Italy...While they host the Olympics, take a look at what else is going on

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: A quick point: Why is it that in Germany printing articles about holocaust denial is forbidden, while reprinting these cartoons is not?

Unfortunately this is a great big logical hole in our arguments about free speech, one that President Ahmadinejad has been quick to exploit and one that we have no effective answer to.

I can't find his quote, but it's been raised before in some of Iran's press:

In its website notice, the Iranian daily called the competition, "What is the limit of Western freedom of expression?". The newspaper said that Westerners used free speech to attack Muslim beliefs but did not permit debate on other subjects. "This attack comes despite the fact that it is an unforgiven crime in the West to debate and critique many issues including the domineering system, looting and crimes perpetrated by the US and Israel, as well as alleged historical events like the Holocaust," the newspaper said.

The conviction this week of David Irving in Austria (it's not just Germany) for a cool three years for denying the holocaust simply cements our double-standards on the issues of free speech. (and three years?! I would get less than that if I ran someone over in a car...)

As someone who supports the right of free speech, this sentence is all wrong. The man is a historian and has prepared detailed books on the subject - if the issue of the Holocaust is that clear cut then it can't be that hard to do things the old fashioned way and simply discredit his evidence and prove him wrong.

[ 02-21-2006, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[wellard]

Who said me and Morgeruat could not agree on anything? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: The conviction this week of David Irving in Austria (it's not just Germany) for a cool three years for denying the holocaust simply cements our double-standards on the issues of free speech. (and three years?! I would get less than that if I ran someone over in a car...) As someone who supports the right of free speech, this sentence is all wrong. The man is a historian and has prepared detailed books on the subject - if the issue of the Holocaust is that clear cut then it can't be that hard to do things the old fashioned way and simply discredit his evidence and prove him wrong.

Thanks for the info Shamrock, that is a disgraceful situation about David Irving. Though the guy is a nasty moron it is very wrong to jail him IMO. I would argue that allowing debate and 'uncomfortable' points of view to be made (and carefully deconstructed by facts) strengthens the truth. Now a whole group of people will point to the jailing of Irving and say what is the US/JEWISH alliance trying to hide?. A good example would be the Da Vinci codes 'attack' on long held Christian beliefs, by allowing the airing of gossip and rumor and dodgy historical research they (Dan Brown and company) have in the long run strengthened the church.

The Koran and the Muslim faith is strong enough to take any 'insults' from an obscure cartoon, the real insult to the teachings of Mohammed is in the actions of the malevolent shit stirrers using the ignorant faithful to act on there behalf.


To run flags of the cartoons up every flagpole is not an insult to the Muslim faith, it is a message to the shit stirrers that we do not cower before their rabid intolerant actions.

[Stratos]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: The conviction this week of David Irving in Austria (it's not just Germany) for a cool three years for denying the holocaust simply cements our double-standards on the issues of free speech. (and three years?! I would get less than that if I ran someone over in a car...) As someone who supports the right of free speech, this sentence is all wrong. The man is a historian and has prepared detailed books on the subject - if the issue of the Holocaust is that clear cut then it can't be that hard to do things the old fashioned way and simply discredit his evidence and prove him wrong.

It'll probably boost the sales of his books...

Anyway, I found this interresting:

But the author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed. "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by wellard: Who said me and Morgeruat could not agree on anything? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

I thought we usually ended up agreeing to disagree, lol

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: So you're saying that freedom of speach is a nice theory, but you shouldn't practice it for fear of offending someone? I'm offended by flag burning (except ceremonially destroying a flag), but I posted a link in this thread from a blog of a guy who burns a flag out of a feeling of patriotism every year, Yes it offends people, but sometimes you have to make an effort to offend just to show yourself and others that free speach does exist and that you will not be cowed by peer pressure. I have a great deal of respect for the French newspaper editors who reprinted them, and nothing but loathing for the words of Chirac cowtowing and appeasing to the muslim mob instead of standing up for a right that is universally recognized in the west. I also think military service should be mandatory for those physically capable of serving, the work of soldiers is far too often not understood by the public they serve protect and provide freedoms for. (and yes I did 5 years in the army so I can wholeheartedly agree about editors needing to serve, not because it will cause them to be too fearful of reprisal to print things that might be offensive, but to make them proud enough of their freedoms to be willing to risk offending someone to prove to the world that those freedoms still exist).

my mistake, I had posted this in the other thread

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by wellard: Though the guy is a nasty moron it is very wrong to jail him IMO. I would argue that allowing debate and 'uncomfortable' points of view to be made (and carefully deconstructed by facts) strengthens the truth.

Agree, he is insensitive, crass and no doubt just plain wrong. But luckily we shouldn't be jailed for such things [img]smile.gif[/img]

Your point about truth is extremely valid IMO - I first read something similar in a book by John Stuart Mill who gave a very good account of freedom along the lines of "you should be free to do what you like, as long as you don't harm someone" (generally known since as the Harm Principle).

He makes the point that having cranks like Irving is good for the truth, because in refuting them we are forced to re-examine our own beliefs and confirm their validity.

To run flags of the cartoons up every flagpole is not an insult to the Muslim faith, it is a message to the shit stirrers that we do not cower before their rabid intolerant actions.

I'd probably disagree here; I think it is insulting. But we probably both agree that the Muslim community needs to take it on the chin regardless.