melissa@mit-hector.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre) (10/15/85)
With regards to freedom of speech and comparing the "FIRE in the theater" to denying the holocaust: First I'd like to note that it was the US Supreme Court that decided that cases like screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre are not protected. From what I've been able to gather of this conversation, the relevent comments were made under Canadian jurisdiction. Since when does Canada autmoatically adopt decisions by the US SC? Or did I miss something? Second, that very decision put down a rule for restricting freedom of speech. The rule is that such restriction is acceptable if a "clear and present danger" to any individual or specific group can be shown. Oh, yeah remember that? And to put to rest any argument as to whether denying the holocaust is a clear and present danger, the Court in later cases made it very clear that this means "Very specific and very imminent". This means that if you cannot point to someone or someones and say that on such-and-such a date (or some reasonable range of time) so-and-so(s) will be harmed by such-and-such specific effect directly caused by the words someone said, then you have no case. Does this sound like terms nearly impossible to satisfy? Hmmm, maybe that was the Court's intention! These terms are slightly relaxed during war-time, but that's not relevent here. End of rational argument-------- What is the reason given for defending so vehemently the fact of the holocaust? So no one forgets so it will not happen again, is my understanding. Come on guys! If a large population is ever worked up emotionally to the point that the Germans were that they ignored what was happening, they are not going to be listening to outsiders pointing to history books. I don't claim to be any sort of expert, but it seems to me that mob psychology indicates that rationality is useless in such situations. If the Jewish community is really concerned that such a horrible thing will happen to them again, they should concentrate their efforts in very pragmatic directions - like improving their group public image through traditional advertising means. Other groups have ad's that I've seen. Even while recognizing the fact that they are ads, I have gained a much more positive attitude towards the Mormons, for instance, from seeing the goodwill they are trying to put across in their TV commercials. I should mention that I am an atheist, so all religions are equally stupid in my eyes unless they do or say something to cause me to revise that opinion. I'm not anti-semitic any more than I'm anti-christian or anti-anything-else. But while I certainly believe the holocaust happened, I don't see that anything is accomplished by screaming bloody murder at those pathetic fools who deny it. Don't dignify them with response. If a significant group of people are willing to listen to them, the Jewish community has a deeper, PR problem. Melissa Silvestre
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (10/22/85)
In <121@mit-hector.UUCP> melissa@mit-hector.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre) writes: > >First I'd like to note that it was the US Supreme Court that decided >that cases like screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre are not >protected. From what I've been able to gather of this conversation, >the relevent comments were made under Canadian jurisdiction. Since >when does Canada autmoatically adopt decisions by the US SC? Or did >I miss something? No, Canadian courts do not recognize U.S. courts as binding authority. However, the same principles of defamation, which originate in English common law, apply in Canada. Canadian courts have indeed discussed the "fire in a theater" hypothetical. > What is the reason given for defending so vehemently the fact of >the holocaust? So no one forgets so it will not happen again, is >my understanding. Come on guys! That is not the primary concern here. The primary concern is that those who deny the fact of the Holocaust claim that it was invented by Jews to gain reparations from Germany and/or to justify the existence of the State of Israel. These people are calling my relatives thieves and liars. That is defamation. They are also clearly stirring up anti-semitism, by encouraging non-Jews to believe that "the Jews" are thieves and liars. That is criminal racism. > I should mention that I am an atheist, so all religions are equally stupid >in my eyes unless they do or say something to cause me to revise that >opinion. Judaism and Jews ask nothing from the world except to be allowed to practice their own religion without persecution. We certainly don't proselytize. We have no interest in "converting" the world. Our religion may be "stupid" in your eyes, but we entitled to defend our right to practice it without others stirring up hatred against us. >If a significant group of people are willing to listen to them, >the Jewish community has a deeper, PR, problem. Unfortunately, the Jewish community has had that PR problem for a couple of thousand years. We do what we can, and educating people by exposing as criminal those who foment hatred against us is part of it. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave