuela:

 

Iran's banning of books is a guarantee..... I was wondering if Scotland, mentioned in the OP of the thread had begun other censorship.

 

I guess that you would like the life in North Korea, where everybody has already learned to "use their freedom responsibly".

 

Yes, all totalitarian regimes claimed that they have freedom of speech, that citizens have to be responsible, and that only hate speech is banned.

That is precisely what communists told all the time.

 

I have a feeling it would have been an offence in America as well, the First Amendment does have exceptions and I believe this would have counted as one of them.

 

Yes, communists believed that inciting violence or hate against the communists is wrong. And they themselves decided, what is "inciting violence". Any criticism of Communism was interpreted as "inciting violence".

 

In a totalitarian state the ruling elite decides what is "inciting violence".

If they incite violence against their opponents - then it is OK.

If the opponents incite hate against the ruling elite - then it is bad.

BTW, why did they incite violence against Iraq, and now do the same dirty game with Iran?

 

This is total crap.

I can't see why anybody supports "hate speech" laws. Those things should be tossed in the trash and shut away for all eternity.

 

Liebe, I asked you if you are ashamed of the genocide, called Nakba.

You were not only not ashamed, you said that you do not know what the word "Nakba" means.

That was mockery.

Is mockery about the victims not denial of a genocide?

Besides that any leftist can say in Germany "Bomber Harris, do it again!", and he will get away with it.

It is not only allowed to deny the genocide against Germans and Palestinians in Germany, it is even allowed to laugh about it, to humiliate the victims and to say that killing them was a good thing and that this thing can be repeated.

Only the genocide against Jews is punishable, and you know that.

BTW, you refused to answer my question:

Were your German ancestors, that moved from Germany to South Africa, Christians or Jews?

 

I suggest that a great deal has changed in the intervening 70 years, including language and its methods of dissemination. ' Social interest in order and morality ' was a self-protection concern of the wealthy classes in 1942.

 

Seems to me that as long as the German generations now and in the future are paying out to Israel (note...not to the Shoah survivors) the hair shirt knitted for them by Israel will never be removed....ever!

If I live to be as old as my oldest ancestor, which would give me another 40 years, I do not think that Israel will ever allow anybody in the World, far less Germany, to forget or stop paying for the Shoah.

After all, as late as 2005, an Israeli Foreign Ministry member said, when discussing the possibilities of joining the EU....

"First, in almost all there is a feeling of historical obligation toward Israel as a result of the Jews' fate there during the last century. These countries have moved into a new future. Their societies and governments are making every effort to distance themselves from the actions of their predecessors.

"Most had sizable Jewish communities that were decimated. Even if they deny blame - an attitude in some cases greatly unjustified - they realize that the Jewish people in their countries have suffered severely. Although public opinions are not monolithic and the countries' attitudes are influenced by their leaders at a given time, the issue of the moral debt is unlikely to dissipate totally in the immediate future."

As long as victimhood pays....Israel will keep knitting hair shirts for distribution.

 

A very nice illustration of the difference between being a citizen and a subject.