Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 07:32:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length

"Free speech" and "hate speech".

Started by Ciarán2, September 05, 2005, 03:44:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Are holocaust deniers entitled to the same "freedom of speech" as anyone else?

Yes
31 (77.5%)
No
7 (17.5%)
I don't understand the question. You've phrased it badly.
2 (5%)

Total Members Voted: 40

Voting closed: September 05, 2005, 03:44:11 PM

Ciarán2

Hello all

I'd like your opinions on a matter I seem to disagree with most of my friends on. It came up over the subject of holocaust denial. Should holocaust deniers be given a public platform for what they want to say? Should they be given airtime or be allowed to make a speech at a university? Or does this add undue credibility to their comments? If you deny such people the right to speak their mind, can you be said to have the interests of free speech in mind? Or is it a catholic problem - i.e. a supposed "common good" vs "freedom"?

My take on it, is that since holocaust deniers (like David Irving, denied a platform at UCD in 1992) do not really have an "argument" as such, since the holocaust did happen*, and given that their opinion is purely a vent for the incitement of hatred, they should be denied in such an instance. I only feel able to apply this is the case of fascism though, perhaps I'm being hypocritical? Is the argument that people needlessly die throughout the world every day through the west's neglect or lack of interest also show up a hypocrisy regarding the debate?

The argument that I've come up against, is that such deniers should be given their public platform, since people will just turn up and laugh at them anyway. Are you convinced that this would be the case? I'm not. Does that display an unwarranted lack of faith in the democratic system, or of the public? Perhaps I'm being patronising and assuming that I'm more intelligent than everone else and am more capable of criticising or making responsible decisions? Where my lack of faith lies is with ideology, really. I recognise that there is an inherent copntradiction in the model of free speech I imagine. That is, that "free speech" has a limit. To even allow the possibility of its consignment to history would not be in the interests of justice.

*Jean Baudrillard once famously argued that the millennium would not happen. He also argued that the Gulf War did not happen. Where this on the surface appears a denial, it is worth actually reading Baudrillard's work to put these statements in their proper contexts.  Baudrillar, being known for his writing on postmodernism, was essentially arguing that the Gulf War was a war of ideology, fear and second-guessing. His suggestion that the millennium wouldn't happen was largely rhetorical and based on the idea that in a postmodern age such concepts are redundant, and to Baudrillard, the millennium was simply a concept, a grand narrative.

Over to you lot (if you're interested, of course!).

Ah, usual spelling rubbish.

mayer

Only mildly on-topic, but being denied a platform at a University isn't the same as having your freedom of speech curtailed. Any school or business or company or club has the right to say who can speak at their meetings, for whatever reasons they choose.

People often complain about their "freedom of speech" being restricted when nothing of the sort is occuring.

I want to talk to Parliament, but, I'm not allowed to! I went to the door and asked nicely and everything. There are rules and regulations.

If Irving wants to say what he likes he can go to Speakers Corner with the rest of the nutbars, write books and so on. If he wants to speak at a club that I run he can fuck right off, and that has nothing to do with free speech.

Mr Flunchy

Of course they should be allowed to express their beliefs,  no matter how half-cocked they are.  Anyone preaching the denial of the holocaust is more likely to damage their own reputation than inspire others to agree with them.  Even if they were incredibly convincing, the type of people to be swayed by this are probably residing somewhere in the extreme right of the political spectrum anyway.

Also, by preventing them from conveying their views, you are acknowledging that they are inherently dangerous.  Giving them an air of 'forbidden knowledge' could be seen to give Holocaust deniers some ammunition;

"If it's nonsense then why aren't we allowed to say it!  JEW CONTROLLED MEDIA!! ZIONISM!" (etc)

I think the very principle of holocaust denial is so barmy, and so easily disproved that it's better to let these people expose themselves as bonkers to the general populace.

mayer

There are many parts of the worlds where, according to polls, a vast number of people do think that the Holocaust was merely the death of a few hundred thousand Jews massively overstated by the Zionist enemy, though.

