The Pope rejects ALL Holocaust denial [Archive]

drkitten

13th February 2009, 08:47 AM

Since when is the holocaust part of catholic dogma?

Catholic dogma has included "speaking the truth" since at least St. Augustine (4th century a.d.)

Since the existence of the Holocaust is a demonstrably truth, and denial of the Holocaust is a demonstrable lie (see the Irving trial for a clear-cut example), denial of the Holocaust violates Catholic dogma.

And why doesn't he speak out against people who are arrested, fined and imprisoned for questioning the holocaust all in countries that are supposedly "democracies" such as Austria, Canada, France and Germany?

Because being arrested, fined, and imprisoned for telling lies is not a human rights violation.

Everyone having to accept the same opinion with no dissent allowed is totalitarianism.

Not if the opinion is a demonstrable truth and the dissent is a demonstrable and deliberate lie.

Only a liar or someone who has something to hide would

... deny the Holocaust.

Soapy Sam

13th February 2009, 08:51 AM

Chaos

13th February 2009, 09:22 AM

Well, without being nasty, he ought to know. He was there at the time after all.

Whether denying historical fact is anti semitic or anti anything is irrelevant.

It's incorrect. That's what matters. Sure, all history is incorrect too, but not that damned incorrect.

More impressive would have been similar firmness of thought from the Vatican in 1940.

Slightly less impressive, but a firm indication that they actually mean it would have been the excommunication of even a single Nazi mass murderer.

But it seems you can only get thrown out of the Church if you disagree with the Pope on matters of doctrine. Genocide is apparently not serious enough.

drkitten

13th February 2009, 09:47 AM

But it seems you can only get thrown out of the Church if you disagree with the Pope on matters of doctrine. Genocide is apparently not serious enough.

It makes sense, though, especially in a historical context.

The Church is not responsible for enforcing secular law, and most people consider it to be a bad thing when the Church takes an active role in law enforcement. Even for most of the Middle Ages, a priest accused of murder would not have been excommunicated, but simply "handed over to the secular arm."

The Church is responsible for enforcing its own doctrine, because the secular arm won't touch it.

And from the point of view of the Church, sinners -- and genocidal maniacs are most certainly sinners -- are the people most in need of the Church, so that they can repent and be saved. Merely killing a murderer is the job of the secular arm. But excommunicating him before he is killed will damn his soul as well.

Vic Vega

13th February 2009, 10:53 AM

Most Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites.

Most? I challenge you to find one who isn't.

Oh, there are some morons who post here who claim that they aren't anti-semites and still deny the Holocaust, but I'm not buying it. It's a convenient way to make them seem more credible. It isn't working.

dudalb

13th February 2009, 11:16 AM

Most? I challenge you to find one who isn't.

Oh, there are some morons who post here who claim that they aren't anti-semites and still deny the Holocaust, but I'm not buying it. It's a convenient way to make them seem more credible. It isn't working.

There are a few Libertarians who are Holocaust Deniers because it helps in their belief the US entry in World War 2 was wrong ,and ,of course, a few morons who will support any theory that is "Anti Establishment" "Edgy" and "Daring", but I would say in 95% of the cases Holocaust Deniers are Anti Semities.

Cleon

13th February 2009, 11:25 AM

There are a few Libertarians who are Holocaust Deniers because it helps in their belief the US entry in World War 2 was wrong ,and ,of course, a few morons who will support any theory that is "Anti Establishment" "Edgy" and "Daring", but I would say in 95% of the cases Holocaust Deniers are Anti Semities.

I find it difficult to imagine that it's as low as 95%.

Holocaust denial is based on the idea that there is/was a Jewish conspiracy to fabricate the Holocaust, and the underlying notion behind that is the idea that this Jewish conspiracy secretly controls world affairs.

Both notions are inherently anti-Semitic, so I fail to see a way for a Holocaust denier to not be an anti-Semite.

Chaos

13th February 2009, 12:33 PM

I find it difficult to imagine that it's as low as 95%.

Holocaust denial is based on the idea that there is/was a Jewish conspiracy to fabricate the Holocaust, and the underlying notion behind that is the idea that this Jewish conspiracy secretly controls world affairs.

Both notions are inherently anti-Semitic, so I fail to see a way for a Holocaust denier to not be an anti-Semite.

Oh, I´m sure there are some Deniers who simply haven´t thought about it to the point where they realized that a "Holohoax" must necessarily involve active deception on part of the jews.

But I agree that the "scholar" and the proselytizing Deniers are all active or passive anti-semites.

"Active" means, in this context, that they´re deniers because that´s what their anti-semitism leads them to believe, "passive" means that they´re anti-semites because that´s what their Holocaust Denial leads them to believe.

Tony Inchpractice

13th February 2009, 12:47 PM

TriskettheKid

13th February 2009, 01:32 PM

Well, let's break it up, then.

A number of 95% sure seems low for hard denial of the Holocaust.

But if we're including soft denial of the Holocaust, too, than I can see how the number could be as low as 95%, or even 90%.

The Central Scrutinizer

13th February 2009, 02:12 PM

I deny that there is any such thing as a Holocaust denier. What does the pope think about that?

drkitten

13th February 2009, 02:23 PM

I deny that there is any such thing as a Holocaust denier. What does the pope think about that?

He thinks you're an idiot for making that statement.

As do I.

Vic Vega

13th February 2009, 02:36 PM

He thinks you're an idiot for making that statement.

As do I.

I think he was being facetious.

dudalb

13th February 2009, 03:08 PM

Oh, I´m sure there are some Deniers who simply haven´t thought about it to the point where they realized that a "Holohoax" must necessarily involve active deception on part of the jews.

But I agree that the "scholar" and the proselytizing Deniers are all active or passive anti-semites.

"Active" means, in this context, that they´re deniers because that´s what their anti-semitism leads them to believe, "passive" means that they´re anti-semites because that´s what their Holocaust Denial leads them to believe.

That is pretty much where I was coming from. Some of the Libertarian support for Holocaust Denial comes from they just don't get what it implies.
And their belief that making Nazi Germany less evil makes the case for US Involvment with WW2 a little weaker, which supports Libertarians extreme isolationist approach to foreign policy.

Chaos

13th February 2009, 03:16 PM

That is pretty much where I was coming from. Some of the Libertarian support for Holocaust Denial comes from they just don't get what it implies.
And their belief that making Nazi Germany less evil makes the case for US Involvment with WW2 a little weaker, which supports Libertarians extreme isolationist approach to foreign policy.

The problem with Libertarians is that they don´t get what a lot of things imply.

How much of that is inability to get it, and how much just unwillingness, is anybody´s guess.

grunion

13th February 2009, 03:23 PM

Has the Pope unequivocally stated that the Protocols of the Elders Of Zion is a hoax? That travesty (espoused by Williamson, in addition to propagation of antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theories) has been the ostensible source behind a lot of European antisemitism. It sure would be nice if the Pope worked to help heal the wounds caused by a century of tacit acceptance.

dudalb

13th February 2009, 03:51 PM

The problem with Libertarians is that they don´t get what a lot of things imply.

How much of that is inability to get it, and how much just unwillingness, is anybody´s guess.

:clap::clap::clap:

The wierd thing is I favor limited government and generally like a free market economy, but the Libertarians take it to the point of insanity.
They are a prime example of "when facts conflict with my ideology, facts must be gotten rid of".

The Central Scrutinizer

13th February 2009, 10:05 PM

He thinks you're an idiot for making that statement.

As do I.

I deny there is a pope.

geni

13th February 2009, 10:32 PM

I deny there is a pope.

That position actualy has supportes (the more popular version is there hasn't been a pope since the Second Vatican Council).

a_unique_person

14th February 2009, 01:13 AM

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/europe/13pope.php

I applaud this move. Most Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites.

