Remember when David Irving was imprisoned for Holocaust Denial?
I was absolutely stunned when that happened. Whatever happened to letting the arguments speak for themselves? I understand how the Holocaust is a delicate topic in Austria and that neo-Nazism is a real threat both there and in Germany, but jailed in 2006 for the crime of giving a speech in 1989?? There's something worringly Orwellian about that.
Remember when David Irving was imprisoned for Holocaust Denial?
I was absolutely stunned when that happened. Whatever happened to letting the arguments speak for themselves?
Same here. At that point, I decided that one could no longer count Austria completely part of the "Free World." Ironically, the imprisonment of Irving was a truly fascist thing to do.
While I was in law school, I did a summer abroad in Austria and I was amazed at how nonchalant they were on this issue. They way the Austrians see it, they have freedom of speech, just not on certain sensitive topics.
It's not just one piece, he has a history of opposing the bill of rights and the constitution. He's a far left liberal.
It's not that he helped give us a bad law, it's that he took away a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that this country was founded on. The man should have been hung for that.
Exaggeration #1. Consider his positions on defense/national security, abortion, gun rights, government waste, not to mention bills he has voted against. If you really think McCain is a "far left liberal," Jörg Haider is a governor somewhere in Austria. Maybe he's got a cabinet slot open for you?
he took away a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that this country was founded on.
Exaggeration #2. He co-authored a flawed but well-intentioned bill that BOTH HOUSES of Congress signed off on. He didn't take away a damned thing.
The man should have been hung for that.
Exaggeration #3. Unless of course, you truly believe that. In that case, I think Serbia or Liberia might be more your cup of tea in terms of political culture.
1 - McCain is anti-Gun. Check out the very restrictive and invasive gun law he helped push in Oregon back in 2000.
2 - Yes, he co-authored it. That makes him 50 percent responsible for a law that has taken away one of our most fundamental rights: Freedom of Speech. If you are denying that, then you are the one with a problem here.
3 - I feel that anyone who takes away our constitutional rights should be punished. The 'should be hung' is a figure of speech, true, but to call this man a conservative, when he is a far left liberal (in the American political system) is a falsehood.
This reminds me of a web course in Philosophy I took a few years ago, I remember the subject of "If you were President, what would you do..." came up and I was thoroughly disgusted by how many posters said they would eliminate racism, as if they could somehow control peoples thoughts or legislate an idea into nothingness. Personally, I think another of the faults of prosecuting someone for thinking a certain way is that people who are moderate on certain issues will sympathize with them despite their extremism.
I was thoroughly disgusted by how many posters said they would eliminate racism, as if they could somehow control peoples thoughts or legislate an idea into nothingness.
Yet, oddly enough, the very same people would probably claim that there is no way we could win a war against "Islam" -- even one whose objective was merely to stop Muslim terrorists from violently attacking us. One wonders why they imagine that "racism" would be easier to vanquish -- especially when one considers that American white racists used to have a fairly powerful terrorist secret society, the Ku Klux Klan.
Thank you! Will steal and repost, link and all. Of course, I will credit you.
More arguments in favor of free speech:
1. It exposes the neo-Nazis. Give a jerk enough rope and it will hang itself.
2. By allowing free speech, you don't allow neo-Nazis and other jerks to wear a martyr's crown. Oppression always creates nobility in someone's eyes, creating sympathy where none may be justified.
2. By allowing free speech, you don't allow neo-Nazis and other jerks to wear a martyr's crown. Oppression always creates nobility in someone's eyes, creating sympathy where none may be justified.
Relating to this, allowing the Holocaust-deniers free speech also avoids giving the impression that one is afraid of their ideas. Austria instead implied, through their imprisonment of Irving, that they had no choice but to silence him because they feared the truths he was speaking.
Your reasoning is the very basis of why I hate legislation concerning "hate" crimes. If a woman is raped and beaten, why should she be shown any less concern if she isn't part of a special "protected" group?
Comments 43
I was absolutely stunned when that happened. Whatever happened to letting the arguments speak for themselves? I understand how the Holocaust is a delicate topic in Austria and that neo-Nazism is a real threat both there and in Germany, but jailed in 2006 for the crime of giving a speech in 1989?? There's something worringly Orwellian about that.
Reply
I was absolutely stunned when that happened. Whatever happened to letting the arguments speak for themselves?
Same here. At that point, I decided that one could no longer count Austria completely part of the "Free World." Ironically, the imprisonment of Irving was a truly fascist thing to do.
Reply
Reply
Then they don't have freedom of speech. Just amazing how some people can rationalize anything.
Reply
Reply
It's not that he helped give us a bad law, it's that he took away a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that this country was founded on. The man should have been hung for that.
Reply
Exaggeration #1. Consider his positions on defense/national security, abortion, gun rights, government waste, not to mention bills he has voted against. If you really think McCain is a "far left liberal," Jörg Haider is a governor somewhere in Austria. Maybe he's got a cabinet slot open for you?
he took away a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that this country was founded on.
Exaggeration #2. He co-authored a flawed but well-intentioned bill that BOTH HOUSES of Congress signed off on. He didn't take away a damned thing.
The man should have been hung for that.
Exaggeration #3. Unless of course, you truly believe that. In that case, I think Serbia or Liberia might be more your cup of tea in terms of political culture.
Reply
2 - Yes, he co-authored it. That makes him 50 percent responsible for a law that has taken away one of our most fundamental rights: Freedom of Speech. If you are denying that, then you are the one with a problem here.
3 - I feel that anyone who takes away our constitutional rights should be punished. The 'should be hung' is a figure of speech, true, but to call this man a conservative, when he is a far left liberal (in the American political system) is a falsehood.
Reply
Reply
Yet, oddly enough, the very same people would probably claim that there is no way we could win a war against "Islam" -- even one whose objective was merely to stop Muslim terrorists from violently attacking us. One wonders why they imagine that "racism" would be easier to vanquish -- especially when one considers that American white racists used to have a fairly powerful terrorist secret society, the Ku Klux Klan.
Reply
Reply
More arguments in favor of free speech:
1. It exposes the neo-Nazis. Give a jerk enough rope and it will hang itself.
2. By allowing free speech, you don't allow neo-Nazis and other jerks to wear a martyr's crown. Oppression always creates nobility in someone's eyes, creating sympathy where none may be justified.
Reply
Relating to this, allowing the Holocaust-deniers free speech also avoids giving the impression that one is afraid of their ideas. Austria instead implied, through their imprisonment of Irving, that they had no choice but to silence him because they feared the truths he was speaking.
Which is a shame, because Irving was lying.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Who cares if more or less folks agree with you in hating that person in some form?
What the Frick does that matter in the course of things?
Reply
Leave a comment