Captain Crunch

A quote from Vargsmal which may or may not be of use to this thread:

QuoteIt's always the winner of the war who writes the history. That the freemason Roosevelt, who was President in the USA during the war, knew in good time that the Japanese planned to bomb Pearl Harbor, but didn't do anything to stop it, is something the revisionists have for a long time exposed. The same is considered of Germany's so-called jewish elimination. The Jew elimination at the end of the 2nd World War is both deliberate and disproved, so what shall we believe is entirely up to ourselves. I won't claim that they didn't gas any jews, but I will take a position strongly doubting that they gassed over 6 million of them, or as many a number near it! Actually I will claim that is a lie!
Why? 1st I know that the winner wrote the history to their benefit, 2nd is that Europe swarms of jews today (if there was over 6 million jews in Europe than I understand today why there are so many anti-Semites left) for the 3rd there is 8 million jews in the USA who for the majority have polish or german last names (where did they come from? Did they pop out of thin air or fly to USA before the war? So they weren't gasses anyway) for the 4th I have problems understanding how the Germans should manage to gas 6 million people
in ½ a year (it began in March 1944 or April and ended in Sept. or Oct. the same year because the gas they used was Zyklon B, a gas which gives serious injury if you get in on your bare skin, and the gas chamber cannot be entered for at least 24 hours after it's used (they claim that new loads of jews were gassed every 20 minutes)). I have myself seen "the true stories" which have been cinematized and how the Germans open the containers the gas was kept in with a bayonet without having gloves on their hands and dressed only in a miserable gas mask. This is ludicrous! In the same film, the "true" story, the SS officers were entertained by gypsies and gypsy music.

When we know that gypsy music was strongly forbidden (and we know that SS men were actually those who didn't break this rule) so we say little about how truthful this "true" story must be ( I think of the film "Kjemp eller dø" fight or die) If you have 15 gas chambers (the Germans didn't have this many at once) and gas 200 in each chamber every day for half a year (about 185 day) you totally gas (15 x 200 x 185 = 555,000) 555,000 people. That the Germans managed to gas 6 million jews in this time is beyond all logic! Even German effectiveness has it's limits. Besides, if these camps were elimination camps, then why did it swarm of jews after the war which tells us that they had been in elimination camps? If they spoke the truth, they ought to be dead themselves, if not then it's impossible for them to have been elimination camps! And if they say that they stood on a "waiting list" to be gassed it means that it took longer to gas them, and then it can be impossible that the Germans had managed to gas 6 million in such a short time! The lies are contradictions! Spare us their ludicrous lies.

Another thing is the jews. What did the jews actually do during the war, aside form being gassed? If 6 million jews died and all were gassed, what actually did these who weren't? They sat at home and talked money while their brothers were gassed? I can believe that 6 million jews died during the war, but I also think that consists of all who died of old age, sickness, hunger, work accidents, other accidents, in the war as soldiers who fought against the 3rd Reich, of suicide and other things. Accurately such as the other people died in the war, and in peace also, with the exception of those who died as soldiers. They were at any rate, not gassed, as stated from the ally's side, mostly from the jews own side!

According to the report from the red cross about 120,000 jews died in German concentration camps and all died of sickness and hunger (which all struggled with in Germany at the time) I believe this, but I believe not that 6 million were gassed!

Ambient Sheep

I want a fourth poll option: "I understand the question perfectly, but I'm not sure that I know the answer."  But you can't add one, so never mind!

Given that, I reluctantly voted "Yes", as my default setting is always for the freedom-of-speech.  I do wonder in some cases though.

Almost Yearly

Quote from: "mayer"There are many parts of the worlds where, according to polls, a vast number of people do think that the Holocaust was merely the death of a few hundred thousand Jews massively overstated by the Zionist enemy, though.
Whereas in truth it's probably only slightly overstated ...


I vote Yes. I won't defend to the death their right to say it though. I won't defend much to the death, really.
.

Mr Flunchy

Well the best way to educate them on that isn't to ban people denying the holocaust, it's to teach them objectively what really happened.  Banning it gives the idea a certain deranged legitimacy, if it's important enough for the government to ban it there must be SOMETHING to it.

Ciarán2

Yes, I'm not convinced that fascists are always and unswayingly seen as barmy. It's a tricky one to leave alone. But who the hell am I to meddle? I find it hard to overcome that double-bind.

It's a good point that not being allowed to lecture at a university is not the same as having one's free speech curtailed. However, imagine you are on the board of a university and have to decide whether to let the guy in or not. On what basis do you stop him? In David Irving's case he was undone because he "hadn't done his research properly". It would have to be on grounds like that, wouldn't it?

Mr Grue

What Mayer said!

I clicked on this thread expecting something about the incitement to racial hatred laws and was hoping to take holocaust denial as another example of the same dilemma. Imagine my surprise!

