sdd@pyuxh.UUCP (S Daniels) (09/21/85)
Mr. Black has written things that come close to denying the occurrence of the Holocaust. He's certainly been supportive of the gentleman in Canada that was arrested on that charge, and denying the occurrence of the Holocaust is illegal in at least one country that receives this net (Canada). Question: Is Mr. Black inviting a request to appear before a Canadian (or another country's) judge to answer to that charge? -- Steve Daniels (!pyuxh!sdd) "I'm counting the smiles on the road to Utopia."
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/23/85)
In article <195@pyuxh.UUCP> sdd@pyuxh.UUCP (S Daniels) writes: >Mr. Black has written things that come close to denying the occurrence >of the Holocaust. He's certainly been supportive of the gentleman in >Canada that was arrested on that charge, and denying the occurrence of the >Holocaust is illegal in at least one country that receives this net (Canada). That's right, and it's a disgrace. When I lived in Canada, I used to maintain that the (then-proposed) Charter Of Rights wouldn't mean a thing, since the Canadian courts have a long history of deferring to Parliament. And so, in the first major tests of the free speech rights, a couple of Nazis get convicted for saying that the Holocaust didn't happen. Sic semper the benevolence of the state... Actually, in at least one of the cases, I'm told that Eddie Greenspan, Canada's finest criminal lawyer, was prepared to defend the Nazi pro bono. Greenspan's defense plan was said to have been simple: either you have free speech or you don't, and the truth, falsity or obnoxiousness of what the guy has to say is all irrelevant. However, the jerk said that he didn't want one of those Damn Jews defending him, and instead hired a well-known right-wing nitwit named Doug Christie. Christie's defense was that well, maybe the guy is right. Since you'd have to be a nut or a fool to believe that, the guy was convicted -- and now a number of Western Canadian lawyers that I know won't talk to Christie, because he blew the world's easiest case, and, incidentally, also set a rather nasty precedent: that the Hate Laws stand up under the Charter. For fairly obvious reasons, few informed Canadians are happy about that. > >Question: Is Mr. Black inviting a request to appear before >a Canadian (or another country's) judge to answer to that charge? I hope not. Free speech is free speech, and while I think that what Black has to say is about five degrees the other side of lunacy, he still has a right to say it, lest you lose your right to speak. -- Rick.
alan@sun.uucp (Alan Marr) (09/24/85)
Thank you Rick McGeer for your informative comments. As a Canadian
in the US, I think we can learn a lot from the American democratic
experiment, mostly in the direction of more rights and less state.
On the other hand, I think that there need to be more effective
ways to combat misinformation. Perhaps the best is to take education
seriously and not treat it like the joke most people seem to
consider it. An intelligent, informed populace is the best defence
of freedom possible.
---
{ucbvax,decwrl}!sun!alan
"Extraordinary how potent cheap music is." Noel Cowardmrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/25/85)
In article <10451@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: > Actually, in at least one of the cases, I'm told that Eddie Greenspan, > Canada's finest criminal lawyer, was prepared to defend the Nazi pro bono. > Greenspan's defense plan was said to have been simple: either you have > free speech or you don't, and the truth, falsity or obnoxiousness of what > the guy has to say is all irrelevant. However, the jerk said that he > didn't want one of those Damn Jews defending him, and instead hired a > well-known right-wing nitwit named Doug Christie. How ironically fitting. > I hope not. Free speech is free speech, and while I think that what Black > has to say is about five degrees the other side of lunacy, he still has a > right to say it, lest you lose your right to speak. I agree that Black has a right under American law to say what he's saying. On the other hand, I think that freedom of speech is only one of several freedoms we try to maintain, and is occasionally in conflict with the others. Thus Canada's hate laws negotiate the conflict between freedom of speech and other liberties. Let's look at some hypothetical analogies. A racist leader says "I want that Jew/Nigger/whatever dead" to a crowd of his followers, expecting that his wishes will be carried out. If the next day the subject is found dead, and the murderer claims he was obeying the leader, is the leader guilty of conspiracy? Say he hasn't yet been obeyed: is he still guilty of conspiracy? Suppose he says that he wants all of them dead: is he still guilty of conspiracy? The fact is that freedom of speech always has been constrained, and never has been absolute. At the fringes of common exercise of free speech we will encounter cases where other liberties or practical matters constrain us. Where we (the people, government, whatever) decide is up to us. I routinely prefer enlarging freedoms, but in the case of racial hatred, I could swing either way. And personally, I'm glad to see racism actively combatted. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (09/25/85)
