Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Prison over Holocaust Denial- Free Speech or Something Else?
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 23 09:25:17 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060306/scheer0222
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/20/austria.irving.trial.ap/index.html

The story is pretty simple. In Austria, the birthhome of Hitler, it is a felony carrying a three-year sentence to deny the Holocaust or claim that 6 million Jews (10 million civilians total) were killed by the Nazi regime. For a great deal of years, Mr Irving has been claiming that. And was arrested so.
The Nation is claiming this is a civil rightd/free speech issue. I think their heads are planted firmly up their asses.
If this was law in the US, where Holocaust denial is limited to anti-Semitic 'crazy' history rewriters, pockets of newly fusing KKK-neo-Nazis groups, and people wearing tinfoil hats (which is silly, 'cause the tinfoil amplifies the signal), then it would be a free speech question.
This is different. The neo-Nazi groups in Central Europe and history re-writers have been elected into power. It becomes the stretch of saying what you want and having your words be directed and a clear and present danger. They aren't just angry youths meeting basements, but full and organized groups praising Hitler as saint, actively spreading his 'gospel'.
It is not a free speech question, but a a physical measure of protection for everyone else. Hitler was democratically elected, remember.

(hif, through I may be pansy-assed liberal, dancing in flowers, hand in hand (fin?) with dolphin, I, much of the think the Nation have a serious case head-up-ass-itis.)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 23 09:35:21 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think it's pretty simple actually.
Either you have freedome of speech or you don't.
If you believe the government has a right to limit free speech to protect it's citizens or for whatever reason, then you don't have a problem here.

IF you believe freedom of speech is a right no government can or should infringe upon then you have a problem.

I personally believe in free speech and don't think it's any business of the government what I say as long I don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater so to speak.
I understand the thinking behind the prison sentence handed out in Austria, but I think it's wrong.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 23 09:55:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes hif, but this is yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's yelling "Hitler was a great guy! You, yeah you, go over there bash those jews and stomp those fags!"
It's called "stomp", because the stormtrooper boots they wear. They made that term themselves.
This is highly organized, highly paranoid, very angry group that wants to do harm and does do harm. They are active and people like Irving are leaders, voices, and figureheads.

Any Europeans know anything more about this?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 23 10:07:39 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Yes hif, but this is yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's yelling "Hitler was a great guy! You, yeah you, go over there bash those jews and stomp those fags!"
>It's called "stomp", because the stormtrooper boots they wear. They made that term themselves.
>This is highly organized, highly paranoid, very angry group that wants to do harm and does do harm. They are active and people like Irving are leaders, voices, and figureheads.
>
Sort of like the KKK used to be ?



 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 23 11:20:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I think it's pretty simple actually.
>Either you have freedome of speech or you don't.


"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
George Bush, 2001


Wouldn't it be nice if reality was really this simple..this tidy...this black and white.
In fact, neither of the above statements reflect the true nature of freedom of speech, or the current international fight against terrorism, but they sure sound nifty.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 23 11:26:55 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It really is that simple.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 23 11:53:39 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It really is that simple.

I have no doubt in your mind it is that simple, my blue kentucky friend. Several decades worth of supreme court justices would beg to differ with you on the matter of free speech, but don't let that cloud your opinion.

: )


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 23 12:06:05 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>yadda yadda yadda


It's against the law in most European nations.

Along with racism.



I'm fully against it (although I'm not revisionist or negationist in any way), I think free speech is absolute.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 23 12:10:14 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>It really is that simple.
>
>I have no doubt in your mind it is that simple, my blue kentucky friend. Several decades worth of supreme court justices would beg to differ with you on the matter of free speech, but don't let that cloud your opinion.
>
>: )
>
I fail to see how the decision of anyone, including a supreme court justice should affect my opinion.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 23 12:14:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I fail to see how the decision of anyone, including a supreme court justice should affect my opinion.

: )
Bully for you, hif. Never let having an open mind get in the way of your opinions.






 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 23 12:21:33 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The problem is as well that once you start punishing stuff like that it can't be researched anymore.

If a university would do a study on it and find that "only" 5 millions jews were killed for example, they'd be able to get thrown in jail because of it.

If they'd say 15 million it wouldn't be a problem.



To make something clear though: the law in Europe is not as much to the letter as it is to "the spirit" of things.

In other words: no action is really taken unless it becomes an organised thing based solely on causing riots over it and what not.



However, companies have been brought to trial for not wanting to hire foreign people, and people have been sentenced for spreading anti-semitism (as with pure propaganda) and so on.

