The two are not comparable since the one concerns ideas, the other actual living human beings. Ideas should not be protected by law, humans to some extend should. Protecting ideas – in this case religion - is what they are trying to do at the upcoming scandal called Durban II.
The main problem I see with denial laws is “mission creep”. You start out with a reasonable mission, trying to stop some Junior Nazi from whipping up a crowd to Krystalnacht II. Stopping an immediate present danger. Germans did that with laws against incitement to riot in the name of Nazism.
Soon, however, the part about whipping up a crowd gets lost. The idea of immediate present danger is left out of the laws. Soon, it’s a law against the idea of denial itself, whether there’s anyone getting whipped up or not.
Then it spreads beyond denial. Soon it’s illegal to “minimize” or “trivialize” or “justify” or “diminish the proportions of” or “put in doubt” the killings. No one has even had the nerve to try to explain to me what is outlawed and what is not under that fantastically broad rubric.
The next step is obvious, with the EU stating:
So now, what started out as a way to stop a resurgence of Nazism from disturbing public order, has morphed into the ultimate nanny state, where insulting somebody is a crime. I’m assuming that Polish jokes will be illegal, rather than just moronic and insulting, under your new overlords …
So under that directive, if I say “My daughter is dating a black guy, but I don’t like the way he smells” … have I committed a crime? Black people smell different than white people. I like the smell myself, but some folks don’t. But if you say “black people smell funny”, you’ll stand a chance at least of breaking a law for merely stating a truth. A law starting out to ban lies ends up able to ban the truth … humans are strange creatures, no doubt about it.
Man, I’m not surprised the Muslims have the Eurofolk whupped into a lather… the Europersons have no problem caving into the Islamic Thought Police, because they are used to caving in to their own Thought Police. They’re accustomed to losing the freedom to speak their minds. Makes perfect sense to them that insulting the Prophet should be illegal, can’t just insult somebody, you know, it might be, well, insulting or something. And someone might end up, you know, insulted or something. Gotta stop that insulting behavior and let the totalitarian Muslims have their way, can’t insult the Prophet or the totalitarian Nazis might take over Europe again, after all that’s why they need these Denial laws …
I’m European, and I’ve got a certain degree of past involvement in anti-fascist activis. While Britain did not suffer to the extent of Poland, it certainly saw some of the effects of Naziism. And I think these laws are wrongheaded. I like the odious little scum out in the open. It makes it easier to know whose house to burn down (I kid, I kid).
But, in the end, if Germany chooses to have these laws, or if Poland chooses to have them, well it isn’t really my business. I hope never to see them in my adopted country (the U.S.).
Is that how it is, because I seem to recall a near total chicken out of US media and US leadership during the Muhammed cartoon crisis, whereas many newspapers and television stations in many European countries chose to publish them and the political establishment largely chose to support free speech. And when a larger US media dared to publish them, it was as on the CNN in a pixilated form. Pathetic. And just a few months ago an author had to go to Europe to publish a historic novel about one of Muhammad’s wives after the US publisher had chickened out.
Couldn’t agree more. The US wimped out pathetically on that issue, with most papers refusing to print the cartoons. Goes to show … you don’t need to have anti-Denial laws to cave in to totalitarians …
However, anti-Denial laws give you bonus points, and they prepare you for having your rights curtailed. In the US, the cartoons were merely dangerous. Some newspapers refused to print them because their employees were threatened … kinda understandable.
Under the EU directive, on the other hand, the cartoons could be considered illegal because they offended someone … can’t have that.
w.
PS - Only a very few papers in Europe printed the cartoons, it wasn’t “many” as you claim. I recall three … might have been a few more. Nor did the European “political establishment” support free speech. A few did. Most didn’t, most advocated “be nice, don’t offend” …
I don’t know about the rest of Europe, but in Denmark everything that could walk and crawl of newspapers and television channels published the cartoons – most of them several times. And in fact are still doing it occasionally. Also newspapers on the tiny Danish areas of Faeroe Islands and Greenland. Many more than 3. And I think I recall the EU actually (and quite surprisingly) standing up for Denmark, and threatening countries in the Middle East that talked of boycotts.
But of course, religious cartoons is the sort of thing many people will have prohibited on the same ground as the holocaust denial. In fact precisely the laws against holocaust denial was used by countries in the Middle East as examples of what they saw as European hypocrisy (and leading to Iran hosting a holocaust cartoon show). Although, as I keep pointing out to people when I hear that argument, holocaust denial and all sorts of Nazi and communist symbolism is quite legal in Denmark. And for some reason, Denmark have practically none of the problems with neo-nazism which some of the surrounding countries with laws against neo-nazism, have.
