EU Anti-Hate Laws On The Web 589
coupco writes "The European Union's Council of Europe passes a measure that would make hate speech on the web illegal, and subject to banning and filtering. A story on Wired News explains the How and Why."
Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh.... A Bad Idea, With Only Bad Alternatives. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I wish hate groups would dry up and piss off as much as the next guy, enacting a law like this is probably a bad move... As it leaves the definition of "hate speech" wide open, to be dictated by people in a position of power, rather than leaving it up to individual ISPs. Its a slippery slope, kids. Before you know it, anyone who has anything even remotely objectionable to say, right or wrong, will end up having a government-issue sock shoved in his mouth.
Fuck that.
Cheers,
Catch 22 (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes, at the end of the day, I still think that at least the US has it sort of right - free speech is free speech. No ifs, ands, or buts. (I realize in practice that this isn't always the case).
First amendment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they will be able. Why should the first amendment carry any weight outside the US. Are americans really that arrogant as to assume the US constitution applies to every country in the world?
A Matter Of Perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
EU citizen speaks out (Score:1, Insightful)
Our vote on the Treaty of Nice was one aspect where people were concerned that we were giving central states in the EU too much power and thus allowing them, with the council of ministers, to pass on, or create some of the laws seen here.
Is this it - or is the tip of the iceberg?
The council of ministers who pass these laws are NOT representative of Europe as a whole. If these laws are to be passed - why not ask the people first?
Re:The EU (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if this measure is passed, we in Europe will no longer be able to go to that sort of site to see what they're talking about. We won't be able to see the sort of hate they're peddling. We'll just have to accept the vague words of whoever banned the site: "Oh, it's nasty stuff, and you don't want to be looking at stuff like that - so don't worry, we're protecting you from it".
By providing a link to an example - a link which this law will outlaw - you've proved just how silly the law is.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to defend hate speech precisely because I don't agree with it and think it is completely valueless; I wouldn't want anyone restricting my right to free speech because they think what I say is valueless. The most important factor in a society where freedom of speech is widespread is education, though education can only go so far- I know plenty of educated idiots.
I grew up in Virginia Beach and New York City. Everyone I knew- all of my friends and neighbors- was black. Then I moved to N.E. Pennsylvania and was exposed to an awful lot of racism. Did it cause me to become racist myself? No, I knew better. Exposure to hate speech does not guarantee the development of racist attitudes, and banning it on the web doesn't mean they won't hear it at home or from their friends.
Screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is quite different, because it causes nearly anyone who hears it to believe there's an immediate danger. Writing hateful web sites only causes those who are dumb enough to believe what's being said to adopt the views presented.
Re:Gender/sexual orientation? (Score:4, Insightful)
I tend to think of Hate laws as anti-propoganda laws. Here in Canada we have anti-hate laws, and they seem to work well. The haterd isn't illegal, it's the spreading of your, umm, "theory" by lies and deciet that you are held accountable for. IOW, you can type "I don't think the Holocaust happened." and it will likley not get you in legal hot water, but "The Holocaust didn't happen and the Jews..." likley would, since you are deliberately trying to mislead someone into hating another ethnic group based on falsehoods.
Hatred spreads the same way our friends in Redmond try to discredit thier compeditors - by trying to teach everyone that others are bad through FUD. If we try to make the teaching of hatred carry some legal repercussions, the falsehoods will soon end, as well as the hatred and discrimination that come from spreading those falsehoods. This is an attepmt to "cut off the air supply" of discrimination at it's source.
Hey, say whatever the hell you want - it's a free country. I only ask 2 things - make sure I know it's only your opinion (unless you have iron clad, set in stone hard proof to back up your statements) and don't lie to me just to further your point. I hope this is the essence of the laws they try to enact, not the "thought police" like you suspect.
Re:Good. (Score:1, Insightful)
So, I shouldn't be allowed to voice hateful words towards a government, because it may cause people to act on these words and do violent acts against the government. No more badmouthing your government, because somebody can get hurt.