The extreme right political party here was even disbanded due to racism charges.

They later regrouped to a new party (from Vlaams Blok (VB) (Flemish Block) to Vlaams Belang (VB) (Flemish Interests)). Efforts are being made to try and disband the new party as well (it is completely the same, same leaders, same members, just a different name) and to try and take away their funding.

They have about 25% of the votes (new regional elections in october, I'm guessing they'll land at about 30-35% due to fuckups in other parties and the stuff that has happened since the last elections (cartoons, riots in france, general growing racism, etc) but they are systematicly put into the opposition because no other party wants to work with them, a political technicality called the "cordon sanitaire". This only adds to their numbers.

Even though I don't like/trust/whatever the people who run the party, I don't believe that any party can be disbanded.

Also, more and more voices are rising up to split the country in half.


That's just the *very* basic basics of it all though. The whole story of that party, and Flemish (not even talking about Belgian) politics in general is stupifyingly intricate and complex, I'm guessing you'd have to see and witness it to believe it, it's rather unbelievable, especially for such a small area.

That at the same time makes it very interesting though.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 23 12:27:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>I fail to see how the decision of anyone, including a supreme court justice should affect my opinion.
>
>: )
>Bully for you, hif. Never let having an open mind get in the way of your opinions.
>
Yes, I see what you mean now.
Every time I read an opinion by a supreme court justice, I should change my stance on that particular subject to agree with him.
Actually adhering to my own personal beliefs is wrong and indicative of closed mindedness.
:-)


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 23 12:50:13 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Yes, I see what you mean now.
>Every time I read an opinion by a supreme court justice, I should change my stance on that particular subject to agree with him.

Yes, that was exactly what I was saying...


not.

What I was saying is that the topic of freedom of expression (speech) is not as simple as "either you have it, or you don't". Any legal matter that makes it all the way to the Supreme Court is, by definition, complex and two-sided. If it wasn't it would be settled much further down in our court system. If you do a little bit of research on landmark court decisions regarding free speech you'll discover that there's been several cases debated regarding what (and what aren't) our rights over the years. It isn't so black and white. The simplest answer isn't always the right one.

Comprende, Amigo?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 23 12:57:17 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Yes, I see what you mean now.
>>Every time I read an opinion by a supreme court justice, I should change my stance on that particular subject to agree with him.
>
>Yes, that was exactly what I was saying...
>
>
>not.
>
>What I was saying is that the topic of freedom of expression (speech) is not as simple as "either you have it, or you don't". Any legal matter that makes it all the way to the Supreme Court is, by definition, complex and two-sided. If it wasn't it would be settled much further down in our court system. If you do a little bit of research on landmark court decisions regarding free speech you'll discover that there's been several cases debated regarding what (and what aren't) our rights over the years. It isn't so black and white. The simplest answer isn't always the right one.
>
>Comprende, Amigo?
>
I understood what you were saying, and I still stand by my opinion.
It is very simple black and white as far as I'm concerned.
I don't care how many cases get argued before the supremes, either you have free speech or you don't.
My unalienable rights were not granted to me by the supreme court.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 23 17:09:51 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>DanSRose said:
>>yadda yadda yadda
>
>
>It's against the law in most European nations.
>
>Along with racism.
>
>
>
>I'm fully against it (although I'm not revisionist or negationist in any way), I think free speech is absolute.



That, pretty much.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 23 19:14:20 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Actually, from what I read, science and history and research are all science and research and history, and they have all said that that six million number is a bit high and it was actually closer to five million Jews that were gassed, shot, tortured, starved, etc. It was all done by professionals and as Dr. McNinja would say, "I'm a doctor, okay. I know Science." Science is the process of uncovering truth and all the writs and laws say that research like this is a-okay.
It's when the science is bent, like the anthropology of measuring 'savages' to show they inferior, posing not just as fact, but imperitive. That We must act against Them or all is lost. And when you pander to the young, the angry, and confused in order to get them to do violence, it ceases to be free speech. It then becomes incitement, it becomes a physical action- a Call to Arms. A jihad against Jews, Blacks, Gays, Foreigners, etc.

Speech is speech. This isn't speech. This is an action, a threat. This is a leader of a group who makes threats getting charged for it.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 23 19:20:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I completely disagree.

You have jewish roots by the way, don't you?