I don't recall any Popes ever being Holocaust deniers, or the Catholic Church. The problem his apparent welcoming back into the fold of a Holocaust denier, which gave tacit approval that persons Holocaust denying views. After a week or so of dithering, he made it clear that Williamson is wrong, and the Church does not support his views at all.

Silentknight

14th February 2009, 11:16 AM

Most? I challenge you to find one who isn't.

Oh, there are some morons who post here who claim that they aren't anti-semites and still deny the Holocaust, but I'm not buying it. It's a convenient way to make them seem more credible. It isn't working.

Remember, they don't call themselves racists, they call themselves racialists.* :D

* Po-tay-to, po-tah-toh

hgc

14th February 2009, 02:19 PM

I don't recall any Popes ever being Holocaust deniers, or the Catholic Church. The problem his apparent welcoming back into the fold of a Holocaust denier, which gave tacit approval that persons Holocaust denying views. After a week or so of dithering, he made it clear that Williamson is wrong, and the Church does not support his views at all.

To which I say, gee thanks. Having the Pope deny Holocaust denial is sort of having like having sort of like having a vegetarian inform you with pride that he won't eat meat. Like, yeah -- knew that already.

But the Holocaust denial is of no interest to this Pope. You have to look at the reason for excommunication in the first place. Williamson and his cohorts were elevated to bishop by Archbishop Lefebvre, founder of their cult, beyond his authority. What the cultists objected to were the reforms of Vatican II. Nothing has changed about their cause since JPII threw them out. But Pope Ratzi is completely sympathetic with their cause, having already reinstituted pre-Vatican II Mass mumbo-jumbo that blames the Jews for nailing up their man-god.

a_unique_person

14th February 2009, 02:43 PM

But the Holocaust denial is of no interest to this Pope. You have to look at the reason for excommunication in the first place. Williamson and his cohorts were elevated to bishop by Archbishop Lefebvre, founder of their cult, beyond his authority. What the cultists objected to were the reforms of Vatican II. Nothing has changed about their cause since JPII threw them out. But Pope Ratzi is completely sympathetic with their cause, having already reinstituted pre-Vatican II Mass mumbo-jumbo that blames the Jews for nailing up their man-god.

I'm an ex catholic, and the Vatican II changes happened when I was young. It was like a breath of fresh air and sanity in an institution that was masochistic and hated life. Pain and suffering were what was good for you, it helped you spend less time in Purgatory when you died.

Ratzi and his conservative charge for the good old days is just one more step backwards, including a mass that prays for the conversion of the jews to xianity, and by that he means the 'one true faith'.

The question wasn't, is Ratzi and his coterie going to acknowledge that anti-semitism in the latin mass, but is he a holocaust denier or does he support those who are. There was never any hint of there being holocaust deniers when I was part of the church, but the latin mass and it's occasional reference to Jews was supposed to gone. Now it's back. And I'm glad I'm not a catholic any more and having to think up ways to defend the church.

Alex Libman

14th February 2009, 02:44 PM

There are a few Libertarians who are Holocaust Deniers because it helps in their belief the US entry in World War 2 was wrong [...]

Why bring us libertarians into this? I've never met a libertarian who was a genuine holocaust denier - it's very well documented that millions of Jews did die, including members of my own family.

But as I've pointed out here before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119964), a number of historical details are still up for debate. People who just question the mystical "six million" number or other historical details, some of which were written for Stalin's benefit, are not "holocaust deniers"!

Most libertarians merely defend the deniers' right to free speech. People should be free to explore all historical theories, no matter how unpopular or irrational, without fear of government retribution!

And there are plenty of good libertarian arguments for why US shouldn't have been involved in WW1 (without which there wouldn't have been a WW2)...

And you most certainly will never meet a libertarian who would have objected to Jews being allowed to immigrate to America - if that had happened not only the holocaust but the Palestinian situation would have been avoided!

hgc

14th February 2009, 03:42 PM

Are these True Libertarians you refer to related to the True Scotsmen of rhetorical fame?

Alex Libman

14th February 2009, 03:54 PM

Well, libertarians are a big tent, but specific philosophies are fairly well defined, in my case gradualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism) anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism).

The (big-L) Libertarian Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)) doesn't speak for the whole (small-l) libertarian movement, but it tends to be more moderate than the libertarians who reject politics outright. Nonetheless, its official policy states (http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Immigration.htm):

We welcome all refugees to our country. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference. We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

Thus it's perfectly valid for me to say that libertarian philosophy would have made the holocaust impossible.

al_capone_junior

14th February 2009, 04:01 PM

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/europe/13pope.php

I applaud this move. Most Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites.

**yawn**

"most 9/11 conspiracy theorists are Anti-USA deniers."

More of the same...

The pope is so disconnected from reality, the only reason anything he says makes any difference at all is that a lot of people are stupid enough to believe [I]he's a man of god. When he's just a moron, stuck on 2,000+ years of stupid.

So the frigg what?

The pope is just trying to do damage control from his own collosal stupidity.

hgc

14th February 2009, 04:06 PM

**yawn**

"most 9/11 conspiracy theorists are Anti-USA deniers."

More of the same...

The pope is so disconnected from reality, the only reason anything he says makes any difference at all is that a lot of people are stupid enough to believe [I]he's a man of god. When he's just a moron, stuck on 2,000+ years of stupid.

So the frigg what?

The pope is just trying to do damage control from his own collosal stupidity.

Pope Ratzi may also be suffering the effects of long term cognitive dissonance about his own homosexuality, and the new strain that his crackdown on gays in the priesthood is putting on him. But you gotta love the red shoes.

al_capone_junior

14th February 2009, 04:39 PM

Pope Ratzi may also be suffering the effects of long term cognitive dissonance about his own homosexuality, and the new strain that his crackdown on gays in the priesthood is putting on him. But you gotta love the red shoes.

You're a sick, twisted, sick individual.

I like that in a person. :D

:alien009:

drkitten

14th February 2009, 06:10 PM

Why bring us libertarians into this?

Because a number of you deny the Holocaust. From your own writings, you are likely to be one of them.

I've never met a libertarian who was a genuine holocaust denier - it's very well documented that millions of Jews did die, including members of my own family.

Well, that's very nice. It's also classic denial tactics. "No, I'm not denying the deaths of lots of Jews, I'm just denying everything about their deaths that makes the Holocaust a noteworthy historical episode and that distinguishes the deliberate creation by the Nazi of extermination camps from ordinary POW housing or civilian concentration camps."

But as I've pointed out here before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119964), a number of historical details are still up for debate.

Except that most of those "details" are not up for debate by anyone other than Holocaust deniers. From your very own writings:

The questions that are up for debate are:

(1) Should this debate even be allowed in the first place, or should people questioning or even probing deeper into the history of the Holocaust be jailed as Holocaust Deniers, as they are in some European countries?

(2) What were the intentions of the German government in putting the Jews (and other groups) in concentration camps? Was it their original intention to kill them all? Did they offer them as bargaining chips in negotiations with the Allies?

(3) How many Jews died and of what cause - how many were gassed alive in the camps, and how many died of disease, hunger, Allied bombing, were killed outside the camps, etc. Will the "Hitler killed 6 million Jews" claim stand an unbiased historical analysis?

In reverse order: No, the six million Jews is an oversimplification, and genuine historical scholarship has reduced the consensus figure slightly to five million and change. The consensus figure for the number killed specifically by gassing is between one and two million; the consensus figure for the number killed by Allied bombing is believed to be very small.

The only people who seriously dispute these consensus figures are the Holocaust deniers, and their evidentiary standards are such that they need not be taken seriously (see the Irving trial for example).

The intention of the German government in setting up the extermination camps was to exterminate the inmates. (Duh.) You don't build special-purpose gassing chambers and crematoria that you don't plan to use.

And, finally, "debate" on the Holocaust is welcomed in all countries worldwide. "Denial" in the teeth of the evidence, especially coupled with documented lies, is not.