I probably should stop saying negative things towards Ford, because other people on the Internet may read my anti-Ford thoughts, and stop buying Ford. While not a violent act, Ford employees may get laid off, and that'll hurt them and their families. Then they may act violently towards me and my anti-Ford followers. So, I guess no more negative speech towards Ford, because somebody can get hurt.
Yes, racists and homophobes and sexists and pedophiles and etc, suck -- but free speech is an all or nothing game. Either give it to everybody, no matter how disgusting you find their speech to be, or don't give it to anybody at all.
Re:Gender/sexual orientation? (Score:5, Insightful)
But so what if someone thinks the halocaust didn't happen? So what even if they present it as fact? Most (if not all) of the history books used in school have many outright lies and inaccuracies that reflect the bias of the publisher.
The government of all countries have outright lied to the people many times, and been caught and even admitted the lie years later. If all deceptive propaganda were banned, only the government would be able to use said propaganda. Is that the way you want it to be?
You also seem to be confusing propaganda with deceptive propaganda. Propaganda takes many forms [turnerlearning.com], not all of it involves deception. Propaganda is used every day by governments, companies, groups, and individuals.
So lets say that these hate laws are carefully crafted to end deceptive propaganda... That won't end what most consider "hate speech" by a long shot.
Suppose I put up a web site that says "Almost half [ncianet.org] the young nigger men in Washington DC are criminals." That is a fact, not a lie or even an opinion. It would still be considered by most as "hate speech", because of the connotations of the words I use.
I don't see any reasonable way to have any hate speech legislation at all, without repugnant repercussions to liberty.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't work that way. Protecting the freedom of speech that we like is easy. Protecting the freedom of speech we don't like is what the First Amendment is all about. Otherwise, what happens when people don't like what you have to say?
There is no positive aspect to hate speech, and many of its defenders are closet racists themselves.
Nice try, but no. Defending free speech does not make me racist any more than defending gay rights makes me gay, or defending Disabled rights makes me disabled. I defend the rights of those who say things I don't like so that I have the right to say things they don't like.
Those who would claim the supremeacy of "free speech" obviously believe that James Byrd or Matthew Shepard deserve no legal protection against racists and homophobes, and such vile hatemongers should be tolerated.
Um, no. What happened to James Byrd and Matthew Shepard is illegal without hate speech laws and you'd be hard pressed to prove it wouldn't happen if there were hate speech laws.
Hate speech acts in the same way - by trying to make certain kinds of people seem less than human and by glorifying violent acts against them
Hate speech can only cause people to hate another group of people if they are uninformed and uneducated. Rascism (and other discrimination) comes from fear of the unknown. Remove that fear and the racism dies, no matter what anybody else has to say about that group of people.
it's just a matter of time before a follower or supporter of a hate group puts words into action.
Bullshit. The guy that pulls the trigger or swings the bat is 100% responsible for his actions, regardless of who told him to do it, and those actions are illegal without hate speech laws.
Do I think people should say racist things? No. Absolutely not. Do I think they should be allowed to? Yes, absolutely.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
When hate speech is uttered openly, it can be debunked and ridiculed. Banning it only gives it unwarranted credibility.
False dichotomy. Life has no value without freedom.
Re:First amendment. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, ideally, parts of it should, yeah. Not that the US has any authority to enforce it across borders.
The first ten amendments to the United States constitution list inalienable, human rights bestowed upon us by our creator. Whatever creator you pick, the idea is that the first ten amendments- protecting free speech, right to keep and bear arms, no quartering soldiers in one's home, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process of law, etc- apply to all humans. Including silly Europeans.
That being said, it is not, nor should it be, the business of the United States Government to go around protecting the rights of people in other lands- hell, we barely do it here it often seems.
But, as an inalienable human right, the first amendment should apply to everyone in the world. Repealing the first amendment would mean nothing, as the right still exists. Should any of the first ten amendments to the constitution be repealed, though, it would mean it was time for a new government, nothing else.