That’s not the US whimping out pathetically, that is private, for profit companies (arguably) whimping out pathetically. Unless there was pressure from the government not to print, that is.
Umm … well … no, it’s not kept out of public discussion, at least on my planet. What gave you that idea? We can discuss child pornography all we want. That’s the point. Child porn is illegal, just like killing people in gas chambers is illegal. Why do you advocate restricting discussion of one, but not the other?
Well, lets follow that logic a bit … the people who built the gas chambers were good, god-fearing Christians, went to church and all … so the gas chambers were built by people wielding, inter alia, Christianity. Gotta put a quick stop to that pernicious idea, we know it’s wrong because the people who built the gas chambers were Christians, that proves it, chappachula said so … here’s three statements, tell me why two are wrong and one is right:
-
Nazis built the gas chambers, so we know that Nazi ideas are beyond the realm of decency.
-
Christians built the gas chambers, so we know that Christian ideas are beyond the realm of decency.
-
Germans built the gas chambers, so we know that German ideas are beyond the realm of decency.
I also question whether “society is held together by common decency” as you claim. In my experience, “common decency” is much like “common sense”, in that both are quite uncommon. Society is held together (or split apart) by laws that govern peoples actions. Take away the laws, and you’ll see how much “common decency” can hold society together. After all, good, common, decent, Christian German folks brought us the joys of the Holocaust …
Finally, you say “Some ideas are simply beyond the realm of decency”. I agree. To me, restricting people’s right of free speech is simply beyond the realm of decency … what do we do then? As with many things, my “simply beyond the realm of decency” is your “perfectly acceptable”. So I fear your “common decency” yardstick is not up to the task of measuring what you claim it can measure.
Rune, excellent points all. Denmark was certainly the exception, gold stars to the Danes (again) for their principled stand. I’m a cartoonist myself, and in honor of the twelve Danish cartoonists, I drew twelve cartoons of Muhammed myself (warning, may offend, may be illegal in parts of Europe). So I greatly appreciate the Danish integrity in this matter.
Unfortunately, the Muslims were right about European hypocrisy. You can’t claim to allow freedom of speech unless you really do allow it. European censorship of Nazi ideas is identical to the Muslims desired censorship of cartoons, and the Muslims know it and use that fact to their advantage.
Eurofolk, how is it the Danes don’t criminalize discussion of the Nazis, and yet they haven’t been over-run by the much-feared Nazi restoration which you claim is being prevented by censorship?
Thanks for the clarification, you are correct.
However, I also felt that the Government should have made a strong policy statement on the issue of free speech, and they didn’t. Instead, they reiterated some variety of “let’s be nice, now, don’t offend anyone” … as if the issues were not death threats and riots and killings, as if the big issue was that somebody got offended. Hey, I was offended that Muslims were making and carrying out death threats … but that didn’t count with the US Gov’t, they wanted to protect the oh-so-delicate Muslim sensibilities from any possibility that they might be offended.
On the Danish cartoons issue, remember that the controversy was stoked by self-interested Imams who used all sorts of other material, too - Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Wikipedia
Oh my God, do you mean to tell me they’re still debating the causes of the First World War? Say it isn’t so! Are you sure? That’s horrible, let’s put a stop to that.
And if we can see this pernicious tendency to think about history “in the pathetic right-wing attempts to rewrite the Great Depression”, let’s ban that as well. And we could ban any attempt to “minimize” Stalin’s crimes while we’re at it.
Or, why try to get all particular about it. Why not save time and energy, and just ban “right-wing historical revisionism” and be done with it? I mean, all these different views of history, they just lead people astray … we need to have just one history, by gosh, and Tagos, you’re the man to bring that about …
But what makes you say my statements are legal? All of my statements “minimize” the Holocaust. You think they are legal. The law says they are not legal. It quite specifically bans statements that minimize the Holocaust. Yes, it is a mishmash of statements, it was intended to be. I wanted a wide selection of statements for people to choose from, so they could get the sense of how many ways there are to minimize a historical event which don’t lead to Nazis jumping out of the woodwork.
I’m not the one who has made the “debate over details” illegal, Tagos. You guys are. I’m not equating denial with details, I don’t have to. The law bans both, I talk about both.
Y’all started out by banning denial of the Holocaust. Now, you’re up to banning any attempt to “minimize” the Holocaust … but all of my statements minimize the Holocaust. Some of them say the Holocaust is so trivial it’s not even worth talking about … can’t get much more minimized than that.
So what are the laws banning, if not my statements? If my statement, that the Holocaust is blown way out of proportion because millions die in every war, doesn’t “minimize” the Holocaust to the point of calling it just another thing that happens in war … then what does “minimize” the Holocaust mean?