The thing with Holocaust deniers is that they aren't as academic as they make out. They're not even middle-brow; they'er so wide of the truth that they're not even wrong. They tend to clutch to a single piece of evidence that they claim is the smoking gun and ignore everything else contradicting them - painting themselves into corners where they are forced to make ridiculous statements such as all the Jews that disappeared during the second world war account for all the homeless people that appeared after the second world war. If memory serves, in the Irving versus Lipstadt & Penguin case, those concerned found themselves in a ridiculous position where the existence or otherwise of the Holocaust hung on whether or not a particular building featured in an aerial photograph had chimneys.

Yes, they should be allowed to speak, but no university should let them do so on campus, simply because they don't belong there.

But of course I've evidently read too much about the subject and as such are partisan, and my opinion should be disregarded. Hem-hem.

mayer

Holocaust deniers should be given the right to say what they like, but the law of the country should state that anyone they speak to has to watch the Holocaust Denier episode of Quincy directly afterwards.

Job done.

Blumf

If the 'bad' guys (holocaust deniers, racists, etc.) win hearts and minds with their BS then that's partly the fault of the 'good' guys for not presenting their counter arguments properly and making them accessible to the public.

That's partly why freedom of speech if a good thing, it helps keep your arguments sharp.

Ciarán2

That's an interesting take, Blumf, but the issue I take with it is that there is no argument, and holocaust deniers really just want to be seen in the context of a debate. This in itself lends their "view" an undue legitimacy. Imagine arguing with someone who insists that you are vermin. You wouldn't bother, would you?

Just as an aside, during a debate with a friend of mine about this,m he asked me what it is I was afraid of, if a holocaust denier was allowed broadcast nationwide or publish a high profile book. I answered that I worried that some people wopuld be swayed by it, given that there are plenty of people with genuine (if not well-founded) bugbears regarding immigrants and so on.

Mr Grue

Quote from: "Blumf"If the 'bad' guys (holocaust deniers, racists, etc.) win hearts and minds with their BS then that's partly the fault of the 'good' guys for not presenting their counter arguments properly and making them accessible to the public.

That's partly why freedom of speech if a good thing, it helps keep your arguments sharp.

Lipstadt's position, if memory serves, is that Holocaust denial is simply beneath argument - it's professionally a waste of energy. I'm trying to think of a parallel that isn't offensive, but can't. Okay, how about someone who is trying to discuss how the bible cannot be thought of as literal truth. They've done a heap of research on the origin of the book, of the varying texts, translations, etc. and of the way in which it contradicts itself, or the way in which it doesn't tie up with current historical thought, but they're discussing it with someone who believes everything in the bible is literally true because it's the word of God. I'm not saying morally speaking either side is as cranky as a Holocaust denier, but the fact that they're coming at it from two completely different analytical approaches. As such there's no room for debate. Having an audience is a factor, though, and one that Lipstadt I suspect underestimates.

(Oh, and we know that the Nazis used Zyklon B in the deathcamps. Some Holocaust deniers explain this away by saying that Zyklon B was used to delouse the incoming Jews, and keep them healthy (caring Nazis!), but in fact the required doseage to kill a louse is much higher than the doseage required to kill a human being. They just don't do the research!)

QuoteI answered that I worried that some people wopuld be swayed by it, given that there are plenty of people with genuine (if not well-founded) bugbears regarding immigrants and so on.

Too true. The real danger with Holocaust denial is that, in order for it to be feasible, you have to accept the existence of a global Jewish conspiracy, and it's the demented belief in such a thing that led to the Holocaust in the first place. This is what should be put to the deniers, that if they believe such a thing exists, what is their proposed solution...

Blumf

But ignoring any counter point like that effectively reduces your stance to one of "it just is okay!" which can't be right (and isn't very appealing to Joe Public). Where as I wouldn't be that fussed about convincing somebody of my personal character or some other small issues, on subjects like the holocaust you want to make sure that the points and facts about the subject are crystal clear to all.

So even if debating against one of these 'bad' guys may give their point of view a slightly more increased sense of legitimacy, it's important that everybody can be shown why these points are wrong.

Blumf

Quote from: "Mr Grue"(Oh, and we know that the Nazis used Zyklon B in the deathcamps. Some Holocaust deniers explain this away by saying that Zyklon B was used to delouse the incoming Jews, and keep them healthy (caring Nazis!), but in fact the required doseage to kill a louse is much higher than the doseage required to kill a human being. They just don't do the research!)