Even Thomas Jefferson,
Re:Just curious... (Score:1, Insightful)
You know the spiel, its been around for centuries.
When a 5 star general says that he plans to bomb a country to the stone age, to cut their power and heat, to make the inoccent civialians suffer until they topple their own government, that is a war criminal. And the only thing that matters is whose side your own.
Israel is the best example of this. If the US wasnt intertwined political and socially in Israel, the rest of the world would have made it look like Afghanistan. I mean there have been resolutions galore against Israel, right?
There is no right or wrong. People have a tendency to see themselves as the moral ones when it comes to war (and the propagandad that comes along with it). Look at German history and juxtaposed it with US, Russian and others.
All claim the moral high road.
To ask your question is to answer it.
Re:Gender/sexual orientation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hate crimes make a distinction on why the crime was committed rather than on how. The analogy to first degree murder would be having separate penalties for different motives. It's like saying somebody should be punished more severely because he killed for money instead of love. In most crimes, except in the case of mitigating circumstances, what matters is what actions were taken, not why they were taken.
This law will be used to block non-hate sites (Score:5, Insightful)
Reference, in german - http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hod-15.10.01-
Re:Gender/sexual orientation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gender/sexual orientation? (Score:4, Insightful)
This legal system realises that there is a link between what people say and what they do. Just think about advertising. advertising exists purely on this principle that what one person says can affect what another person does. With this principle in mind lets have an example which might at least bring this problem between free speech and illegality of certain actions to its breaking point.
Imagine a rich man who sympathises with the goals of al qaida and its terrorist activities. Imagine that guy being able to buy commercial time at lets say the superbowl break (isn't that a nice spot for a commercial?). In that commercial he would say that a mere 3 thousand dead New Yorkers are nothing compared to the 1.5 million iraqi's that already dead because of the import restrictions the US (and the UN) put around Iraq. He would call on american citizens who are disappointed by their government to start their own terrorist cells or find ways to disrupt the american way of life as much as possible.
Another step further would be to imagine the commercial also actually containing technical information on the making of bombs or anthrax-like letters.
The mere fact that there are such things as "top secret" government files and that the publicising and spreading is illegal means that the US also has its limits on FREE SPEECH. In a country that beliefs in real FREE SPEECH there could be no such laws about information. Granted, the EU has always been taking a path that is less free speech than the US but saying that the US is not even ON the same slipperly slope is simple not true.
Imo the main reason for the lesser respect for free speech in Europe is because of world war II. There were very many europeans so badly scarred and hurt by the war that just somebody saying the holocaust didn't happen hurts these people to the core. I think many people after the war felt that the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that died on the beaches of Normandy (many of them American) and the millions of Russians and Jews that died during the second world war deserved more respect than to have people denying there ever was a war. Sure 60 years later its easier to let those nazi's tell us that the holocaust never happened but when it was just a couple of years after the war i can imagine that they made laws to ban such "free speech".
Re:Gender/sexual orientation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose I put up a web site that says "Almost half [ncianet.org] the young nigger men in Washington DC are criminals." That is a fact, not a lie or even an opinion. It would still be considered by most as "hate speech", because of the connotations of the words I use.
Well, it would depend on the context you're quoting that. If your web-site says "Niggers are criminals. Here's proof", you're deliberately distorting the data since you don't acknowledge all of the data - like the social/economic conditions of those ~%50. If your web-site says "There's a study that found that ~%50 of "young nigger men" are criminals in Washington D.C., and here's why I think that is", that can be contrued in a entirely different matter - you're likely to only offend those with very little tolerance themselves. IOW, you're discussing your opinion and interpretation of that data, and not representing it as fact. There is a difference - one's a lie, the others an argument.
I don't see any reasonable way to have any hate speech legislation at all, without repugnant repercussions to liberty.