People who just question the mystical "six million" number or other historical details, some of which were written for Stalin's benefit, are not "holocaust deniers"!

No. But Libertarians don't "just question" the six million number. Many of them actively, dishonestly, deceptively, and in many cases unlawfully deny the Holocaust.

Most libertarians merely defend the deniers' right to free speech.

Again, this is untrue.

And there are plenty of good libertarian arguments for why US shouldn't have been involved in WW1 (without which there wouldn't have been a WW2)...

Really? Then why can't you make that argument without engaging in Holocaust denial?

Thunder

14th February 2009, 07:24 PM

If you deny the Holocaust because you believe that there was a secret Zionist-Jewish conspiracy to make up a false genocide in order to steal billions of dollars in reperations from the Europeans and get support for the State of Israel, then your views are grounded in anti-Semitism and no further debate is neccessary.

hgc

14th February 2009, 09:02 PM

...
Really? Then why can't you make that argument without engaging in Holocaust denial?

This is an important question. It brings to mind the problem of libertarians (some of them) and the U.S. Civil War. One of the principal outcomes of the Civil War was the strengthening of federal government at the expense of the powers of the individual states. This is anathema to the libertarian ideal. So what historical revisionism accompanies the deligitimization of Lincoln's endeavor? That the war was not about slavery. That slavery was going to fade away anyway. And so on.

At least with WWII, we know that no countries fought against Germany in order to help out the Jews, so that Holocaust denial would accompany the argument against making war on Germany, as if it was casus belli, is really quite bizarre.

Alex Libman

14th February 2009, 10:13 PM

[...] Then why can't you make that argument without engaging in Holocaust denial?

I never engaged in Holocaust denial, but I see that I am talking to an irrational person for whom the term "Holocaust denial" has some sort of a special religious meaning. If I'm going to be burned at the stake for heresy, I'd like it to be over a more righteous issue than David Irving's civil liberties... :nope:

Piero

15th February 2009, 01:58 AM

erlando

15th February 2009, 02:29 AM

Piero

15th February 2009, 09:25 AM

Denying the holocaust is pointless historic revisionism. It's precisely the same as the ID vs evolution debate. It has nothing to do with scientific enquiry.

I agree with the first part. However, nowhere is the expression of ID beliefs banned by law.

I disagree with the second part. It has to do with the principles of scientific enquiry. We might all agree that holocaust deniers are dead wrong, or dishonest, or even despicable antisemite scoundrels. But if we allow their views to be silenced by law, we are opening the door to state-sponsored obscurantism.

My point is this: which of these two statements cannot legally be uttered in Austria?
a. It is not true that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis during WWII
b. Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth

Chaos

15th February 2009, 09:34 AM

Everything has to be open to debate and revision. Maybe it is abhorrent to question the evidence for the Holocaust, but what's at stake here is much more than our personal feelings of disgust: what's at stake is the very principle of scientific enquiry. Once we declare that some truths are state-sanctioned, incontrovertible, beyond discussion and debate, what distinguishes us from any dogmatic creed?

The Holocaust *is* open to debate and revision, the same as every other topic in history and science.

What the Holocaust is *not* is, open to lies, misrepresentation, fraud and anti-semitic hate-mongering, as engaged in by the pond scum who worship their St. Adolf, and their useful idiots in the Libertarian and conspiracy theorist camps.

You´re right, there *is* more at stake than personal disgust - what is at stake is the question, do we give those monsters in human form who have deliberately and maliciously murdered millions of people solely because of their ancestry another run at practicing their form of genocidal hatred? Or do we - heavens, no! - actually learn something from history, and toss them into the cesspool where they belong?

Show me just ONE Holocaust Denier who really, actually, genuinely, open-mindedly tries to find out something new about the Holocaust. Just ONE of them whose opinion, thus, is actually worth taking the time to listen to.

Piero

15th February 2009, 10:22 AM

What the Holocaust is *not* is, open to lies, misrepresentation, fraud and anti-semitic hate-mongering, as engaged in by the pond scum who worship their St. Adolf, and their useful idiots in the Libertarian and conspiracy theorist camps.
Anti-semitic hate-mongering is already a crime in every civilized country, as is hate-mongering in general. And rightly so. However, it is not the same to say "I don't believe the Holocaust ever happened" and "I think the Holocaust should happen again". I agree you should be legally restrained from asserting the second one, but not the first. Maybe all those who would utter the first would also utter the second. Fine. Then apply the appropriate legal sanctions when they utter the second.
In addition, many Muslims have in fact uttered the second without legal consequences. Are we to restrain antisemitism only when it originates in Nazi sympathizers, but allow it from Muslims? Why?

You´re right, there *is* more at stake than personal disgust - what is at stake is the question, do we give those monsters in human form who have deliberately and maliciously murdered millions of people solely because of their ancestry another run at practicing their form of genocidal hatred? Or do we - heavens, no! - actually learn something from history, and toss them into the cesspool where they belong?

First, those monsters in human form who deliberately and maliciously murdered millions of people are already dead. Nazi sympathizers today may be a despicable lot, but you cannot hold them responsible for crimes committed before they were born.
Toss them into the cesspool where they belong? By all means. But for the right reasons: toss them if they resort to violence, toss them if they conspire against democracy, toss them if they advocate racial hatred.

Show me just ONE Holocaust Denier who really, actually, genuinely, open-mindedly tries to find out something new about the Holocaust. Just ONE of them whose opinion, thus, is actually worth taking the time to listen to.

That's not the point. There are no IDers worth listening to either. Should we therefore ban ID?

Elizabeth I

15th February 2009, 11:19 AM

Show me just ONE Holocaust Denier who really, actually, genuinely, open-mindedly tries to find out something new about the Holocaust. Just ONE of them whose opinion, thus, is actually worth taking the time to listen to.

I'm going to have to go with Piero on this one. Holocaust denial is blind, stupid, dishonest, largely anti-Semitic, and disgusting. However, it should not be illegal. Criminalizing speech should be undertaken only in the direst, most exigent circumstances (the famous cliché about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example.)

Chaos

15th February 2009, 11:30 AM

I'm going to have to go with Piero on this one. Holocaust denial is blind, stupid, dishonest, largely anti-Semitic, and disgusting. However, it should not be illegal. Criminalizing speech should be undertaken only in the direst, most exigent circumstances (the famous cliché about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example.)

How many people have been murdered in the pursuit of ID? And how many will be murdered if ID rises to prominence?

Piero

15th February 2009, 11:49 AM

How many people have been murdered in the pursuit of ID? And how many will be murdered if ID rises to prominence?

How many people have been murdered in the pursuit of Holocaust denial?

Piero

15th February 2009, 11:56 AM

Chaos, I think you should take heed of your own signature:
Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled

hgc

15th February 2009, 12:01 PM

Anti-semitic hate-mongering is already a crime in every civilized country, as is hate-mongering in general. And rightly so.

:eye-poppi Really?

Perhaps you can tell me what you think "hate-mongering" is, because the allegedly civilized country I live in definitely does not criminalize it.

Elizabeth I

15th February 2009, 12:44 PM

How many people have been murdered in the pursuit of ID? And how many will be murdered if ID rises to prominence?

Huh? I think the IDers have a right to speak their idiocy as well.

drkitten

15th February 2009, 12:51 PM

My point is this: which of these two statements cannot legally be uttered in Austria?
a. It is not true that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis during WWII
b. Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth

Both of those statements can be legally uttered in Austria. Statement a), out of context, is not Holocaust denial.

Of course, if you put statement a) in a context where it is Holocaust denial, then it is illegal. Just as if you put statement b) in a statement where it is an incitement to riot, then statement b) is illegal.

drkitten

15th February 2009, 12:54 PM

I never engaged in Holocaust denial,

That is not clear from your posting.

