tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post4899031292970318338..comments2024-03-20T10:19:56.838+01:00Comments on the beatroot: David Irving: nobody was gassed in Auschwitzbeatroothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-63527973932021044962013-01-20T05:17:21.612+01:002013-01-20T05:17:21.612+01:00Islamic and Naats Mobitune Codes You can make prof...Islamic and Naats Mobitune Codes You can make profits if you In its wake it destroyed 1000 houses and a They ask me how they could be of service. While some of the bracelets replicateAntonia Lucashttp://www.goldsenze.com/qa-in-what-should-i-invest-gold-or-silver/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-79172626503122454172012-11-30T15:59:41.147+01:002012-11-30T15:59:41.147+01:00“When words are spoken they go into our brains. Ho...“When words are spoken they go into our brains. How our brain processes those words is completely up to us.” I couldn’t agree with you more. In the USA all the law suits against tobacco companies, and recently against fast food restaurants, should be dismissed. I don’t feel sympathy for makers of cigarettes and fattening food, but they don’t force anybody to smoke or eat food loaded with saturated fat. But a lot of people are stupid and have tendency to harm themselves and then blame someone else for their misery.Pratthttp://minnie.hartlandschools.us/groups/httpminniehartlandschoolsusgroupsvesmusic/wiki/66f37/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-91006225438328707712007-11-26T23:14:00.000+01:002007-11-26T23:14:00.000+01:00I think that Holocaust denial and generally expres...I think that Holocaust denial and generally expression of ideas, even grossly miguided, should be legal, but incitement to violence, if that violence was at least attempted, should not. Consider a Mafia boss telling someone of his extended family: "I want X dead". He doesn't need to threaten any punishment if his suggestion isn't followed, nor give any financial reward if it is. The emotional factors (sense of belonging, loyalty etc) can in many cases be enough. Same for a religious sect leader.<BR/><BR/>And what about other forms of expression? Posters with X's photo and address, saying "kill the paedophile!"<BR/><BR/>I don't think that the issue is as simple as "no punishment for speech". Hardly anybody acts rationally all the time, and people who want to get someone else's hands dirty try to pick the ones who are most likely to obey. And even a rationally acting person can be misled by false information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-37848981996360461092007-04-01T00:27:00.000+02:002007-04-01T00:27:00.000+02:00IggyOne of the draw backs of free speech is that s...Iggy<BR/>One of the draw backs of free speech is that some of that speech is not going to be agreeable. But that, in my small way, gives me the chance to expose these people for what they are.beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-15063048542720602292007-03-29T14:38:00.000+02:002007-03-29T14:38:00.000+02:00I don't specifically recall WG but was referring t...I don't specifically recall WG but was referring to folks like anon(s?).<BR/><BR/>Yea, I'll take the conservative label on this count. Let's see, TV has given little girls Brittney and Paris to emulate. And gangstas have Scarface, the Sopranos and the Black Donnhelys... Never thought I'd read the BR defending TV. <BR/><BR/>Maybe these guys are not a threat to democracy on a wide scale. But they are a real threat to individuals and groups and as such are a threat to the democratic rights of those threatened. While you obviously have balls "publishing" the stuff you do, there are other people who are not as ballsy as you who are silenced because of idiot fringe types. And a lot of these people are not targeted because of what they say but because of who they are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-67330776447839175582007-03-29T07:58:00.000+02:002007-03-29T07:58:00.000+02:00Come on. What you are saying is that internet has ...Come on. What you are saying is that internet has made things worse because now characters like 'warsaw guy' have another forum...blah blah.<BR/><BR/>Very conservative attitude. It reminds me of the old conservatives who wanted to ban sex and violence from the TV because it was turning folk violent and ...er...sexy! <BR/><BR/>And I don't know if you have noticed, but people like warsaw guy can't actually articulate any kind of thoughts except very basic ones. hardly a threat to democracy, are they?beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-11310599627069489572007-03-29T02:28:00.000+02:002007-03-29T02:28:00.000+02:00people do not just casually go out and attack some...