Giving liberty to intentionaly harm your fellow man means you will eventually have no liberty yourself. Hate speech, as I have described it, is an attempt to do just that - justify harm to and the discrimination of humans based on their outward appearance. There has to be a balance, not just a free-for-all.
Soko
Re:Gender/sexual orientation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it, if they pass this law, what is stopping them from passing a law that makes it against the law to advocate violence, I mean violence is bad right. Okay so now what happens when they pass a law that says you shouldn't publish anything advocating an overthrow of the government, I mean those people are all crazy, right? Suddenly we are living in China.
freedom has its drawbacks, but we tolerate freedoms consiquences for a reason.
rofl, I think Im going to use that Orwell thing as my new sig.
Re:Problem where is none??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Scum-sucking power-hungry bureaucrats are facts of life. We can't weed them all out. The best we can do is limit the damage they can do. Free-speech laws are one good way to do that.
(Religious "fanatics"? So you think people should go to jail for fervently stating their belief in God? Thanks for providing me a very good example for why free speech is a good idea.)
hm. okie then (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Dont you people read the link the article is pointing to before you post a reply? The story is about the Council of Europe, not the EU.
2. There has been many people holding up freedom of speach to the skies as an absolute, all or nothing thing, I would like them to put forth some kind of proof that doing this will not help, it will only make things worse. This is atleast what I understand their point to be.
3. I live in europe, in one of the countries that this effects, sweden allready has a law like this so I dont care too much for this new thing though. The impression that I get is that the people of europe wants to be protected from these sorts of things. Is it not true that vocal and secret racism and hatred to minorities happens more often and is more evident in the usa then in Europe? I dont havto put up with or respect these people. And I want it that way. If you have any evidence why this is a bad way to think about it please let me know.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
So are lawyers and used car salesmen. But there aren't any laws inhibiting their speech.
"If someone actively goes out of their way to tell people that 90% of the world's population should be enslaved or that the best thing they can do is kill someone because of their skin color, religion, ethnic background, immigration status, sexual orientation, disability, etc., they have forfeited their rights to free speech."
Your disagreement alone isn't justification to revoke their "inalienable rights." They're not yours to take away.
"They deserve no rights..."
You seem to be confusing the concept of "right" to "privilege." There is no deserving involvled when it comes to rights.
"There is no positive aspect to hate speech, and many of its defenders are closet racists themselves."
Let me see if I can't replace a few words in that sentence and see if you still agree with your own philosophy: "Those who would claim the supremeacy of "free speech" obviously believe that James Byrd or Matthew Shepard deserve no legal protection against racists and homophobes, and such vile hatemongers should be tolerated."
I fail to see how "saying mean and nasty things about someone" falls under the same classification as murder, assult, etc.
"Hate speech is an abuse of free speech"
The only way you can "abuse" a right is to use it to disenfranchise the rights of others. Demonstrate that "hate speech" infringes on their target's own right to say what they want and I'll reconsider your position.
"people's lives are more important than the right of someone to publicly encourage others to target certain groups for a campaign of murder, rape, assault and terror."
I tend to give "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" equal weight. If all they're doing is bitching and moaning about things they don't like, if there isn't a clear and present threat against somebody's life, I see no reason to prevent them from saying what they want. After all, words only have as much weight as the listener decides to give them.
" but when people begin acting on the words of hate speech spreading like cancer on the internet, then the damage is done."
And there is the root of your problem. You don't accept the concept of free will. You don't believe that people can make a conscious decision on their own to act or not act on something they've heard.
While you may not believe you have a will of your own and need a government to spoon-feed you only "good" information, I refuse to let you force your opinions on me through law. That's something not even the "hate speech" folks can do to me.
"Free speech shouldn't endanger people's lives. One can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, because people will probably get hurt trying to get out."
In case you missed it, you can't do that in the US, either. But people don't go scurrying around trampling themselves to death by saying (for example) "Homosexuals are evil!" With statements like that, people first decide for themselves whether or not to agree with the statement and whether or not to act upon it.