As a matter of fact, the questions you ask are straight out of the IHR's Holocaust denial playbook.

On the basis of your posting(s), I have no problem calling you not only a Holocaust denier, but someone who lies about being a Holocaust denier as well.

drkitten

15th February 2009, 01:03 PM

Everything has to be open to debate and revision.

... and the Holocaust is open to debate and revision.

However, standard scholarly practice as well as the legal system insists that the debate, revision, and evidence, must be offered in good faith and not be based on knowingly false statements.

Maybe it is abhorrent to question the evidence for the Holocaust, but what's at stake here is much more than our personal feelings of disgust: what's at stake is the very principle of scientific enquiry.

Exactly. What's at stake here is the very principle of scientific inquiry. In particular, scientists don't have any more legal right or justification of telling lies than any other profession.

If, as a doctor, I knowingly tell lies, I've committed malpractice; I can have my license stripped, I can be fined, and I can be imprisoned.

If, as a banker, I knowingly tell lies, I've committed fraud; I can have my license stripped, I can be fined, and I can be imprisoned.

If, as a historian, I knowingly tell lies -- well, it's hard to strip licenses since historians aren't typically licensed. Does this mean that I shouldn't be subject to the other penalties.

That's why I keep referring to the Irving trial. It was well-established by testimony that Irving was not acting in good faith. He was lying.. He lied about documents. He lied about where they came from. He lied about his sources. He lied about his interpretations. He lied about the evidence that was out there, and he lied about the evidence that wasn't out there, that existed only in his imagination.

It wasn't about Irving being a bad historian, although he kept trying to paint it as that. It was about Irving not being a historian at all; just a liar.

Once we declare that some truths are state-sanctioned, incontrovertible, beyond discussion and debate, what distinguishes us from any dogmatic creed?

Logic and evidence. For some reason, even libertarians have no problem declaring that some truths are "state-sanctioned'; they insist, for example, that the state must act to eliminate frauds in the marketplace. If I tell you that a particular bottle contains penicillin when in fact the "truth" is that it only has colored water, the state is expected to sanction that truth and punish me accordingly.

What distinguishes the "truth" as revealed by chemical analysis from any dogmatic creed?

Chaos

15th February 2009, 01:40 PM

Huh? I think the IDers have a right to speak their idiocy as well.

The point is, ID is not trying to rehabilitate one of the most murderously evil regimes in history, and ID is not trying to instigate equally murderous hatred against a whole ethnic group.

If ID becomes the new scientific standard in the US, all the US does is shoot itself in the foot on an epic scale, which, while sad, might even be amusing in a rather tragicomic way.

However, if Holocaust Denial, and the whitewash of the Nazis and demonization of "The Jews" which inevitably follow from it, become the new historical standard in the US, the world´s jews (among many others) had rather find a very deep bolthole.

Elizabeth I

15th February 2009, 02:19 PM

The point is, ID is not trying to rehabilitate one of the most murderously evil regimes in history, and ID is not trying to instigate equally murderous hatred against a whole ethnic group.

If ID becomes the new scientific standard in the US, all the US does is shoot itself in the foot on an epic scale, which, while sad, might even be amusing in a rather tragicomic way.

However, if Holocaust Denial, and the whitewash of the Nazis and demonization of "The Jews" which inevitably follow from it, become the new historical standard in the US, the world´s jews (among many others) had rather find a very deep bolthole.

Much better to have it out where it can be openly refuted and combated than to send it underground where it can fester and grow in darkness.

Piero

15th February 2009, 02:31 PM

Drkitten and chaos, you've made some ethically valid points, and I agree with all of them, but ethics is not the same as the law.
Of course I agree that a historian who knowingly lies is ethically bankrupt; but lots of people knowingly lie every day and they are not prosecuted. Just have a look at TV advertisements.
Concerning ID not trying to rehabilitate a murderous regime, you could actually blame them for trying to turn the clock back a few centuries, when Christianity was in fact a murderous regime.
An ID proponent would certainly regard the Bible as the word of God, and hence would not only not deny the massacre of the Canaanites, but positively justify it (for an example, see this (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767) hair-raising article by William Lane Craig). But legally we cannot assume that because someone defends ID, then he/she is automatically defending the massacre of the Canaanites.
Should morons like William Lane Craig be imprisoned? No. They should be exposed, ridiculed, lambasted and lampooned mercilessly, but the legal path is in fact a slippery slope: legislative measures can turn against anyone at anytime; it only takes a change in the zeitgeist.

Piero

15th February 2009, 02:33 PM

Much better to have it out where it can be openly refuted and combated than to send it underground where it can fester and grow in darkness.

I wholeheartedly agree. See what happened during the prohibition.

drkitten

15th February 2009, 02:48 PM

Drkitten and chaos, you've made some ethically valid points, and I agree with all of them, but ethics is not the same as the law.

Of course not. Some types of lie are actionable, some aren't.

Of course I agree that a historian who knowingly lies is ethically bankrupt; but lots of people knowingly lie every day and they are not prosecuted.

That's hardly a defense for NOT prosecuting people who lie. Because some people get away with some kinds of lies, these people should be let go for different kinds of lies?

Just have a look at TV advertisements.

Good example. False advertising is a crime if it can be proven that you knowingly lied. The reason it's so rarely prosecuted is because it's so rare you have open-and-shut proof of lies. Similarly, we had open-and-shut proof of lies in the Irving trial,....

But there are also types of statements that are, legally, prima facie lies and cannot be used in advertisement. I think the phrase "guaranteed to cure" is one of them. (More accurately, if you use the phrase, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it's NOT a lie --- precisely because the phrase has been used so often as part of a fraud that the lawmakers decided to step on it preemptively.)

But legally we cannot assume that because someone defends ID, then he/she is automatically defending the massacre of the Canaanites.

Why can't we? We can write the law more or less any way we want, including putting in a presumption that ID'ers are defending the massacre of the Canaanites unless they state otherwise. Now, this is a silly way to write the law, esp. since as far as I can tell, it doesn't accurately describe most ID'ers. Certainly, I'd have a hard time defending such a proposed revision to my senator.

I have a much easier time justifying the association of Holocaust denial with violent anti-Semitism, especially if I'm doing so in Austria.

the legal path is in fact a slippery slope: legislative measures can turn against anyone at anytime; it only takes a change in the zeitgeist.

Well, I'm glad you acknowledge that your entire argument is fallacious.

The simple fact is that it's easier to change the law than the zeitgeist. If you want Holocaust denial NOT to be a crime, simply write the appropriate representative.

Piero

15th February 2009, 03:00 PM

Well, I'm glad you acknowledge that your entire argument is fallacious.

The simple fact is that it's easier to change the law than the zeitgeist. If you want Holocaust denial NOT to be a crime, simply write the appropriate representative.

I didn't understand this.

drkitten

15th February 2009, 03:06 PM

I didn't understand this.

"Slippery slope" is the well-known and well-understood name of a fallacy, the same fallacy you're making in most of your arguments: If you allow this, then you must allow that (despite the clear-cut difference in nature or scale between this and that).

The whole point of having a legislature responsive to the current needs and wants of the citizenry is to prevent abuses of the law-as-written and allow the law to be updated. The simple fact is that there is ample (documented) social harm from neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers, so there's direct reason to outlaw them. Absent any harm from, ID proponents, there will neither be need nor pressure to outlaw them.

And if there is need and pressure to outlaw them, then they will be outlawed on their own merits.

Piero

15th February 2009, 03:24 PM

"Slippery slope" is the well-known and well-understood name of a fallacy, the same fallacy you're making in most of your arguments: If you allow this, then you must allow that (despite the clear-cut difference in nature or scale between this and that).
I see. I had misunderstood the expression; thanks for clarifying its meaning. What I meant to say was that once you allow for some restrictions, it is very hard to stop further restrictions.

The whole point of having a legislature responsive to the current needs and wants of the citizenry is to prevent abuses of the law-as-written and allow the law to be updated. The simple fact is that there is ample (documented) social harm from neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers, so there's direct reason to outlaw them. Absent any harm from, ID proponents, there will neither be need nor pressure to outlaw them.

And if there is need and pressure to outlaw them, then they will be outlawed on their own merits.
I agree. But that's precisely the point I was trying to make (clumsily, I now realize). Infringement of other people's rights should be punishable by law, but the right not to be offended is not a right, because if it was then freedom of speech would cease to be a right. So, I can sympathize with Jews who are appalled by the declarations of Holocaust deniers, but that in itself is no reason to outlaw them; if, however, they engage in behaviour that threatens other people's liberties, then they are in breach of the law and should be prosecuted.

drkitten

15th February 2009, 03:32 PM

I see. I had misunderstood the expression; thanks for clarifying its meaning. What I meant to say was that once you allow for some restrictions, it is very hard to stop further restrictions.

Yes. I understood what you meant to say. It's the classic "slippery slope" fallacy.

What you meant to say is simply wrong. It's not hard to stop further restrictions. In fact, it requires no work at all to stop further restrictions, exactly because the Holocaust denial laws as written cannot be used to restrict proponents of Intelligent Design.

It would actually take more work to create further restrictions than it would NOT to create further restrictions.

Infringement of other people's rights should be punishable by law, but the right not to be offended is not a right, because if it was then freedom of speech would cease to be a right.

And "the right not to be offended" is not a right. And Holocaust denial isn't a violation of a person's "right not to be offended," but of a person's "right not to have violence incited against them" -- which is a right. And Holocaust denial is well established to be associated with incitement of violent crimes.

If you can establish that ID is also associated with the incitement to violence, then I will happily support outlawing ID on the same basis.

So, I can sympathize with Jews who are appalled by the declarations of Holocaust deniers, but that in itself is no reason to outlaw them; if, however, they engage in behaviour that threatens other people's liberties, then they are in breach of the law and should be prosecuted.

Exactly. You're making the mistake of assuming that Holocaust denial is outlawed because it's offensive. It's not. Both history and the law are very clear on that.

And that very confusion is one that is often deliberately fostered by Holocaust deniers under the guise of libertarianism, which brings us back to one of the earlier points.

Piero

15th February 2009, 04:11 PM

What you meant to say is simply wrong. It's not hard to stop further restrictions. In fact, it requires no work at all to stop further restrictions, exactly because the Holocaust denial laws as written cannot be used to restrict proponents of Intelligent Design.

It would actually take more work to create further restrictions than it would NOT to create further restrictions.
May I refer you to the poem FIRST THEY CAME FOR... (http://www.geocities.com/easytocall/Quotes.html) by Reverend Martin Niemoeller?

And "the right not to be offended" is not a right. And Holocaust denial isn't a violation of a person's "right not to be offended," but of a person's "right not to have violence incited against them" -- which is a right. And Holocaust denial is well established to be associated with incitement of violent crimes.

If you can establish that ID is also associated with the incitement to violence, then I will happily support outlawing ID on the same basis.

Exactly. You're making the mistake of assuming that Holocaust denial is outlawed because it's offensive. It's not. Both history and the law are very clear on that.

And that very confusion is one that is often deliberately fostered by Holocaust deniers under the guise of libertarianism, which brings us back to one of the earlier points.
Drkitten, please try to see things from my point of view. I'm not a Holocaust denier. I hate Nazis, neo-Nazis and any other kind of totalitarian nuts; in fact, if it was up to me I would wipe the off the face of the earth. But fortunately, it is not up to me: we have laws.
It is plausible that Holocaust deniers are all neo-Nazi, antisemite bastards. Almost certainly, they knowingly and wilfully lie.
Now, consider the likes of Ted Haggard. He certainly wilfully and knowingly lied. He certainly offended homosexuals. Many people were inspired by him and other similar nutcases to oppose the gay marriage laws. Would you imprison him for his views?

Alex Libman

15th February 2009, 07:22 PM

Well, shame on Austria (and other governments) for having ANY restrictions on free speech. They yield the moral high-ground to any third-world mob angry over some silly cartoons lampooning their prophet... :crc:

arthwollipot

15th February 2009, 08:06 PM

Huh? I think the IDers have a right to speak their idiocy as well.But not to teach it to children in the guise of science in publically-funded schools.

Elizabeth I

15th February 2009, 09:28 PM

But not to teach it to children in the guise of science in publically-funded schools.

Of course not. But those who say they do should not face criminal charges. I'm just arguing against "thought crime," not saying that the thinkers of those thoughts are correct.

drkitten

16th February 2009, 07:59 AM

May I refer you to the poem FIRST THEY CAME FOR... (http://www.geocities.com/easytocall/Quotes.html) by Reverend Martin Niemoeller?

You may.

It won't actually fix your fallacy, but it will make you appear well-educated.

Drkitten, please try to see things from my point of view.

You know, "see things from my point of view" doesn't mean "overlook the fact that I'm completely wrong."

But fortunately, it is not up to me: we have laws.

Which is the point that you -- and your Pastor Niemoeller quote -- miss. We have laws.

The reason the Nazis were able to get away with so much is because they abrogated the rule of law quite early on in favor of the Fuehrerprinzip; the idea that the Leader should lead. We have a well-defined set of laws that dictate what kind of statements are subject to criminal action, all individually debated and agreed upon by the same people who decide where the stop signs should go.

It is plausible that Holocaust deniers are all neo-Nazi, antisemite bastards. Almost certainly, they knowingly and wilfully lie.
Now, consider the likes of Ted Haggard. He certainly wilfully and knowingly lied.

Again, you're omitting the key aspect.

Did Ted Haggard violate any laws?

The law does not run on analogy.

He certainly offended homosexuals.

No one is locking up neo-Nazis because they are offending people. If you want me to "see it from your point of view," then your point of view needs to get the basic facts correct.

drkitten

16th February 2009, 08:07 AM

Of course not. But those who say they do should not face criminal charges.

So you would not support prosecuting Buckingham for perjury in the wake of the Dover trial?

Evidently lying in sworn depositions and on the witness stand should not be an actionable offense? Or should it only be actionable if you're doing it for reasons other than in support of Intelligent Design?

I suggest an alternative. People who break the law should face criminal charges, even if the specific action they take involves speech.

"Holocaust denial" isn't thoughtcrime. You can think whatever you like in the privacy of your own skull. You can even say what you like in private among friends. You can scribble whatever you like in your own diary. However, if you are in Austria, you must be careful what you say "in a print publication, in broadcast or other media" --- just as you must be careful in the USA what you say in an advertisement. In either case, lying can get you into serious trouble.

Chaos

16th February 2009, 11:22 AM

*snip*
"Holocaust denial" isn't thoughtcrime. You can think whatever you like in the privacy of your own skull. You can even say what you like in private among friends. You can scribble whatever you like in your own diary. However, if you are in Austria, you must be careful what you say "in a print publication, in broadcast or other media" --- just as you must be careful in the USA what you say in an advertisement. In either case, lying can get you into serious trouble.

Right.

I don´t with you very often lately, but this time... well I guess it is too much to hope that everyone in this thread is honest enough to acknowledge the truth of this statement.

I would also like to point out that, in a country where it is possible to change the laws by voting people into office who share your views on them, breaking laws you do not agree with just for the principle of the thing does not make you a martyr, just a criminal.

Elizabeth I

16th February 2009, 12:40 PM

So you would not support prosecuting Buckingham for perjury in the wake of the Dover trial?

Evidently lying in sworn depositions and on the witness stand should not be an actionable offense? Or should it only be actionable if you're doing it for reasons other than in support of Intelligent Design?

I suggest an alternative. People who break the law should face criminal charges, even if the specific action they take involves speech.

"Holocaust denial" isn't thoughtcrime. You can think whatever you like in the privacy of your own skull. You can even say what you like in private among friends. You can scribble whatever you like in your own diary. However, if you are in Austria, you must be careful what you say "in a print publication, in broadcast or other media" --- just as you must be careful in the USA what you say in an advertisement. In either case, lying can get you into serious trouble.

Don't be silly (something I never thought to say to Dr. K.) Of course people accused of perjury or other crimes must be tried and punished if found guilty. However, merely expressing an opinion about a historical event or a scientific theory should not be considered a crime. Context is everything.

I understand that if you say certain things about the Holocaust in certain ways in certain European countries you can be arrested, tried and punished. I'm not arguing with that. I'm simply arguing that making the simple statement that the Holocaust never occurred or that not that many people were killed (both statements WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE) should not be a criminal act. Arresting people for what they say, even in public, as long as it is not an incitement to violence or other crime, is exercising thought control and prohibiting free speech. And I don't care if it's a law passed by a legitimate government, it's a stupid law. The legitimate government of the U.S. passed laws legitimizing slavery.

Do the governments of Austria and Germany have the right to pass stupid laws? Of course they do. It seems to be the primary activity of all governments. And I have the right to say they are stupid laws.

Piero

16th February 2009, 12:46 PM

It won't actually fix your fallacy, but it will make you appear well-educated.
That was unnecessary. Bye.

drkitten

16th February 2009, 12:54 PM

I understand that if you say certain things about the Holocaust in certain ways in certain European countries you can be arrested, tried and punished. I'm not arguing with that. I'm simply arguing that making the simple statement that the Holocaust never occurred or that not that many people were killed (both statements WITH WHICH I DO NOT AGREE) should not be a criminal act. Arresting people for what they say, even in public, as long as it is not an incitement to violence or other crime, is exercising thought control and prohibiting free speech.

You're not taking into account context.

In the context of the governments that have outlawed Holocaust denial, making a simple statement that the Holocaust never happened is an incitement to violence. Perhaps when the neo-Nazi movement falls back into a little bit of background noise, we can revisit the question --- but you write laws for the society you have, not the society you want to have.

Context is everything in interpreting statements. When Jimmy the Fish wanders into your restaurant and says "this is a nice place you have here, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it," is he making a threat?

His words say no. The context says yes. You, and Jimmy, and everyone who has ever seen a bad Mafia film know that what he's really saying is "if you don't pay off my extortionate demands, I will make sure that bad things do happen to your restaurant." The DA knows that, too, and so does the jury, which is why Jimmy could be convicted for attempted extortion.

Similarly, the Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice has spent a tremendous amount of time and effort rooting out the superficially-innocuous "code phrases" that people use to avoid hiring or renting to "those kind of people" --- and the local vice squad knows exactly what kinds of services are really for offer in some of those classified ads. "Escort services" are not necessarily going to walk you to your car safely, and "Greek culture" does not always mean the Parthenon.

On the other hand, my university does offer a "male escort service" after dark that does offer to walk women to their car safely. And we've never had any problem with the local vice cops. Sounds like the local vice cops are sensitive to the nuances of context.

drkitten

16th February 2009, 12:56 PM

That was unnecessary. Bye.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Elizabeth I

16th February 2009, 04:08 PM

You're not taking into account context.

In the context of the governments that have outlawed Holocaust denial, making a simple statement that the Holocaust never happened is an incitement to violence. Perhaps when the neo-Nazi movement falls back into a little bit of background noise, we can revisit the question --- but you write laws for the society you have, not the society you want to have.

Context is everything in interpreting statements. When Jimmy the Fish wanders into your restaurant and says "this is a nice place you have here, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it," is he making a threat?

His words say no. The context says yes. You, and Jimmy, and everyone who has ever seen a bad Mafia film know that what he's really saying is "if you don't pay off my extortionate demands, I will make sure that bad things do happen to your restaurant." The DA knows that, too, and so does the jury, which is why Jimmy could be convicted for attempted extortion.

Similarly, the Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice has spent a tremendous amount of time and effort rooting out the superficially-innocuous "code phrases" that people use to avoid hiring or renting to "those kind of people" --- and the local vice squad knows exactly what kinds of services are really for offer in some of those classified ads. "Escort services" are not necessarily going to walk you to your car safely, and "Greek culture" does not always mean the Parthenon.

On the other hand, my university does offer a "male escort service" after dark that does offer to walk women to their car safely. And we've never had any problem with the local vice cops. Sounds like the local vice cops are sensitive to the nuances of context.

But the cops won't arrest Jimmy the Fish until he actually does something. Or at least says, "For a thousand a week I can make sure nothing will happen." And I don't believe people who run "escort services" are ever arrested until there is at least good reason to suspect that they are offering more than someone to walk around with you.

drkitten

16th February 2009, 05:39 PM

But the cops won't arrest Jimmy the Fish until he actually does something.

Um,... no.

That's exactly my point. The cops can and will arrest Jimmy the Fish when he makes a statement that (they believe) threatens people. (Tactically, they might want to delay in order to get a better case, but he could be busted as soon as he utters that classic cliche....)

You've seen exactly that in the Illinois governor case; at no point did Bagojevich actually say "give me two million dollars and I'll appoint your boy as Senator." But what he said was enough to justify the Feds in believing, in context, that he was in the process of trying to sell the Senatorial seat in violation of the various anti-corruption statutes. (Again, the Fed admits he might have a stronger case if he waited longer,.... but he needed to move fast enough to prevent the seat from actually being sold.)

The governor was arrested for what he was alluding to, not for the words he actually used.

And I don't believe people who run "escort services" are ever arrested until there is at least good reason to suspect that they are offering more than someone to walk around with you.

Again, you're wrong. "Solicitation" is a crime in and of itself, and if the DA decides that what you're advertising is clearly in violation of the solicitation statutes, you will be arrested regardless of the words you actually use.

Now, you're absolutely right that there's a possibility that an otherwise completely innocent conversation could be used as "evidence" and result in an arrest, in the same way that I could be arrested for "burglarizing" my own house if it were late enough and my neighbor panicked when I discovered I had lost my latch-key. That's why there's a trial and people get chances to present their own side to the story.

The law recognizes that words are uttered in context, and that the meaning, in context, is what determines whether or not a crime was committed. There are no words that are ex officio illegal to say, just as there are no words that are definitively legal. And in the context of Austrian public debate, Holocaust denial is not just an academic debate about history.

Elizabeth I

16th February 2009, 06:05 PM

drkitten

17th February 2009, 08:41 AM

And there's a good chance that Fitzpatrick or Fitzgerald or whatever his name is in the Illinois case won't have enough evidence to get a conviction.

You're moving the goalposts. You said that the cops wouldn't even arrest Jimmy the Fish, and I pointed out to a high-profile case where they did. Furthermore, a judge has already sat on the preliminary question of whether or not the cops were justified in that arrest and agreed that it was.

If I were on the jury, I'd need a little more than "well, we all know what he meant" >>wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more<< to convict. Even though I do agree that's probably what he did mean.

You're welcome to ignore what the law says when you vote to acquit, yes. That's called "jury nullification" and it has a long history.

Until he adds that, "I can take care of you for $XXX a week," or actually throws the Molotov cocktail, what he's said is just idle conversation.

Then why is Blagojavich awaiting trial, if it's just "idle conversation"?

"Solicitation" is a crime in and of itself,

Didn't I say that?

and it isoffering more than simple escorting, which is what I said.

Didn't I say that, too?

And the police can, and will, look at what you are actually "offering" instead of what the words you say are.

Again, the police might watch a business calling itself an "escort service" more closely than one that calls itself a print shop, but until there is reason to believe that more than escorting (and the "more than" would include solicitation) there's not much they can do except watch.