<I>people do not just casually go out and attack someone because they heard someone say: ‘go punch a mulim/jew.red head…..</I><BR/><BR/>And if certain people keep hearing it over and over all over the place? Obviously, violence isn't ever typically casual, except maybe at a hockey game (or in the stands at a soccer game).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-24853966835499544422007-03-29T02:21:00.000+02:002007-03-29T02:21:00.000+02:00you are now suggesting that someone should think t...<I>you are now suggesting that someone should think twice in case they upset one of your ‘idiots’. <BR/><BR/>Think about what you write here sometimes…</I> <BR/><BR/>Think about your statements above.<BR/><BR/>Besides, you seem to have missed my point entirely. I'd have no problem if you zapped the comments of the racists/fascists or mine. It's your blog. But I think you are encouraging and emboldening the racists/facists by giving them a wider forum to solidify their own -- and to foment additional -- hatred. A good argument just ain't going to change them. And even if you convince 2 out of 3 fence-sitters, there's that 1 you don't who increases their number ala:<BR/><BR/><I>Just as virtually everyone who reads this does not either….</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-47819660593563795662007-03-29T00:19:00.000+02:002007-03-29T00:19:00.000+02:00EuroFor the senario you present to be criminal the...Euro<BR/>For the senario you present to be criminal there would have to be a very highly charged atmostphere, plus someone in authority speaking, plus the near proximity of (say) Jewish people, in a situation where there was already high tension.<BR/><BR/>In that circumstance, then 'Kill Jew' would be a legally questionable thing to do.<BR/><BR/>But those situations are very rare, and that is not about WORDS but situation.<BR/><BR/>Speech, per se, should never be banned.beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-85111371411878365952007-03-29T00:07:00.000+02:002007-03-29T00:07:00.000+02:00Let me quote you, BR: "So the initial statement: g...Let me quote you, BR: "So the initial statement: go kill muslim/jew etc is not the important factor. I hear these things and don’t want to attack anyone. Just as virtually everyone who reads this does not either…."<BR/><BR/>I agree with you in principle. But you and me, and all those who read this blog, are in a detached position before our computers. But imagine you were in a crowd of hundreds or thousands. Maybe music and/or monotonous prayers already created an atmosphere of "togetherness." You then have before you the charismatic leader speaking - I wonder how I might have reacted if I'd been at the Berlin Sportpalast in 1943 when Joseph Goebbels shouted his infamous "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?" (do you want total war?) and received a roaring "Ja!" (yes!) from a hundred thousand throats. <BR/><BR/>Psychologists tell us that individuals behave differently, if they are alone or in a small group, or if they are in a crowd. I'm not an expert in these matters, but I feel that there is truth in their statement. The "fire in a theatre" paradigm exactly fits here - and is therefore a no brainer in the discussion about criminalizing or not HD (though a favorite of advocates of punishing HD.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-42150368292930928022007-03-28T23:35:00.000+02:002007-03-28T23:35:00.000+02:00Great post, EuroBut the important point in this is...Great post, Euro<BR/><BR/>But the important point in this is: people do not just casually go out and attack someone because they heard someone say: ‘go punch a mulim/jew.red head…..<BR/><BR/>Racism, hatred, stereotypes are created from ideologies, cultural prejudices etc etc etc <BR/><BR/>So the initial statement: go kill muslim/jew etc is not the important factor. I hear these things and don’t want to attack anyone. Just as virtually everyone who reads this does not either…. <BR/><BR/>But the few that do will do anyway: either for ideological reasons or just plain insanity.