"Hate speech acts in the same way - by trying to make certain kinds of people seem less than human and by glorifying violent acts against them"
About the only difference between how you describe hate speech proponents and your own words is the way you're not (quite) supporting violence against them. Of course, depriving them of life, liberty and property isn't exactly all fun and games, either.
"it's just a matter of time before a follower or supporter of a hate group puts words into action"
A speaker is not directly responsible for the follower's lack of judgement or free will. You are not responsible for me, and I refuse to be responsible for you.
Re:First amendment. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they don't. Those are merely the laws of the United States, not some universal truths. Nobody else is bound by them, and other societies certainly have the right to organize themselves differently.
One might add here that the US has been found guilty of numerous human rights violations. Many people outside the US feel that the Constitution does not go far enough in protecting the rights of the individuals while, at the same time, creating conditions that place the safety and well-being of citizens at risk.
Re:First amendment. (Score:3, Insightful)
That is your (and probably a lot of other people's) view, but that is not a fact. That you state it as a fact probably bothers a lot of non-US people quite a bit more than the actual contents of those amendments (and it's probably also that attitude that the original poster refers to).
There is also a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it's by the United Nations. It's the result of a consensus that was reached among pretty every country in the world, as opposed to the amendments you refer to (those were the result of a conseus among the Founding Fathers and probably the people of the USA).
I think it's all a matter of culture. Personally, this directive (at least the idea behind it) doesn't bother me that much (though I don't think it's technically feasible in an effective, sound and completely accurate way). It's after all a more or less logical extension of the anti-hatespeech laws we already have). The idea behind it has (imho) nothing to do with control or going to a totalitarian superstate or so. It's all about culture and history...
The US has been occupied for a long time and the Founding Fathers did not want to risk that the people would ever again be oppressed by the government, so they made the carrying of guns a fundamental right (at least, that's the way I understand things).
In Europe, people didn't want such horrible things as the holocaust to happen ever again, so to help prevent that they banned all sorts of hate speech, since that was what the Nazi's used to rally the people against the rest. This wasn't about curbing the rights of the people regarding what they could say, but to try to stop speech that promotes the limitation of freedom of other people (YMMV of course, but that's the intention).
Neither is a real solution to the "problem" they want to prevent, but nevertheless a lot of people hold on to them because their symbolic significance is quite big. Just like getting rid of that (the fourth?) amendment would be interpreted as "Ok, now they're coming for us because they want to take away our rights to carry weapons", stopping the crussade against hate-speech in Europe would pretty much signify "Well, the holocaust wasn't that bad after all, who cares if a couple of people start again with spreading such crap and other hate speech".
Re:First amendment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hrm... Nothing in there saying that Congress can do that if they happen to be meeting inside the EU at the time.
I know what you meant. Did you?
You were assuming that the US Constitution, like so many others, is written from the angle of "giving rights to the people" (a flawed concept if there ever was one) instead of restricting the rights of the government.
A little over 200 years ago, a group of people finally realized that "granting popular rights" is just as much an oxymoron as "military intelligence." But even now, centuries later, so few people have figured out that fundamental truth. Instead, they just sit around making laws that do things like "restricting the right to free speech" as if such a thing were possible.
Don't mince words: This European law punishes the exercise of their peoples' right. Period.
Opinion / Fact (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree. Its like in Ghostbusters II... (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of expression means that the government won't do something to you when you say something that they feel demeaned by. It gives us the right to criticize.
As a side consequence, it gives some people the right to treat others like dirt.
I'll gladly take the latter for the sake of the former.
Mind you, nowhere in my comment did I say that people SHOULD treat others like dirt - I'm definitely opposed to that, and I think that as a whole every human being on earth has a responsibility to care for every other human being they meet, though they have the right to deny this responsibility.
Its ironic how well this comment applies to your statement which basically implied,
1) You're ignorant (via the "Newsflash" statement)
2) You're from New York, which is where all the bad people are. The rest of the country is nicer than you, and nobody else in the country likes anything about your home.
