I didn't write any of that...the only thing I wrote was that I found this on the internet and found it interesting. The words after that weren't mine.

I was thinking about this stuff, why pick on the holocaust? How come you can pick any other atrocity in history but that one? Or am I missing something?

I think we have a term for protection of minority religions from free speech in Europe now - I hear "liberal multiculturalism" thrown around a lot. It's this idea that you are not allowed to intervene in Islamic affairs, because to do so is "a breach of community cohesion" or not respecting ethnic diversity.

To me that's not sustainable. You can't have a society that is both trying to get equality for women and gays, while simultaneaously defending a religion that actively pushes back against that. It doesn't work. If you're going to practice by-the-book conservative Islam in the western world, you have to be prepared to face criticism and satire. You can't have it both ways and claim offense when someone sees your lifestyle as austere and extreme by modern standards

(January 9, 2015 at 8:57 am)Blackout Wrote: Double standards? No, censorship is the suppression of free speech that can be considered objectionable

That qualification is not necessary to the concept of censorship.

If the suppressed speech is not objectionable, what would you call it?

(January 9, 2015 at 8:57 am)Blackout Wrote: forbidding free hate speech is not censorship.

Of course it is. Even accepting your overly narrow definition of censorship, there are folks who not only think hate speech is acceptable, but is actually true. Who decides?

(January 9, 2015 at 8:57 am)Blackout Wrote: And considering the evidence for the holocaust, I don't see the problem. Racist speech and fascist speech is also illegal, and it will remain so

If your best argument is "shut up", you're not going to be very convincing.

(January 9, 2015 at 1:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: I was thinking about this stuff, why pick on the holocaust? How come you can pick any other atrocity in history but that one? Or am I missing something?

Collective European guilt? Emotionalism?

A somewhat vain attempt to prevent the re-rise of Nazi-esque facsism?

Thankfully, we have no such laws in the US.

YAAAAAAAASSS TYRION

We've already had this discussion, I don't care about the American concept of freedom of expression... I have my own.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, censorship implies "correcting" what was done before or after it factually happened, making it "right" - In the case of hate speech, no one will censor it directly, no one will delete videos, records or evidence that the speech took part... You will simply be accused of a crime. Forbidding incentive of crimes is not censorship, it's legal decency.

Regardless, I admit the line is very thin between what's objectionable or not. I personally am disgusted by blasphemy laws. But I do not support the government taking no action when it comes to active activism on behalf of racism, homophobia, totalitarianism, etc.

Here is my justification in a quote of an author:

Quote: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. - Karl Popper”

Do you understand, Parkers Tan? sometimes simple rational argument isn't enough to defeat active groups... Sometimes they'll pick guns and engage in a revolution

And then you can punish them for their actions, not their words.

(January 9, 2015 at 9:15 am)Cato Wrote:

(January 9, 2015 at 1:47 am)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, the story about that trial was in 2009. Any idea what the result was?

Acquitted.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/3740...ts-world5/

Short blurb, third story down.

Thanks.