> the first major tests of the free speech rights, a couple of Nazis get convicted > for saying that the Holocaust didn't happen. > ... > number of Western Canadian lawyers that I know won't talk to Christie, because > he blew the world's easiest case, and, incidentally, also set a rather nasty > precedent: that the Hate Laws stand up under the Charter. For fairly obvious > reasons, few informed Canadians are happy about that. > -- Rick. While I agree, a defense of "they might be right" is absurd, I don't consider this case "easiest in the world", as you seem to imply. Remember the famous "shouting fire in the theater" case, where the abuse of free speech might be harmful to society. Similarly, if not more so, denying the existence of the holocaust is (I believe) *very* dangerous in the long run. On this basis, I would support a law/ruling prohibiting individuals from making such claims. The trouble is, I can't *prove* it is dangerous. I just feel that some will be convinced/brainwashed, and learning from history will be more difficult, and the event is more likely to be repeated. Even if this scenario is unlikely, the risks are very great. The question is not trivial legally, or philosophically. -- This .signature file intentionally left blank. Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/25/85)
> Remember the famous "shouting fire in the theater" case, where the abuse > of free speech might be harmful to society. > Similarly, if not more so, denying the existence > of the holocaust is (I believe) *very* dangerous in the long run. Do you really equate such nonsense as denying the holocaust with yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre? The believability of the two (especially given the circumstances) differs by quite a wide margin. >On this basis, I would support a law/ruling prohibiting individuals from >making such claims. The trouble is, I can't *prove* it is dangerous. >I just feel that some will be convinced/brainwashed, >and learning from history will be more difficult, >and...[atrocious events are]...more likely to be repeated. >Even if this scenario is unlikely, the risks are very great. >The question is not trivial legally, or philosophically. You know, I almost keeled over when I read this. The above sentiment mirrors my feelings on belief in a God to a tee. Would you support a law prohibiting religion, even though I couldn't "*prove* it is dangerous"? No, I wouldn't either. But it demonstrates how ridiculous your idea is. > Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad "Now see HERE! I speak fifty languages fluently, but gibberish isn't one of them." Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (09/26/85)
> > Remember the famous "shouting fire in the theater" case, where the abuse > > of free speech might be harmful to society. > Do you really equate such nonsense as denying the holocaust > with yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre? The believability > of the two (especially given the circumstances) differs by > quite a wide margin. Argument accepted, the prosecution rests. I shall defend free speech hereinafter (though it is sometimes painful). > >The trouble is, I can't *prove* it is dangerous. > Would you support a law prohibiting religion, even though I > couldn't "*prove* it is dangerous"? No, I wouldn't either. But beware, I will be working on a dangerousness "proof". Until I find one, congratulations, you have changed a mind. After all, a mind that can never change is no mind at all. Whoever said net.politics was useless?? > "Now see HERE! I speak fifty languages > fluently, but gibberish isn't one of them." > Scott J. Berry The only fly in the ointment is the flanatory nature of your response, which is unwarranted, given the quality of your defense. -- This .signature file intentionally left blank. Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/27/85)
In article <773@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <10451@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >> I hope not. Free speech is free speech, and while I think that what Black >> has to say is about five degrees the other side of lunacy, he still has a >> right to say it, lest you lose your right to speak. > >I agree that Black has a right under American law to say what he's saying. > >On the other hand, I think that freedom of speech is only one of several >freedoms we try to maintain, and is occasionally in conflict with the >others. Thus Canada's hate laws negotiate the conflict between freedom >of speech and other liberties. I don't see the other liberties that are involved here. No single individual can reasonably claim to be injured by what Black and the nut in Toronto said: people might claim psychological damage, and while I don't doubt that for a minute, the appropriate place to hash that out is in the civil rather than criminal courts. > >Let's look at some hypothetical analogies. A racist leader says "I want that >Jew/Nigger/whatever dead" to a crowd of his followers, expecting that his >wishes will be carried out. If the next day the subject is found dead, >and the murderer claims he was obeying the leader, is the leader guilty >of conspiracy? Say he hasn't yet been obeyed: is he still guilty of >conspiracy? Suppose he says that he wants all of them dead: is he still >guilty of conspiracy? Even if they actively planned the murder, in California an overt act would be required. You'd have to buy the gun, or head for the suspect's house, or something. It would be interesting to see whether the courts would convict the Nazi leader in the event of an overt act or a