<BR/><BR/>So the initial statement - the words – are not the main variable in any subsequent action. <BR/><BR/>Therefore speech must always be free.beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-58612519979419660192007-03-28T23:16:00.000+02:002007-03-28T23:16:00.000+02:00I would like to come back to the origins of this t...I would like to come back to the origins of this thread: D. Irving and Holocaust denial (short: HD). <BR/>The cases of Austria, France, and Germany show that laws that penalize HD tend to develop a life of their own. Lawmakers continuously tighten the laws. The intensity of prosecution of HD increases steadily and is parallelled only by the prosecution of outright felonies. Austria, e.g., has 4 special hotlines for reporting severe crimes to the Ministry of Justice. One is exclusively reserved for HD and other cases of "Wiederbetaetigung" (NS revival) . <BR/><BR/>In states that make HD a criminal offence, the state persecution apparatus (political police, secret services, prosecution attorneys, and judges), supported by media and mainstream politicians, tends to prosecute more and more minor cases of HD. A man in the former GDR part of Germany, e.g., was finally sentenced for having said in an assembly that they had been told lies about the perpetrators of Katyn and the number of dead at Auschwitz, that this number was not 4 millions as stated at Nuremberg, but approx. 1 million, as he recently learned when visiting Oswiecim. A Berlin teacher was fired after a media uproar, because he said in class that, at Auschwitz, prisoners did not only die in the gas chambers, but also from malnutrition, unhygienic conditions, lack of medical care, and overwork. (He received, however, a court decision that this statement was not HD.) <BR/><BR/>In France, a - right-wing - politician and prof of Japanese studies, asked at a press conference in 2004, said that he is well aware of the fact that millions of Jews died during the Holocaust, that gas chambers were used for killing, but that, as a non-specialist, he does not know the details, and that the issue should be left to the experts in the field, and that their discussion should be free. The court ruled that, though the defendant did not explicitly deny the Holocaust, his remarks, however, could sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of uninformed individuals about the historically established facts, and sentenced him to a heavy fine and some months prison with probation. (The defendant appealed, the sentence is not yet final.)<BR/><BR/>And let's look last but not least at our protagonist, David Irving: Had he, for instance, in 1989 at his speech given to a group of university students raped one of the students - and not talked rubbish about the non-existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz - he would have gone free when arrested by the police in 2005, because rape, after 10 years, comes under the statute of limitation in Austria, whereas HD (as "Wiederbetaetigung")is statute-barred not before 20 years.<BR/><BR/>I think that the above mentioned cases speak for Deborah Lipstadt's argument against criminalizing HD. It is, in fact, a difference between the stupid waffle of Irving and his like, or remarks that would quite pass in an academic discussion, and the speech of a fanatic religious leader who incites his listeners to go and burn a mosque, church, or temple and kill the "infidels." There, IMO, free speech has to have its limits. Julius Streicher rightly swung at Nuremberg. (Though BR, in a certain sense, is right: to murder or not to murder, in every case, was an individual decision of the SS man, and in all war crime trials, also in the USSR, the perpetrators were sentenced according to their actions, not to their beliefs or to what they said.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-78066778421849600592007-03-28T21:27:00.000+02:002007-03-28T21:27:00.000+02:00…in fact that was a really stupid thing to say (I ...…in fact that was a really stupid thing to say (I got incandescent again)….you are now suggesting that someone should think twice in case they upset one of your ‘idiots’. <BR/><BR/>The implication of what you are saying is:<BR/><BR/>Words are sooooo powerful that we have to watch what we say because if someone don’t like what we are saying then they might come and GET US.<BR/><BR/>Well, if that is the case then what you are suggesting is that WE SHOULD ALL SHUT UP….just in case..<BR/><BR/>Good night democracy and free speech. <BR/><BR/>Think about what you write here sometimes… Even brining that crap into this discussion was a pretty weird use of free speech on this blog...(note I don't delete your comments...)beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-21191153149623352842007-03-28T21:20:00.000+02:002007-03-28T21:20:00.000+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-63646641878725662852007-03-28T21:11:00.000+02:002007-03-28T21:11:00.000+02:00Well, WE'll see if those attack dogs (or dupas as ...<I>Well, WE'll see if those attack dogs (or dupas as the case prolly is)who threatened you over your stance vis-a-vis Simon Mol have more bark than bite.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that was a bit stupid thing to say, mate....beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-76686096792328139872007-03-28T20:57:00.000+02:002007-03-28T20:57:00.000+02:00WE are not attack dogs or dupes, and it is profoun...<I>WE are not attack dogs or dupes, and it is profoundly misanthropic to suggest otherwise.</I> <BR/><BR/>Well, WE'll see if those attack dogs (or <I>dupas</I> as the case prolly is)who threatened you over your stance vis-a-vis Simon Mol have more bark than bite.<BR/><BR/>Effectively, entire nations have degenerated into an attack dog mode on more than one occasion. If it's misanthropic to criticize and want to place certain limitations upon the injurious impact of relatively small (but growing) groups, then the same appelation should hold vis-a-vis nations like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Better to nip, I'll say, real misanthropy in the bud than to allow it to grow. You're not opposed to Monsanto's Roundup are you, BR?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-17498697027917160992007-03-28T20:08:00.000+02:002007-03-28T20:08:00.000+02:00Being HadYou don’t like Poland because you had tro...Being Had<BR/>You don’t like Poland because you had trouble with some corrupt cops, I believe from your Web sites. I don’t think Irving has had that problem. <BR/><BR/>Varus<BR/><I> So, you don't believe in the idea of incitement - that is it is not possible to incite someone else to do a crime. Is that even so if you are a teacher or religious leader who people respect and follow.</I><BR/><BR/>Ultimately, that is the logical conclusion of what I am saying, yeah. Even if it is someone you respect who is telling you to do something then it is the responsibility of the recipient of that message, and who acts on it, that has to take the consequences.<BR/><BR/>Geeeeees<BR/><I> I'm afraid there are many equivalents, quite clear and immediate in terms of endangerment, of shouting fire in a crowded theater.</I><BR/><BR/>No there are not. If someone shouts ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre there is AN INSTINCTUAL desire to get the hell out of their. Cognition and moral choices don’t come into it. Whereas words and messages are processed by the individual and moral choices are made. <BR/><BR/>Totally different thing.<BR/><BR/>And I agree with Mr K: blaming Macs for getting fact is an abdication of individuals as conscious (that word again) beings able to make choices. <BR/><BR/>WE are not attack dogs or dupes, and it is profoundly misanthropic to suggest otherwise.beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-50827677284084353102007-03-28T19:35:00.000+02:002007-03-28T19:35:00.000+02:00Hey, I don't like Poland either. But I agree with ...Hey, I don't like Poland either. But I agree with the twat label. However, this was not a nice Passover present. I know this BS still exists, but still, it really takes the wind out of you.BEING HADhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536564388948517817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-29445941000659918622007-03-28T14:45:00.000+02:002007-03-28T14:45:00.000+02:00believe that humans are machines waiting to spring...<I>believe that humans are machines waiting to spring into action on the stimulous of hate speech</I><BR/><BR/>Certainly not all or even most, but too many people, while not machines, are much too easily manipulated by demagogic appeals to hate and violence. With mass media, especially the internet, this appeal is broadened and intensified many times over. Thus in modern society, I'm afraid there are many equivalents, quite clear and immediate in terms of endangerment, of shouting fire in a crowded theater.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-29005168363586740542007-03-28T14:29:00.000+02:002007-03-28T14:29:00.000+02:00“When words are spoken they go into our brains. Ho...“When words are spoken they go into our brains. How our brain processes those words is completely up to us.”<BR/><BR/>I couldn’t agree with you more. In the USA all the law suits against tobacco companies, and recently against fast food restaurants, should be dismissed. I don’t feel sympathy for makers of cigarettes and fattening food, but they don’t force anybody to smoke or eat food loaded with saturated fat. But a lot of people are stupid and have tendency to harm themselves and then blame someone else for their misery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-38601525716754593082007-03-28T11:17:00.000+02:002007-03-28T11:17:00.000+02:00So, you don't believe in the idea of incitement - ...So, you don't believe in the idea of incitement - that is it is not possible to incite someone else to do a crime. Is that even so if you are a teacher or religious leader who people resepect and follow. Does this mean that Pope Urban II bore no responsibility for the First Crusade?