Seems like you are using your right to free speech to treat me like dirt, doesn't it?
which political system killed more? (Score:5, Insightful)
See? Pure hypocrisy and triple speak. There's an agenda here, should be easy to see and pick up on.
Right now nations around the world are bending over backwards to enrich and justify the existence of the mainland chinese communist party, who rule in every feudal sense of the word-a technofuedalism but still feudal-over 1.5 billion people, and have murdered at least 50 million if not more than 100 million of their own citizens-and it's NOT past history-they are still there, same communist party. Unapproved religion? too bad, re education camp or a bullet to the head. Some fatcat needs a kidney, pop, some prisoner provides it. Have one too many kids? No problem, they'll strangle or drownd them on the spot after birth. real nice guys they are... but that's OK, we can get cheap gadgets from them...
Does germany or the rest of the europaen union classify communist china as just as e-vile as the national socialist party of germany was? No? Why not, don't those millions murdered count the same?
More plutocratic triple speak hypocrisy.
The US government can have an official spokesgoon stand up and claim "they had no prior knowledge of al queda threats against US buildings or using airplanes as weapons and etc". Well, that's a total lie, literally dozens of "official" cops and bureaucrats knew full well about it, fbi agents reporting it got told to shut up, etc.
Governments lie, they demonize whom they wish to demonize, create a class of "less than humans" so they can go kill them and steal from them. It can be an official government, or a 'government" of assorted people united in whatever particular whacky stupid "cause" they come up with-that part doesn't matter, it just "happens" and the default is always this "hate" is almost universally based on fabrications for the most part, and they grant themselves selective memory all the time. They only remember what is "convenient" for them..
In the US, it's close, REAL close now to being "hate speech" to point this out, give it some time, you'll see it happen, you'll be a "terrorist" if you say out loud the government lies or exaggerates, it will be construed as hate speech, ie, "illegal", and when governments do it, it's called "policy" and is legitimate. It's all over now, welcome to the NWO. It's incrementalism, not all the way here yet, but close. EU's hate speech rulings are part of the puzzle, that's all, just one more slow chipping away. Big push for biometrics now, soon they'll say you were actually "thinking bad thoughts" and that will be a crime, no audible speech or publishing necessary. Just watch it happen, then you'll see why starting down that "hate speech" road is such a bad idea.
To outlaw hate is trying to outlaw ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
The way to control hate is to contain it, and simply make it known that its wrong, fight information with information, fight ignorance with intelligence.
Make a law to track every hate site, make a law to monitor the hosts, make laws to allow hosts of hate sites to be monitored by anti terrorist units, but thats all you can do, monitor hate.
They deserve freedom of speech, i also believe we shouldnt stop file sharing, but monitoring is fine.
Hate is wrong, but you cant stop it by censoring it and you can get more intelligence info from monitor and containment to stop any attacks they try to make before they happen.
Re:Opinion / Fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Pure fact is very often a hard thing to come by. Sure, there are some things that are generally accepted, like 1+1=2. But how about Darwinism? The evidence is overwhelming, however political forces in the US are often succesful at denying Darwinism as fact. If free speach is not absolute, wouldn't the presentation of Darwinism be in danger from these forces?
There have been a number of scientific studies that claim to have found racial differences in intelligence. Most people reject these studies as flawed or biased one way or another, however what is the pure fact here? What does the German government take as a position in this regard? If I put up a web site in Germany presenting such reselts, and then presented opinions based on these results how would the German government react? Is Germany finding itself an arbiter of what a fact is when the reality is that there is a contorvesy in the scientific community over what the facts actually are?
There are not many things in this world that are accepted as absolute truth. Certain mathematical propositions are widely accepted as 'probably true' even though they have not been proven as such. Kurt Goedel proved that not all true theorems are provable within the confines of a self-consistent mathematical system. What if we assume that something is true, and later it is proven false? How does that get sorted out in a system where stating something is false when it is generally accepted as true is a crime?