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu Feb 23 20:26:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  My first point is that Irving is a pseudo-historian....if you're being nice. The one thing I think people are forgetting about is that rights are not absolute. They have one basic restriction placed upon them: Your right to free speech cannot, for example, infrige upon another's right to saftey ect. Your rights only go so far as they do not infringe upon anothers. While this is not always the case, it is a generality. Your rights are not, in most countries of the world absolute.

Most of the governments in Europe have a fear of anti-semitism within their country, and rightly so. Europe has a history of anti-semitism. That is why they take it seriously. Irving hasn't used proper historical methods in "researching" his books. His works have the risk in Europe of providing support to these groups. His "right of free speech" has trumped the safety of others.

In addition, you must live and abide by the laws of a country. Irving broke those laws. The Austrians, but moreso, the German people have a deep sense of guilt about the treatment of many people during the war. They have these laws in place in order to ensure that no one forgets that this did happen. Soon, all those that survived the holocaust will be gone, as will those that fought. All that will be left is documents. Documents can be easily manipulated by someone such as Irving {again, I stress that he is more of a pseudo-historian} who has obvious goals in mind. He must accept the consequences of his actions. His rights are not absolute. If you subscribe to that point of view, Hitler had every right to do what he did; Stalin the same; The Americans and Canadians putting Japanese-Americans/Canadians into camps. Most here would say those were incorrect actions; However if rights are absolute, each of those examples are perfectly justified.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Feb 24 01:38:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>You have jewish roots by the way, don't you?

Yes. Damn straight.

His actions aren't justified, not in relativistic, absolute, or legal terms. His belief is that Jews are horrible disgusting creatures that only lie, control, and destroy, and something should be done about them. A final solution of some sort. And at best he is a psuedo-historian. He is a leader of a movement whose goal is re-implementing that Final Solution.


 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 24 03:31:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Christophe said:
>>You have jewish roots by the way, don't you?
>
>Yes. Damn straight.

Yeah well, more power to you, but talking about banning a law on anti-semitism to you would be a bit like confessing to the devil then, no?

>His belief is that Jews are horrible disgusting creatures that only lie, control, and destroy, and something should be done about them.

A lot of people think the same about other minorities.

>A final solution of some sort. And at best he is a psuedo-historian. He is a leader of a movement whose goal is re-implementing that Final Solution.

Well just leave it at that then.

The more you're pushing guys like that into the opposition the better it makes them look


 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 24 03:40:55 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>The one thing I think people are forgetting about is that rights are not absolute.

It depends on the rights you're talking about.

The right to freedom is speech is absolute due to the simple fact that there is no way to control it.

People will say what they think behind closed doors anyway, even if you ban it.

So what's best? shunning dissident opinions and act like they don't exist and just let it fester, or get it out in the open with enough information about it for people to see it's bullshit.

>They have one basic restriction placed upon them: Your right to free speech cannot, for example, infrige upon another's right to saftey ect.

Ah, but see, speech can't do that.

>Your rights only go so far as they do not infringe upon anothers. While this is not always the case, it is a generality.

True, however, with speech alone you don't physicly hinder or hurt anybody.

>Your rights are not, in most countries of the world absolute.

In some countries of the world it is customary to circumcize women.

What's your point.

>Europe has a history of anti-semitism.

Not just Europe I'd say.

>His works have the risk in Europe of providing support to these groups. His "right of free speech" has trumped the safety of others.

So now we're going to start some bookburning again?

Ban and destroy every copy of mein kampf and similar stuff, adding to their appeal?

>The Austrians, but moreso, the German people have a deep sense of guilt about the treatment of many people during the war.

I'm not thar sure about it.

I, for example, don't feel the slightest bit responsible. Why should I?

I'm not too big on this inherited guilt thing.

>They have these laws in place in order to ensure that no one forgets that this did happen.

That doesn't make sense.

World War II is probably the generally best known event in the history of the world.

There is still talked about other genocides.

Are we going to implement laws to deny the numbers of the rwandan genocide? The armanian?

Where does it end?

If you can't offend anymore, are we going to force everybody in being a vegitarian so we don't piss off hindu's?

Ridiculous as it may be, that's what ultimately it boils down to if you're starting to limit stuff because it might offend somebody due to their religious believes or their long toes.

>Hitler had every right to do what he did; Stalin the same; The Americans and Canadians putting Japanese-Americans/Canadians into camps. Most here would say those were incorrect actions; However if rights are absolute, each of those examples are perfectly justified.

No, that's just your biased view of it.

Saying all jews should die is something else than physicly picking them up and gas them.