<BR/><BR/>Words can be dangerous, the question is how do we measure their effect and where do we draw the line without over-reacting.varushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607642372495291037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-11713463607744346812007-03-28T10:36:00.000+02:002007-03-28T10:36:00.000+02:00UK tightened it's laws recently rith regard to thi...<I>UK tightened it's laws recently rith regard to this issue, as some people such as Abu Hamza continually incited violence.</I><BR/><BR/>It was that piece of nonsense legislation I had in mind. Freedom of speech is under attack as never before in Britain.<BR/><BR/>Basically, Hamza was imprisoned (for seven years!!!) for talking bullshit. He said some weird and whacky things but he ultimately not responcible for any act of violence at all. The people who committed acts of violence are 100 percent for that. <BR/><BR/>When words are spoken they go into our brains. How our brain processes those words is completely up to us. So speech – unless is presents a clear, immediate threat to people (shouting fire in a crowded room, for instance) cannot harm anyone.<BR/><BR/>Actions not words are what people should be imprisoned for.beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-22182243467056512402007-03-28T10:07:00.000+02:002007-03-28T10:07:00.000+02:00Beatroot said: "If I said 'kill all people with re...Beatroot said: "If I said 'kill all people with red hair' and someone went and killed someone with red hair, my words would not in anyway be the cause of the death."<BR/><BR/>But what you said can be seen as incitement. If you said 'i think all people with red hair should be killed' then this would be your private opinion. The UK tightened it's laws recently rith regard to this issue, as some people such as Abu Hamza continuley incited violence.<BR/><BR/>Free spech and incitement are not the same, as some times despite what you may wish to think, 'idiots' do "spring into action on the stimulous of hate speech, or whatever."varushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00607642372495291037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-78363406299584986512007-03-28T08:19:00.000+02:002007-03-28T08:19:00.000+02:00Defending all free speech is important. To do that...Defending all free speech is important. To do that we have to draw a thick line between words and actions. The liberals and conservatives both appear to believe that a bad word or statement is the same as an action - violent or discriminatory. <BR/><BR/>If I said 'kill all people with red hair' and someone went and killed someone with red hair, my words would not in anyway be the cause of the death. <BR/><BR/>Those who want to restrict speech freedoms believe that humans are machines waiting to spring into action on the stimulous of hate speech, or whatever. That is a very low view of human beings.<BR/><BR/>So the 'idiots' tag for these people is falling into that trap. Someone who killes someone with red hair would probably have done something similar even if I had not called for red hair genocide in the first place.beatroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242716221133886807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13112593.post-22295356779730617862007-03-27T14:50:00.000+02:002007-03-27T14:50:00.000+02:00The link seems to produce "an internal error" but ...The link seems to produce "an internal error" but I reached it directly at:<BR/><BR/>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?site_area=1&aid=248<BR/><BR/>A snippet:<BR/>According to international website registry records and d'Aubignosc's own statements on the white supremacist online forum Stormfront, he is the chief website manager, or "webmaster," for several high-profile white nationalist organizations, including the British National Party; the French white nationalist group Le Mouvement Social et Patriotique; and the National Front, a far-right anti-immigrant political party in France. The National Front's leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, personally tasked d'Aubignosc with creating a pan-European white nationalist web presence at a meeting last year in Paris, according to a statement d'Aubignosc posted online under his code name, Indutiomar, which is apparently a reference to the first century Celtic general Indutiomarus.<BR/><BR/>D'Aubignosc also administers a multinational "whites only" dating service called Eurodatelink and a network of white nationalist electronic newsletters for readers in 16 European countries, as well as the United States and Canada. D'Aubignosc promotes this network, dubbed Altermedia, as "World Wide News for People of European Descent."<BR/><BR/>But d'Aubignosc's most vital role in the global white nationalist <BR/>movement . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com