This is a good example; personally I've never looked into the whole holocaust issue and the denial arguments (was think of asking for a short list of them out of curiosity). If I was faced with somebody making that claim about the use of Zyklon B I wouldn't have know if it was wrong or not. But here we are debating the issue (somewhat indirectly) and information crops up that knocks down one of the deniers points.

slim

I think that any party should be allowed to speak freely within the correct forum. I also think, however, that there should be adequate room for debate.

The trouble with denying the right to a voice is that those views then become underground and gain support not only through their dissemination but through romanticism, automatic-response rebellion and a desire to belong.

I think, taking the example of holocaust deniers for a moment, that they should be allowed a voice as long as the exposed audience are given ample opportunity to hear constructive counter arguments.

For a moment there, I actually wavered on posting that, for contentious issues, people should be forced to hear counter arguments, but then I realised how silly I was being.

It's a tricky one. Perhaps this will occupy me as I lay roasting in my bed tonight.

Big Jack McBastard

Should we let wankers spout their wankerisms to the world or should we try to hush them up? It's all perspective, if you're on one side of an argument you want to shut the other up as they might undermine you. So holocaust deniers want the Jews to shut up and the Jews want the holocaust deniers to shut up, the issue of who is right or wrong is not the point, but their freedoms to express their beliefs (weird, fucked up or wrong as they may be).

If one side of an argument is dissolved by people saying "I can't believe they could even think that! They need to be banned!" then we're going to find ourselves in a fucking awful contrivance of humanity, we've got enough in the way of faulty view points already (I bet there are at least 5 things you're confidant are true that are actually totally false, but they're so ingrained in our minds that to say it could be otherwise makes us question the accuser rather than our own beliefs). The winners of the war write the histories the next generation learns as the truth, an opposing nation is conveniently painted as evil and wrong, while the victors are virtuous and just. The actual truth is rarely examined as it could show the victors to be as bad or worse than the losers and that in the end, given the choice you'd be hard pressed to pick a side if you knew what your 'virtuous and just' government has done in the name of promoting freedom.

Taking away people's rights to speak about their version of events is to try to blind the world to a potential truth; we'd end up doing more harm to ourselves in the long run by cutting off all the nay sayers before they speak. There may be some small level of truth to what holocaust deniers claim, there may be a great quantity of it that is indefensible but the small amount of truth their opinions may contain are of more value to us than getting rid of their arguments wholesale. Blinding ourselves to something we regard as unacceptable is shooting ourselves in the foot, because what if they're right? What if (hard to believe as it may be, hell even I can't believe I'm saying this) holocaust deniers have a point? I'm not saying I hold any of their beliefs or thoughts on the matter but what if there is some small element of what they are saying is accurate? Then we'd be discussing culling a partially valid view point and as such, showing ourselves up to be as ignorant as we think they are.

Perhaps I'm just being bloody minded but I hold to the belief that all sides of an argument need to be examined before any truth or reconciliation can occur.

mayer

QuoteSo holocaust deniers want the Jews to shut up and the Jews want the holocaust deniers to shut up, the issue of who is right or wrong is not the point, but their freedoms to express their beliefs (weird, fucked up or wrong as they may be).

"the Jews"?

Some Jews.

terminallyrelaxed

Slander and Libel don't stand up to the free speech argument. I've never considered it to be an absolute.

Suttonpubcrawl

Quote from: "Ciarán"Should they be given airtime or be allowed to make a speech at a university?

The thing is that as has been pointed out, the right to free speech doesn't mean the right to speak at a university or on TV or radio. You can't be stopped from doing it if the university or broadcaster wants you to, but they don't have to let you. Holocaust deniers are very unlikely to be invited to speak at a university because they are very unlikely to have anything intelligent and well researched to say. Similarly, they shouldn't really be allowed to express themselves in the media unless they have something reasonable and worthwhile to say.

Now of course this all gets a bit complicated because people are actually quite frequently allowed on TV to talk a load of shit, but the main point is this. If the holocaust really didn't happen then it's in our interests to know the historical truth, and it should also be possible for holocaust deniers to come up with evidence to back up what they're saying. If it did happen however and they're just nasty little bigoted shits, then their theories will make no sense and they'll have no evidence, and so they won't be allowed to speak at universities or talk about their theories on TV.

I suppose it would be interesting to have a programme on TV that disproved the arguments of holocaust deniers though, because if they're not really addressed at all it's very possible for people to think "well maybe it didn't happen, I don't really know enough to say". Something a bit like a high brow version of that Channel 5 programme about the moon landings which investigated the arguments people use to try to claim they were faked and found that they didn't really stand up to much scrutiny.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Holocaust deniers should have the right to deny the Holocaust happened. But other people should have the right to shout 'Shut up you stupid cunt' afterwards.