I can claim as much as I want that the sky is brown, it only gets to be a problem when I start pumping enourmosly polluting chemicals into it to try and complete my goal


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Feb 24 10:06:44 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Yeah well, more power to you, but talking about banning a law on anti-semitism to you would be a bit like confessing to the devil then, no?

Well, yeah. I do know my know own bias on this, but you'd have one too if you _had_ to defend yourself againsta skinhead . I'm not bragging, but it's a different story when, historically, you have to lean toward the end of caution. And don't think that I don't agonize that my actions probably didn't just piss him off to something worse.
Things are different when you know people hate you.

Conspiracy is a crime because it is actively planning to do a crime. Really just words, but it is the intent to commit a crime. In America, this situation of Holocaust denial is limited to easily dismissed crazies. When they start having their own section at football games (like they at soccer matches all over Europe) and get elected to political positions have actively limits other people's rights in terms of standards of living. And while I do see the hyprocrisy of that, isn't this the same thing as Muslim extremists calling for the death of Jews?


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 24 10:43:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>Saying all jews should die is something else than physicly picking them up and gas them.

Of course it's different. That's stating the bloody obvious.
But if you think that makes thinking and shouting out in public demonstrations something like, "All Jews should die!", morally justifiable (because you're not personally acting on it) then you are delusional.
Thinking something and acting on it are two different things, but that does not mean that a close relationship between thinking and acting doesn't exist.
A person that hates jews is much more likely to act on that hatred, than a person who is indifferent to them. And that slight distinction makes all the difference in the history of human conflicts.

I'm in no position to judge your hatred of muslims, christophe, but right or wrong it looks to me like you're almost trying to present some logical justification for that hatred.
hate if that's how you feel, but don't wrap it in a phoney mask and pawn it off as something other than what it is; hatred for a culturally different ethnic group.

shi'ites hating Sunni's
Christians hating Muslims
Muslims hating Christians
Hindus hating muslims
muslims hating hindus
Jews hating muslims
musims hating jews

the only thing all this hatred ultimately ever leads to to violence, suffering, death and misery. That's it. end of story.
religions dissapoint me
people dissapoint me





 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 24 10:47:56 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Isn't the point of this thread whether or not someone should have the right to speak his mind ?


 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 24 10:56:16 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>(like they at soccer matches all over Europe)

Really? All over Europe? Show me.

>and get elected to political positions have actively limits other people's rights in terms of standards of living. And while I do see the hyprocrisy of that, isn't this the same thing as

Really? Show me.

>Muslim extremists calling for the death of Jews?

As long as it would stay with threats I don't have any problems with it either, it starts to be a problem when they act on it


 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 24 11:04:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>But if you think that makes thinking and shouting out in public demonstrations something like, "All Jews should die!", morally justifiable (because you're not personally acting on it) then you are delusional.

Morals has nothing to do with it.

You have the absolute right to freedom of speech, and morals say you shouldn't specificly hurt people with words, but if you want to, feel free to do so and the other party is free to do the same.

It is against my morals to indirectly prohibit studying of the holocaust because (hypotheticly) if tomorrow would be shown that it never happened the people who came up with the evidence would be thrown in jail and the evidence would be discarded.

>but that does not mean that a close relationship between thinking and acting doesn't exist.

Yeah, but they're still very different.

>A person that hates jews is much more likely to act on that hatred, than a person who is indifferent to them.

As long as he doesn't act on it, nothing is wrong.

>I'm in no position to judge your hatred of muslims, christophe, but right or wrong it looks to me like you're almost trying to present some logical justification for that hatred.

No, i'm trying to say that freedom of speech is absolute wether you like it or not and that it therefor is better do battle it out in the open instead of having it fester like an infected wound untill it spreads like a disease.

>hate if that's how you feel, but don't wrap it in a phoney mask and pawn it off as something other than what it is; hatred for a culturally different ethnic group.

The last thing one would be able to accuse me off is hypocrisy.

>the only thing all this hatred ultimately ever leads to to violence, suffering, death and misery. That's it. end of story.

And you think by banning hatred you remove it?


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 24 11:21:02 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>And you think by banning hatred you remove it?

Like i have the power to do that.


i'm saying hatred for another group ultimately gets you nowhere. It was meant as a condemnation of our human condition.

There is a price for freedom of speech. Nothing good comes without a cost to bare. If I get in a crowd of angry white bigots and burn effigies of black men on a noose and shout "Go Home Nigger!" I may be legally exercizing my right to free speech.
But if I think my words are going to fall harmlessly into space and have no reactions I'm a fool.
In theory Marxism sounded great. In practice our human flaws ruin it.
In theory hateful public speech that has no negative consequences sounds ideal, but in reality, given our human flaws, it always will.