Actually, no. If they could prove that the business actually sold sexual services, the crime would no longer be solicitation, but prostitution or something stronger. Solicitation is purely a linguistic crime. Any time you see a prosecution for solicitation by itself, it means that the cops were unable to come up with an actual prostitution bust.

This is largely drifting off-topic, though. My central point is that your words do not determine whether or not a speech act is a crime; your meaning does. You claim otherwise, and further claim that the police cannot act based only on your meaning. This is obviously false; examples have been given.

You might prefer that cops and courts were only permitted to act on the basis of words, not meanings, but that's not how the law is written, and frankly not how most people want it to be written.

And as a result, laws against Holocaust denial are no more "thoughtcrime" than is the difference between first degree murder and negligence or manslaughter.

drkitten

17th February 2009, 08:53 AM

And there's a good chance that Fitzpatrick or Fitzgerald or whatever his name is in the Illinois case won't have enough evidence to get a conviction. If I were on the jury, I'd need a little more than "well, we all know what he meant" >>wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more<< to convict. Even though I do agree that's probably what he did mean. But without that final "So deliver my million and here's your Senate seat" it's going to be hard to prove.

Further to above. Here is a pretty good page (http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/nuremberg-files/legal.html) describing exactly when speech shades into "threat" (from a legal standpoint).

Let me quote a bit:

Context

This was the first screen of the Nuremberg Files

Numerous rulings have considered context to be one of the crucial elements in determining the legality of a threat. In determining whether the context in which a threat was made makes the threat unprotected speech, investigations tend to examine the relationship between the involved parties, the circumstances leading up to the communication, the behavior of the person making the threat, and the setting of the actual communication. However, there are exceptions where the speech is still considered unprotected in situations where the context is weak or it conflicts. In US vs. Machado, the defendant maintained that the threat he made was merely joke, yet despite the absence of any relationship to the threatened individuals, the jury pronounced his speech as unlawful due to the racially motivated context of the threat.2 In our present case, the context of the Nuremburg site, along with that of the “wanted” posters and “deadly dozen” list was heavily considered in the determination of threat towards the targeted individuals.

Intent

Intent is among the more significant factors in determining a true threat. Courts have shown that there must be a willful intent to carry out the alleged threat. this tends to be a cautionary measure intended to protect individuals who mistakenly make a threat in a moment of desperation and frustration. In such instances, intent and context directly contradict. While in the context of the situation a threat could easily be interpreted as unlawful, it is often found that there is no intent to carry out the threat. This is why when determining context, the behavior of the individuals and their relationship to one another is an important factor. The defendants of the Planned Parenthood suit asserted that their posters and web site where in no way intended to illicit unlawful actions, but instead to provide factual data.The jury concluded otherwise.

That's exactly the situation Blago and Jimmy the Fish are in; can one infer an illegal intention from their communication.

The facts of the matter are of course in dispute, which is why we have trials. But the legal position is well-established that the interpretation and intent is what binds, not the actual words.

Even the ACLU, which is usually one of the bastions of free-speech protection, recognizes that meaning, not words, is and should be the controlling factor:

Thus, plaintiffs should be required to show the following:

Considering the alleged threat in light of its relevant factual context, would a reasonable listener (or recipient of the communication) interpret the statement as communicating a serious expression of an intent to inflict or cause serious harm to the listener, i.e. would a reasonable person perceive the statement as a threat? (This is the objective test.)

Did the speaker intend that the communication be taken as a threat to inflict or cause serious harm to the listener, thereby intending to place the listener in fear for his or her safety, regardless of whether the speaker actually intended to carry out the threat? (This is the subjective test.)

Even the ACLU recognizes that what Jimmy the Fish is saying is an extortionate threat, even if it's just phrased as "it would be a shame if...." and would support punishing him.

Elizabeth I

18th February 2009, 06:43 PM

Just want to let you know that I haven't fled the thread and I'm not sulking (much...:p) I'm thinking about my answer.

bigred

18th February 2009, 08:11 PM

It makes sense, though, especially in a historical context.

The Church is not responsible for enforcing secular law, and most people consider it to be a bad thing when the Church takes an active role in law enforcement. Even for most of the Middle Ages, a priest accused of murder would not have been excommunicated, but simply "handed over to the secular arm."

The Church is responsible for enforcing its own doctrine, because the secular arm won't touch it.

And from the point of view of the Church, sinners -- and genocidal maniacs are most certainly sinners -- are the people most in need of the Church, so that they can repent and be saved. Merely killing a murderer is the job of the secular arm. But excommunicating him before he is killed will damn his soul as well.
Most astutely summed up. Bravo. People seem to think that excommunication is intended as some form of "punishment." It isn't.

**yawn**

"most 9/11 conspiracy theorists are Anti-USA deniers."

More of the same...

The pope is so disconnected from reality, the only reason anything he says makes any difference at all is that a lot of people are stupid enough to believe [I]he's a man of god. When he's just a moron, stuck on 2,000+ years of stupid.

So the frigg what?

The pope is just trying to do damage control from his own collosal stupidity.

oh the irony

Anyway I'm glad you don't have a chip on your shoulder or anything. :rolleyes:

CORed

18th February 2009, 08:58 PM

Some of you will hate me for what I'm about to say, but I have to say it.
I'm not a Holocaust denier. My knowledge of the matter is scant, I'm not a WWII historian, and I have no reason to doubt the Holocaust happened. I do not believe it is possible to fabricate something like that, so I go with the consensus.

However, I strongly disagree with legal measures aimed at preventing deniers from expressing their ideas. Truth and falsity are not the right categories to bring to bear on the issue of freedom of speech. I find it extremely unsettling that in some countries you can go to jail for expressing a belief, whereas those same countries bend over backwards in order to protect the right of Islamist extremists to peddle their hatred. Someone has to get their priorities right.

Everything has to be open to debate and revision. Maybe it is abhorrent to question the evidence for the Holocaust, but what's at stake here is much more than our personal feelings of disgust: what's at stake is the very principle of scientific enquiry. Once we declare that some truths are state-sanctioned, incontrovertible, beyond discussion and debate, what distinguishes us from any dogmatic creed?

I absolutely agree with this. Furthermore, I think prohibiting people from expressing the view that the holocaust didn't happen actually lends the deniers credibility that they don't deserve. It allows them to make the claim "See, the government is trying to supress us because they don't want the truth to come out". Holocaust denial should be kept in the open where it can be subjected to the ridicule that it so richly deserves, not treated like something that should be taken so seriously that it must be legally supressed.

Puppycow

18th February 2009, 09:27 PM

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/europe/13pope.php

I applaud this move. Most Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites.

But Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who also attended the audience, said he had hoped the pope would go even further, and excommunicate Bishop Williamson once again.

"You can't condemn anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial and then reinstate someone who's a Holocaust denier," Foxman said. He called the pope's statements "significant and very important," but said they "did not bring closure."

After the global outcry over Bishop Williamson's remarks in recent weeks, the Vatican has said that the members of the St. Pius X Society will have to accept the teachings of Vatican II in order to return to full communion with the church. This week, the bishop was removed as the head of his seminary in Argentina.I agree with Foxman. "Un-excommunicating" him is condoning holocaust denial in some sense. It is overruling an earlier decision to excommunicate him by downgrading the seriousness of holocaust denial:
In the past, it had been considered serious enough to warrant excommunication, but now it is considered less serious.

This Pope seems to want to revisit Vatican II and go back to earlier practices, including bringing back "indulgences," which supposedly reduce the sinner's punishment in the afterlife. :rolleyes:

drkitten

19th February 2009, 07:12 AM

I agree with Foxman. "Un-excommunicating" him is condoning holocaust denial in some sense. It is overruling an earlier decision to excommunicate him by downgrading the seriousness of holocaust denial:
In the past, it had been considered serious enough to warrant excommunication, but now it is considered less serious.