The restriction of free speach is a very tricky business, and it must be handled very carefully, In the US there are a few things that are forbidden, such as child pornography. Even such subjects that appear on the surface to be beyond any criticism occasionally give rise to contreversy.
Re:I grew up in a semi-biggotted family. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignoring racism is not the answer. Open discussion is. Instead of putting your hand over someone's mouth, just speak louder and clearer. If people can't decide then, they're destined to be retards anyway.
Re:which political system killed more? (Score:4, Insightful)
Heard of the Patriot act? Saying something like 'I think saddam hussein is cool' in public is likely to end with you being thrown in camp x-ray with no genuine right to trial (GWB has stated that nobody will ever be allowed out of there *even if they are found innocent*).
Re:Gender/sexual orientation? (Score:4, Insightful)
> man means you will eventually have no liberty
> yourself. Hate speech, as I have described it, is
> an attempt to do just that - justify harm to and
> the discrimination of humans
Hate speech, as the EU describes it, includes
any views which are disapproved by the prosectutor
as topics of public discourse.
Sucn laws have already been used to persecute
historians to the point where even those who
endeavor to correct errors in the historical
record of the Nazi extermination campaigns must
use weasel words and misrepresentation to
demonstrate proper reverence for the Shoah.
Putting a few good historians in prison or
penury is a great way to stifle any truths which
are inconvenient to the holocaust industry,
and its principal beneficiaries, the 21st century
fascists in the middle east.
Re:which political system killed more? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:which political system killed more? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nazi ideology does not promote the hatred of Jews, homosexuals, cripples and others, it promotes the virtues of the pure aryan. The holocaust was merely the cleansing of the aryan state of lesser peoples. I'm not defending it, mind you, but at least get it right.
Official communist party propaganda always couches party actions in terms of the enemies of the people or the worker, but why are the enemies of the people always able to fit into particular ethnic and political categories? Tibetans and Muslims in present-day China, Ukranians, Jews, Central Asians in the Soviet Union have ALL been victims of massive resettlement, forced indoctrination, ethnic-majority colonization and outright murder.
How do you justify the prima faciae evidence of massive racial and ethnic annihilation by communist governments?
Besides, Soviet Russia wasn't communist anyway; it's "Stalinist".
Even that tidy little bit of revisionism doesn't cut it. Every iteration of communism has been associated with widespread killing, much of which has been merely ethnic cleansing re-branded as "defending the people's state". Trying to defend communism by claiming that all the major implementations of it don't meet your college radical's textbook definition of communism is both disingenuous and naive.
First thing to ban... (Score:2, Insightful)
In old testament, it teaches us that one nation is the "chosen race" of god who are superior. No, it's not just a silly myth -- millions of people really take it seriously and support the "chosen race" financially and politically and many are even ready to die for them.
In new testament, it teaches us that the abovementioned people are evil. Well, at least many popes and other Big Names such as Luther have interpreted it in that way. This has resulted in almost 2000 years of procecution, killing millions of the "chosen people".
It orders people to destroy temples and groves of other religions. Actually, the book says that the "God" of the book will kill all nonbelievers. This is a violation of freedom of religion, and certainly a sign of hate. You can find the word "hate" there countless of times. God hates this, God hates that. We can quite safely say that Bible teaches hatred.
I mean, really. Who are the people nowadays most often accused of hate crimes? Christians. Just look at this site [godhatesfags.com] or the infamous Nurenberg Files [christiangallery.com]. Need I mention KKK? This is what is going on out there.
I don't support censorship, not even of hate pages. But if such pages or books should be banned, we definitely know the book to begin from. I believe it meets any criteria.
Of course, no western nation would take this seriously. If you're a Christian, you of course won't. No need to wonder why. Remember, even the sickest fundies preach the "message of love".
With rights come responsibilties (Score:2, Insightful)