Next, you say “the laws have to [be] applied through courts and so moderated by citizen common sense.” Perhaps you might explain how that happens, because there’s no procedure like that in the US. Is there a “citizen’s common sense representative” in your courts to make sure they are “moderated”? Or are you saying that there’s some kind of civilian revue of the court’s sentence, to make sure that the ruling is in line with the “common sense” of the citizens?
Or are you just blowing smoke, and there’s no citizen input into the courts but it sounds good for your argument? I’m quite curious about this one, actually. I’ve seen legal systems around the planet, and I haven’t stumbled across one where the judgement of the court is “moderated by citizen common sense”, but it’s a big world, and anything’s possible.
Next, somebody from Germany recently said on this thread that Germans have taken complete responsibility for the Holocaust. My experience is that is certainly true for the ones I’ve met, they’ve dealt with it in a way that say the Japanese haven’t come anywhere close to … so could you explain why the Germans NEED to have their collective crimes “stuffed in their face”?
German dopers, is that true? Do you really NEED to have the Holocaust “stuffed in your face”? And if not … why are you silent when Tagos makes that claim? On the other hand, if it is true, do you reckon you’ll still NEED to have the Holocaust stuffed in your face in another half century?
And while we’re at it, did you nominate Tagos as the person to make the decision about who needs to have their deeds “stuffed in their face”? 'Cause I know I didn’t. I do know that I have deep mistrust for anyone who thinks they are both qualified and anointed by God to make the decision that “that guy needs to have his deeds stuffed in their face” … but hey, I’m just a reformed cowboy, what do I know?
I got bad news for you, Europersonages of the “ban free speech 'cause we’re afraid the Nazis might return” faction. You know how an army is always best trained to fight the last war, and poorly trained to fight the next war? You’re so busy curtailing your liberties in order to fight the last war, that you’re losing the next war. That would be the war to keep your hard-won liberties, featuring you guys vs. the Muslims in a no-holds-barred wrestling match, and as near as I can tell, to date … you’re losing.
Badly.
While you guys are all in a lather fighting the terrible threat of resurgent Nazis, Muslim riots in France are so common that the burning cars hardly raise an eyebrow. City councils in England are banning piggy banks on their workers desks. Radical Islamists planned the World Tower attacks in Germany. The Dutch are pummeling Geert Wilders to prove they are Islamofriendly. Britain is discussing the possibility of having Sharia Law in parallel with English Common Law. Governments are apologizing to the Muslim World over freakin’ cartoons, for goodness sake … and here’s how the Muslims take advantage of your foolishness in restricting free speech.
Nope. EU freedom of speech in many countries is relative and selective. In the US and UK, it is much more broad. They are using your stupid Denier laws to justify their desire to end free speech entirely and completely … thanks, Eurodudes, for giving them ammunition to claim that freedom of speech is a myth. The part of the world where there actually is freedom of speech really appreciates that nice touch.
And meanwhile, you are so busy watching the Nazis in the rear view mirror that you’re not seeing the Mullahs in the headlights … call me crazy, but I don’t think that this will end well. Islam is not just Nazi in style (chopping off hands, stoning people, cutting of a hand and foot on opposite sides of the body, shutting down opposition, savagely punishing any dissent from revealed dogma, spreading its ideology through war, fomenting hatred and massacre of Jews, etc., etc.). It is Nazi in execution as well, striving for world domination just like the Nazis. It’s not accidental that the Nazis and Islamists were sometimes close allies in WWII.
A few centuries ago, IIRC, the Muslims took over and ruled much more of the world than the Nazis ever dreamed of … I know which one I’m more concerned about.
The US Government made a very strong policy statement on the issue of free speech. You have probably heard it. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
It’s not the government’s job to tell papers to publish or not publish cartoons. I don’t remember them doing either. If they did suggest that news outlets not publish the cartoons, I wouldn’t think that was a good thing, but I don’t remember it happening.
villa, very good, you are quite correct, the US government has made a strong policy statement.
I can’t locate the US Govt statements on the cartoon war. Here’s one from an earlier incident, when a woman in Hebron posted a picture of Mohammed as a pig:
This sucks bigtime. The US State Department had already tried and convicted the woman … what happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” What happened to free speech?
OK, found what I remembered:
I find the unintended slip of the tongue hilarious, where "“Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as … any other religious belief.” I can get behind that one …
And while it is true that anti-Muslim images may be as offensive to some as anti-Christian images are to others, in the US both are protected speech. Unfortunately, that’s not true in either Luxemburg or Libya, or in either Switzerland or Saudi Arabia … gotta say, you Eurofolk sure choose strange bedfellows …
Well, we’re not talking about banning discussion of it; what I was postulating is that the punishment for espousing denial (not discussion, but assertion of denial) is because the Germans (in my postulation) know that such denial is inherently dishonest. It’s not actual discussion being banned. It’s more like the laws against Nigerian scammers. No serious scholar actually thinks a Nigerian prince needs to move millions of dollars through the bank account of some grandmother in New Jersey. We KNOW it’s not happening; the law is to protect society from malefactors, not to unjustly prevent Nigerian princes from getting a fair hearing.