murder. Presumably, they'd look for evidence that the Nazi leader wanted his wishes carried out, in which case he'd probably be hit with an accessory charge at the least. There is a large gulf, however, between calling for the murder of some individual and disputing the fact of the Holocaust. However hurtful discussions on the latter point are, it is nevertheless a valid historical debate. If your claim is that an overwhelming preponderance of evidence exists on one side of this debate, that is true -- but there is also an overwhelming body of evidence which says that George Washington was a man, or that Harry Truman believed that there would be a million Japanese and American casualties in an invasion of Japan, and yet there are people willing to dispute either of these things, and we do not restrict them. But Black is a racist, you say? Prove it. Very likely, I agree -- but one can hold Black's views on the Holocaust and not be a racist. True, I've never met anyone who holds Black's views who's not a racist, but the conclusion doesn't follow. > >The fact is that freedom of speech always has been constrained, and never >has been absolute. At the fringes of common exercise of free speech we >will encounter cases where other liberties or practical matters constrain >us. Where we (the people, government, whatever) decide is up to us. >I routinely prefer enlarging freedoms, but in the case of racial hatred, >I could swing either way. And personally, I'm glad to see racism actively >combatted. >-- Well, me too, to a point -- that is, I'm glad to see people calling racists slime, but I'm not happy to see them go to jail. Racism is merely one aspect of hate -- but then, all forms of hate are equally valid. Should Farrakan, a man who hates whites in general and Jews in particular, be silenced? How about some of the truly man-hating feminists? Or, for that matter, the misogynists in porno magazines? And while we're at it, how about those who spread class hatred, such as the CWP. The CWP used to claim that "racists and fascists have no right to speak" -- bold claims for a group that advocated the mass execution of the "rich" and, if memory serves correct, called for the assasination of several US Presidents. Then what about newspapers and magazines that preach hatred for the United States, under the thinly-veiled disguise of sticking up for obscure Marxist dictatorships? The whatever in your piece begs an awfully large question. I'm not a very big fan of "whatever" deciding what I get to read. I'd sooner make my own choice, thanks. Somehow, I think that the Republic will survive it. Rick.
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/30/85)
In article <305@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes: >> the first major tests of the free speech rights, a couple of Nazis get convicted >> for saying that the Holocaust didn't happen. >> ... >> number of Western Canadian lawyers that I know won't talk to Christie, because >> he blew the world's easiest case, and, incidentally, also set a rather nasty >> precedent: that the Hate Laws stand up under the Charter. For fairly obvious >> reasons, few informed Canadians are happy about that. >> -- Rick. > >While I agree, a defense of "they might be right" is absurd, >I don't consider this case "easiest in the world", as you seem to imply. >Remember the famous "shouting fire in the theater" case, where the abuse >of free speech might be harmful to society. >Similarly, if not more so, denying the existence >of the holocaust is (I believe) *very* dangerous in the long run. >On this basis, I would support a law/ruling prohibiting individuals from >making such claims. The trouble is, I can't *prove* it is dangerous. >I just feel that some will be convinced/brainwashed, >and learning from history will be more difficult, >and the event is more likely to be repeated. >Even if this scenario is unlikely, the risks are very great. >The question is not trivial legally, or philosophically. >-- > This .signature file intentionally left blank. > Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad The hell it's not. "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free". In the long run, teaching kids socialism is dangerous, and I can damned well prove it: look how many people on this net believe in socialism. The case of yelling fire in a crowded theatre is provably, and immediately, damaging. But in this country libels whose impact is far more immediate than an abstract debate on the holocaust go unpunished -- consider the Westmoreland or Sharon cases. Or consider the rather vast number that assured us that there were and are no concentration camps in the Soviet Union, or that Nicaragua is a wronged paradise... If people are allowed to say that there was no holocaust, a certain percentage on the lunatic fringe will believe it -- but so long as the vast majority speaks the truth , and speaks it loudly and clearly, the risk to freedom from them is far less, in my mind, than from those who would deny them speech. Rick.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/09/85)