 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 24 11:42:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>In theory hateful public speech that has no negative consequences sounds ideal, but in reality, given our human flaws, it always will.

In theory, limiting freedom of speech works too.

And look


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 24 11:47:15 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>And you think by banning hatred you remove it?
>
>Like i have the power to do that.
>
>
>i'm saying hatred for another group ultimately gets you nowhere.
>
Not necessarily true, I harbor hatred for the KKK and what they stand for, the skinheads and the Nazis that are proliferating today, and Wahhabism and what it stands for.

>There is a price for freedom of speech. Nothing good comes without a cost to bare. If I get in a crowd of angry white bigots and burn effigies of black men on a noose and shout "Go Home Nigger!" I may be legally exercizing my right to free speech.
>But if I think my words are going to fall harmlessly into space and have no reactions I'm a fool.
>In theory Marxism sounded great. In practice our human flaws ruin it.
>In theory hateful public speech that has no negative consequences sounds ideal, but in reality, given our human flaws, it always will.
>
What you say is true, but it doesn't change the fact that all men (and women) should be able to freely express their ideas verbally in public.
Sure the guy that stands in downtown Detroit shouting demeaning epithets about black people should expect a brick upside his head, but the brickthrower is the one that should be arrested not the speaker.


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 24 12:14:39 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Sure the guy that stands in downtown Detroit shouting demeaning epithets about black people should expect a brick upside his head, but the brickthrower is the one that should be arrested not the speaker.

the chasm between what "should be" and what "is" is wider than the grand canyon.
You can keep all your political idealisms. They're lovely unreachable goals to strive for.
I'm more interested in how real political legislation, once applied to daily nitty gritty down to earth life, plays out.
And I'm telling you that unrestricted free speech will have severe negative consequences when people with no social morals apply it....and there are plenty of those people around.

You realize of course that we have limitations here on our right to free speech.


 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 24 12:41:15 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>And I'm telling you that unrestricted free speech will have severe negative consequences when people with no social morals apply it....and there are plenty of those people around.

But how do you think you can limit free speech in any way?

Unless you neutralize parts of the brain, you can't, plain and simple.

The only thing you can do by banning inpopular ideas is making martyrs out of the ones you convict for spreading them and only adding to their power.

I know how this works due to the political situation here, where extreme right is shunned by all the other parties and keeps on growing because of it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 24 12:56:21 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>You realize of course that we have limitations here on our right to free speech.
>
Of course we do, where it can cause actual harm to others, it is illegal, such as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater when no fire exists.

However, I do have the legal right to stand in public and preach the evils of whatever ethnic or social group I choose to preach against.


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 24 13:05:13 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>However, I do have the legal right to stand in public and preach the evils of whatever ethnic or social group I choose to preach against.

I'm not a lawyer, hif, but I'm not so sure you do have that right.
I think you'd have to choose your words very carefully, to avoid being sued by a group or carried away by the cops, and that's a form of restricting speech (the cops may say you're inciting a public disturbance, but it's your words that are at the root of it).
I believe there are restrictions on what a teacher can say in a classroom environment here as well.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 24 13:13:10 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>However, I do have the legal right to stand in public and preach the evils of whatever ethnic or social group I choose to preach against.
>
>I'm not a lawyer, hif, but I'm not so sure you do have that right.
>I think you'd have to choose your words very carefully, to avoid being sued by a group or carried away by the cops, and that's a form of restricting speech (the cops may say you're inciting a public disturbance, but it's your words that are at the root of it).
> I believe there are restrictions on what a teacher can say in a classroom environment here as well.
>
Perhaps, to a degree. Inciting a public disturbance has a very specific meaning and you have to actually urge others to do illegal things with your speech.
I'm not so sure about teachers speech being restricted, maybe at the elementary level this could be true, but there are high school and university professors all over this country that can say whatever the hell they want without fear of reprisal.
Maybe that's for another thread.

I want to know how idiot Farakhan got away with saying our govenment blew up the levees in Nawlins and got away with it. What an asshole !


 
FN Posted: Fri Feb 24 13:15:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>but there are high school and university professors all over this country that can say whatever the hell they want without fear of reprisal.

even nigger?