My understanding is that he was not excommunicated for Holocaust denial, and that Holocaust denial never entered into the decision to excommunicate him. He was excommunicated for refusing to accept the authority of the Pope (and of Vatican II, which was promulgated under the Pope's authority).

If the person living next to you is cited by the police for failing to mow his lawn, and he mows his lawn and pays the fine, that should be the end of it, yes? You -- or the judge -- shouldn't be able to say "well, yes, you were charged with failure to mow your lawn, and you dealt with that, but I've also noticed that your house is painted an ugly color. Now, I don't have formal authority to punish you for the color of your house, but instead I'm going to fine you a second time for failure to mow your lawn...."

XenonII

19th February 2009, 07:07 PM

The Pope's caving in to Jewish pressure shows just how much power and influence this group of people really has in the West. Jews, who are destined to burn in hell alongside all fellow non believers - nothing "antisemitic" about that fact - have no businesss telling Christians what they can and can't believe just because they own the "American" media and rule America! Any criticism of, or opposition to the Jew's anti-White, anti-Christian supremacist agenda makes one an "antisemtic". In countries whose governments are particularly under the Jew's thumb, any questioning of the Jews Holocau$t story, will get one thrown in jail, Jews are such haters of freedom of speech and such tyrants!

The Pope's beliefs are hardly Christian - he sees nothing wrong with the White race being genocided into extinction through the unholy practice of miscegenation, he is an unashamed evolutionary theory pusher, which flies in the face of all the Bible has to say on the subject, and even believes in the "born that way" myth purpotrated by the homosexual agenda. So is anyone really surprised he would side with the killers of Christ? And YES they are the killers of Christ no matter how much the Jew and their apologists protest otherwise! The Bible is clear that the Jews killed Christ, something that Christians preached until the cows came home before the Jew rised to such prominence and power.

Heretics like the Pope have declared their "absolute rejection" of this truth that the Jew is responsible for Christ's death. As for Jews and their enablers throwing around accusations that anyone opposing their anti-White and anti-Christian supremacist agenda is a so-called "antisemitic", well what's so wrong with being an antisemite? Jesus was one himself! An antisemite is someone a Jew hates and Jesus hated Jews, he lived in fear of them his whole life and eventually they would kill him, so much for the blasphomous lie that Jesus was one of them, that's why the Jew killed him because he was one of them!

What did Jesus say about the Jew exactly? John 8:44: "You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has never stood for truth, since there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies." My how awfully antisemtic of our Lord God and Father! So there you have it! Satan is a JEW and the Jew is the children of satan! They are liars and murderers! Look at their genocide of the Palestinian people in occupied Palestine. The Jew is the real nazis! In the middle ages they would kill Christians for their blood in their unholy rituals to their father the devil, today they murder nations through their control of Western nation's media! Don't believe me? Do some research to who owns the media in America. The owners are ALL Jews! Control the media and you control the minds of the sheeple. The alien grip on our nations media MUST be broken!

So Christians should not be afraid of being labelled as "antisemitic" by the children of satan. Jesus, as shown through God's Holy Word in the Bible, was one himself, and a Christian, a REAL Christian is supposed to be Christ like! Real Christians are antisemites! And seeing as Jesus described the Jew as being a murderous liar, I would take anything a Jew had to say, including their holocau$t story with a grain of salt the size of Mount Everest! Sincerely, a loyal follower of Christ and his REAL message, not this watered down, PC revisionist, Satantic fairytale that heretics like the Pope who side with the spawn of satan endorse!

Doctor Evil

19th February 2009, 07:24 PM

Wow. From non knowing that you exist to my ignore list in one post. This is a record. I bet you are proud.

MG1962

19th February 2009, 09:39 PM

My understanding is that he was not excommunicated for Holocaust denial, and that Holocaust denial never entered into the decision to excommunicate him. He was excommunicated for refusing to accept the authority of the Pope (and of Vatican II, which was promulgated under the Pope's authority).

Your understanding is indeed 100% correct. Something also missed by many of the news agencies making currency with this story, they have not been re-instated as clergy, just simply allowed to publicly worship as Roman Catholics again

Kthulhut Fhtagn

20th February 2009, 12:08 AM

Wow. From non knowing that you exist to my ignore list in one post. This is a record. I bet you are proud.

Xenon is the resident antisemitic, homophobic, ultra-conservative sociopath troll.

Wildy

20th February 2009, 12:28 AM

The Pope's caving in to Jewish pressure shows just how much power and influence this group of people really has in the West. Jews, who are destined to burn in hell alongside all fellow non believers - nothing "antisemitic" about that fact - have no businesss telling Christians what they can and can't believe just because they own the "American" media and rule America! Any criticism of, or opposition to the Jew's anti-White, anti-Christian supremacist agenda makes one an "antisemtic". In countries whose governments are particularly under the Jew's thumb, any questioning of the Jews Holocau$t story, will get one thrown in jail, Jews are such haters of freedom of speech and such tyrants!

So if you are forbidden to deny the Holocaust then the country must be controlled by the Jews? So why is it then that the US, who you just said are ruled by the Jews (and you're contradicting what you're saying by your sig) does not have laws that forbid Holocaust denial?

The Pope's beliefs are hardly Christian - he sees nothing wrong with the White race being genocided into extinction through the unholy practice of miscegenation, he is an unashamed evolutionary theory pusher, which flies in the face of all the Bible has to say on the subject, and even believes in the "born that way" myth purpotrated by the homosexual agenda. So is anyone really surprised he would side with the killers of Christ? And YES they are the killers of Christ no matter how much the Jew and their apologists protest otherwise! The Bible is clear that the Jews killed Christ, something that Christians preached until the cows came home before the Jew rised to such prominence and power.

I'm sure you can provide evidence that miscegenation is unholy. As far as I know the only prohibition on marriage in the Bible is that you aren't permitted to marry someone who is not of your religion.

You do know that the Bible also states that the Jews are Gods Chosen People right?

Heretics like the Pope have declared their "absolute rejection" of this truth that the Jew is responsible for Christ's death. As for Jews and their enablers throwing around accusations that anyone opposing their anti-White and anti-Christian supremacist agenda is a so-called "antisemitic", well what's so wrong with being an antisemite? Jesus was one himself! An antisemite is someone a Jew hates and Jesus hated Jews, he lived in fear of them his whole life and eventually they would kill him, so much for the blasphomous lie that Jesus was one of them, that's why the Jew killed him because he was one of them!

Technically the Pharisees killed Jesus, they goaded the crowds into demanding that he be crucified.

Care to provide evidence that Jesus hated the Jews?

What did Jesus say about the Jew exactly? John 8:44: "You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has never stood for truth, since there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies." My how awfully antisemtic of our Lord God and Father! So there you have it! Satan is a JEW and the Jew is the children of satan! They are liars and murderers! Look at their genocide of the Palestinian people in occupied Palestine. The Jew is the real nazis! In the middle ages they would kill Christians for their blood in their unholy rituals to their father the devil, today they murder nations through their control of Western nation's media! Don't believe me? Do some research to who owns the media in America. The owners are ALL Jews! Control the media and you control the minds of the sheeple. The alien grip on our nations media MUST be broken!

And the verse in context? It's basically a passage where Jesus says that "Jews who don't believe me are not children of Abraham". Are Messianic Jews therefore children of Satan?

So Christians should not be afraid of being labelled as "antisemitic" by the children of satan. Jesus, as shown through God's Holy Word in the Bible, was one himself, and a Christian, a REAL Christian is supposed to be Christ like! Real Christians are antisemites! And seeing as Jesus described the Jew as being a murderous liar, I would take anything a Jew had to say, including their holocau$t story with a grain of salt the size of Mount Everest! Sincerely, a loyal follower of Christ and his REAL message, not this watered down, PC revisionist, Satantic fairytale that heretics like the Pope who side with the spawn of satan endorse!

And here is just some more racist crap.