The deniers are trying to do something to other people, to trick them, or even to obliquely threaten them, for their own benefit and society’s cost. It’s not honest inquiry any more than a three-card-monte dealer ripping off the gullible. The law is (IMHO) a response to the deceit and damage, not an attempt to quell scholarship or investigation.
Response to intention, post #75
Where is the first quote from - the Hebron pig incident. If it is accurate, I hope the person was fired. But I only found one blog reporting on it. And the quote is bad enough I would expect to find it elsewhere, so if you have any cite to it, I’d be grateful.
But when I look up the person’s name, it appears she wasn’t tried for drawing the cartoon, but for trying to post it on an arab storefront. She was arrested it appears for attempted vandalism and attempted incitement to riot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatiana_Soskin
Now the pros & cons of that case can be argued, but it isn’t necessary a clear cut free speech matter, it involves not only public order but also private property.
As for the second quote, from the Bush administration, you seem to have left off McCormack’s qualifier…
I don’t think that is correct. They are of course sadly deluded, but I think in general holocaust deniers genuinely believe their version of history. Like 9/11 conspiracy nuts, &etc. They are not dishonest. Merely wrong. In any case, Germany has some good historic reasons for their laws, but it is not the state’s responsibility to protect the people from unwholesome ideas and thoughts.
villa, you raise interesting issues as always.
The quote came from the US State Department transcript.
My issue was not with whether she was charged with upsetting some precious snowflake’s day by insulting them or whether the actual charge was mopery on the skyways. My point was the craven, insulting, pre-judging nature of the US State Department’s response
As I mentioned above, I’m a cartoonist who has drawn cartoons of Muhammed. As such, I was appalled at the US Government response.
The whole issue of freedom of speech was dealt with, as you rightly observe, in a “qualifier”. It came only at some point after saying that it was some kind of anti-Islamic thing, and after saying that anti-Islamic things were bad and evil, and anti-Christian and anti-Semitic things were evil …
Dudes … it’s a cartoon. Yes, it pokes fun of the Prophet. Yes, it showed him with a bomb in his turban, as a way to indicate that at any moment the Islamic world is ready to explode and bomb things. To prove that this was just an evil, warped, fallacious caricature of the Religion of Peace™, of course, the Islamic world exploded and bombed things … :rolleyes:
For me, the proper US response would have been to talk about freedom of speech. Period. It’s not the place of the US government to get into discussing cartoons to parse what is anti-Islamic and what is not.
But hey, YMMV …
Thanks, villa.
That quote is different to the one you posted initially.
But the crimes with which she was charged ARE relevant. If she drew a cartoon, and was arrested and imprisoned, people should be in uproar. The fact that she drew a cartoon, and defaced private property with it in an attempt to incite a riot in a volatile situation puts a somewhat different spin on things, don’t you think?
We condemn actions all the time without waiting for the trial. Yes it can go to far, and yes restrictions on free speech in the name of public order often go to far. But if a person climbs onto private property to hang a banner across a synagogue entrance saying something as offensive as “Hitler was right” for example, do you think I should wait until after their trial to condemn their actions?
The US government defends your right to draw them. It stops short of either patting you on the head and telling you that you are a good person for drawing them, or in supporting you trespassing and posting them on private property with the intention of formenting a riot.
Saying the Bush administration went over the top in defense of religion is hardly earth shattering. And if you are thinking it isn’t an anti-Islamic thing, or that anti-Islamic things aren’t as bad as anti-Christian or anti-Semitic things, well, we will just have to differ.
[quote=“intention, post:79, topic:487715”]
Dudes … it’s a cartoon. Yes, it pokes fun of the Prophet. Yes, it showed him with a bomb in his turban, as a way to indicate that at any moment the Islamic world is ready to explode and bomb things. To prove that this was just an evil, warped, fallacious caricature of the Religion of Peace™, of course, the Islamic world exploded and bombed things … :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]
No, the Islamic world didn’t explode or bomb things, any more than the Christian world blows up abortion clinics or government buildings in Oklahoma. Individual Muslims exploded and bombed things.
If the US is to be involved in the Middle East at all, which it pretty much inextricably seems to be, then these sort of things will happen. I have no problem with the government disapproving of something because it feels it is hate based; I don’t support them banning it, and, oddly enough, the government didn’t ban anything. It seemed to go out of its way to support free expression. Free speech isn’t about freedom from criticism.