Or was it "nigga"


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 24 13:21:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>but there are high school and university professors all over this country that can say whatever the hell they want without fear of reprisal.
>
>even nigger?
>
>Or was it "nigga"
>
That was allegedly a verbal attack on an individual.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Feb 24 22:27:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I saw the NeoNazi recruitment/pride via soccer on a repeat of the September episode of HBO's Real Sports.
http://www.hbo.com/realsports/stories/2005/episode.105.s4.html
http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Columnist/rmiranda/012206Miranda.htm
(the first half of that last one)

I'm searching YouTube for some footage, but in short- They did a 3-year investigation, with interviews with players, managers, police, and racists about what happens in regards to it.



 
FN Posted: Sat Feb 25 06:39:12 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>That was allegedly a verbal attack on an individual.

Bullshit.

You can't say "freedom of speech" when you can't say a specific word.

Especially when the word is used by the person himself, or his companions, on a regular basis.


 
FN Posted: Sat Feb 25 06:41:41 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>I'm searching YouTube for some footage, but in short- They did a 3-year investigation, with interviews with players, managers, police, and racists about what happens in regards to it.

You claimed that there was seggregation of players with different footbal sections, all over Europe.

I never claimed racism wasn't rampant in the supporter circles.

But you make it look like that is organised by the football authorities


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Feb 25 08:12:48 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>That was allegedly a verbal attack on an individual.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>You can't say "freedom of speech" when you can't say a specific word.
>
>Especially when the word is used by the person himself, or his companions, on a regular basis.
>
I agree with you concerning that particular word, but you cannot claim freedom of speech to verbally assault someone. . . or can you ?


 
FN Posted: Sat Feb 25 11:17:42 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>or can you ?

Ofcourse you can

A lot of the people whose articles you read would be in serious shit otherwise hif ;o)


 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Feb 26 00:57:34 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>You claimed that there was seggregation of players with different footbal sections, all over Europe.
>
>I never claimed racism wasn't rampant in the supporter circles.
>
>But you make it look like that is organised by the football authorities

No I didn't. I even reread what I said to be sure that wasn't what I said. I was saying the various orgainzed hate groups uses soccer matches as a rallying point, a crowd drawer and a recruitment tool. It's not official by the soccer clubs and organizations, but when they are given their own section it becomes unofficially endorsed, even if it is by fear and protection of the other fans (their sections have triple security)

>A lot of the people whose articles you read would be in serious shit otherwise hif ;o)

Ha!


Also, Re: Christophe's "nigger" v. "nigga", per the black comedians I enjoy (Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Patrice O'Neil) and Randall Kennedy's book of that name:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375713719/qid=1140912023/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7270540-8634265?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
(I will refer to them as "Ger" and "Ga", because I want to and you can't stop. Also, use either version of the word will frighten passing visitors)

"Ger" is an insult of the worst degree. It is used by the low and the vulgar to make a group of people feel low and vulgar. It is a word that has been made to use to control and defame. To call a person "Ger", apparently anywhere in the world, is akin to a physical slap in the face. It would be the same to me, Dan the Jew, if you raised your right hand and gave a good Heil Hitler, only to show how much you hate me as a person.
"Ga" is a term of resistance. It has become to mean everything "Ger" is not- brother, friend, etc. When a young black rapper uses "Ga" in his music or in saying "Good day" to a chum, he is claiming his identity as the opposite of "Ger".
This rejection and reversal is not a phemonenon. Philospher Homi Bhabha (an Indian professor at Harvard) wrote in 1994 a incredibly prolix book, "The Location of Culture", detailing how this happens and emerges in culture. He used from his native India the example of the rejection of British culture and style by the adoption of speaking and writing English as perfectly as possible, into the realm of absurd and incomprehenisble.


(son of an ass. I wrote all that this morning and just came back home to find this sitting and wating for me with my new hoodie)


 
FN Posted: Sun Feb 26 11:51:31 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>It would be the same to me, Dan the Jew, if you raised your right hand and gave a good Heil Hitler, only to show how much you hate me as a person.


So basicly, if I raise my left hand and say "heil hitla", it's okay?



Fact of the matter is: if that had been the case, the teacher whould have been justified in calling the nigger a nigga, no?

And even if all of that would be debunked, I still don't believe in the banning of words. The very idea is laughable.


 
addi Posted: Sun Feb 26 12:14:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>And even if all of that would be debunked, I still don't believe in the banning of words. The very idea is laughable.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me...unless I find them offensive.


or something like that.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Feb 26 13:00:22 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I have to agree with Chris on this one.
No one has the right not to be offended by the words of others.
That is how this stupid inane political correctness got started.



 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]