>The hell it's not. "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you >free". In the long run, teaching kids socialism is dangerous, and I can damned >well prove it: look how many people on this net believe in socialism. The > > Rick. Some proof! I guess the underlying assumption is that because many people see the benefits of socialism, their understanding must be false. By analogy, because few people believe the benefits of libertarianism, their beliefs must be true, eh? Second underlying assumption: having a false belief is dangerous. The second assumption may be true, and it is possible that belief in the benefits of socialism is false, but pointing to the fact that a large number of people believe it as a proof of its danger ... Logic, anyone? How do you discover the truth, Rick? Answer that, and you can have the world for your oyster. (OK, I know. Just believe -- it's all in the Good Book if you can decipher it correctly, and not as those other misguided souls read it.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (10/11/85)
In article <645@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry) writes: > > > Remember the famous "shouting fire in the theater" case, where the abuse > > of free speech might be harmful to society. > > Similarly, if not more so, denying the existence > > of the holocaust is (I believe) *very* dangerous in the long run. > > Do you really equate such nonsense as denying the holocaust > with yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre? The believability > of the two (especially given the circumstances) differs by > quite a wide margin. Unfortunately, there are many people in North America who are not familiar with the facts of the Holocaust, and who may be willing to swallow the venom which Black, Zundel and others spew forth. Central to Zundel's publications is the allegation that the Holocaust was invented by Jews to gain reparations from Germany. It is not hard to see the implications of someone reading and believing this claim. If all Jews are liars (as they must be), how can one trust Jews? See my posting "Hate literature law no violation of freedom of speech", cross-posted to net.politics and net.legal, Message-ID: 842@lsuc.UUCP>. David Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (10/11/85)
In article <10477@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >I don't see the other liberties that are involved here. No single individual >can reasonably claim to be injured by what Black and the nut in Toronto said: >people might claim psychological damage, and while I don't doubt that for a >minute, the appropriate place to hash that out is in the civil rather than >criminal courts. It is precisely because there is damage to a group and not to an individual that the criminal law is an appropriate remedy. >There is a large gulf, however, between calling for the murder of some >individual and disputing the fact of the Holocaust. However hurtful >discussions on the latter point are, it is nevertheless a valid historical >debate. If your claim is that an overwhelming preponderance of evidence >exists on one side of this debate, that is true -- but there is also an >overwhelming body of evidence which says that George Washington was a man, >or that Harry Truman believed that there would be a million Japanese and >American casualties in an invasion of Japan, and yet there are people willing >to dispute either of these things, and we do not restrict them. The issue is not just the dispute of the fact of the Holocaust. Zundel's publications (and Black's postings) claim that the Holocaust was fabricated by Jews for personal gain. Since Jews the world over testify to what happened in the Holocaust, this is a claim that a particular group - Jews - are liars who cannot be trusted. THAT is racism and the violation of the right to reputation of a large segment of society. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (10/14/85)
In article <1706@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >>The hell it's not. "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you >>free". In the long run, teaching kids socialism is dangerous, and I can damned >>well prove it: look how many people on this net believe in socialism. The >> >> Rick. > >Some proof! I guess the underlying assumption is that because many >people see the benefits of socialism, their understanding must be >false. By analogy, because few people believe the benefits of >libertarianism, their beliefs must be true, eh? Second underlying >assumption: having a false belief is dangerous. The second >assumption may be true, and it is possible that belief in the benefits >of socialism is false, but pointing to the fact that a large number >of people believe it as a proof of its danger ... Logic, anyone? Can you say "taken out of context"? The point of the piece was that once you decide that spreading one idea (in the case in question, racism) is dangerous, and hence must be restricted, then you can make that case for almost any idea. I lived in British Columbia most of my life, including the three years it was under the NDP: BC still hasn't fully recovered from the ravages of the Barrett government. I know socialism is dangerous, just as an East European knows it's dangerous. Should I then be able to restrict the dissemination of socialist ideas? You know better. Should you, or the Canadian courts, be able to restrict the dissemination of racist ideas? No. The key is that the one implies the other. > >How do you discover the truth, Rick? Answer that, and you can have >the world for your oyster. > >(OK, I know. Just believe -- it's all in the Good Book if you can >decipher it correctly, and not as those other misguided souls read it.) I don't know what the hell this means, and I suspect that you don't, either. Did you read my piece before you decided to flame?