Simple, yes, but I can't think of a better argument really.

Mr Grue

Anyone interested in counter-arguments to Holocaust deniers could do worse than get hold of a copy of Pierre Vidal-Naquet's Assassins of Memory: Essays on the denial of the Holocaust.

TJ

Quote from: "Emergency Lalla Ward Ten"Holocaust deniers should have the right to deny the Holocaust happened. But other people should have the right to shout 'Shut up you stupid cunt' afterwards.

Simple, yes, but I can't think of a better argument really.

Couldn't agree more. Although my personal take on it is that people have the right to express their views, but do not have the right to arbitrarily demand a platform to express them. Some contexts are suitable, and some aren't, and people should just get used to that. And it's a sad fact that a sizeable proportion of people who claim to have been 'censored' are either a) trying to draw attention to themselves by deliberately demanding the right to speak in an arena where they would never be allowed to or b) simply reacting indignantly to the fact that someone has dared to express a contrary viewpoint to theirs and haven't in fact been 'censored' at all.

The problem with Holocaust denial is that it is based on ignorance of hard and fast historical and scientific fact, and as several people have pointed out already in that sense isn't really worth defending under a free speech banner. Certainly no more worth defending than a Hitting Yourself With A Mallet Causes Pain And Injury denier.

Anyone else remember that Louis Theroux show about American extreme right-wingers? There was a really telling moment when he was talking to a guy who held strident 'different skin colours belong to different countries'-style views, and mentioned a local survivalist store owner who earlier that day had given him a lecture on how the Holocaust did not happen and the Jews were lying to get attention/sympathy/whatever. The interviewee, whom only a couple of moments earlier had been talking of his admiration for said store owner as a leading patriot, looked absolutely crestfallen and distraught, and commented with obvious distress that "I think the evidence is there that it did happen". Clearly these people can sometimes be considered lunatic even by their 'sympathisers'.

Blumf

Interesting quote I just stumbled across from the Bad Astronomy site:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html
(it's about the face on Mars stuff and one of it's proponents, Hoagland)
QuoteNow, I have been on the C2C show several times myself (once to actually debunk one of Hoagland's ridiculous claims), and I am of the opinion that most of the audience listens to the usual crackpots on the program with their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks. But with so many listeners, it's inevitable that many will take Hoagland seriously.

And you know what? I've let this fester long enough. This kind of pseudoscience is like a virus. At low levels, it's no big deal, but when it reaches a certain threshold it becomes sickening. I don't think Hoagland has reached the level of, say, the Moon Hoax, but he might someday if ignored. I run a risk here of actually giving him the press he clearly wants so desperately, but it's also a risk to ignore his nonsense, again like the Moon Hoax.

Though it might be worth it to show a less emotive example of free speech leading to public discourse and debunking.

Ciarán2

You're all absolutely right to point out that the matter of "free speech" is irrelevant to people being invited to talk at universities and so on. It was a bit silly of me to confuse the two.

What bothers me is a thing I notice in various posts up there, this thing of "if the holocaust happened...", "They might have a point..." This is important in my view. The problem with the kind of comments I cite there is that there is no argument about this. The holocaust did happen, and to suggest otherwise is not merely a naive ignorance, it is a considered racist position. It is not an what would commonly be called "opinion" at all. My argument is that by dint of appearing to engage in "intellectual" debate, the people who propagate these views, promote what they say to "argument". Once one enters the realm of argument, there is already a grouping of discourses - some carrying more weight than others, but all "entitled to" their fair crack of the whip. What needs to be shown is that what holocaust deniers engage in with their denials is not argument, opinion, debate, it is "hate speech".

In response to Big Jack Mc Bastard, I think it's important to point out that this debate is not a matter of holocaust deniers versus jews - that's a very misleading opposition. It's holocaust deniers against historical fact, against empirical truth. Can I say that the holocaust is an empirical truth?

Re: ELW10 Shouting "shut up you stupid cunt" is the problem at issue here. That's what I'm attempting to do. I'm trying to "shut up" these "stupid cunts". But you can see the ethical and philosophical problems of doing so. Why is it acceptable, then, to shout such a thing at say a holocaust denier? I find that interesting. I don't mean that to be pedantic, but why is vocally shouting someone down, different to censoring them? What holocaust deniers demand is their supposed right to engage in arguyment. And that surely would involve not just the usual rational basdis for argument, but a certain argumentative dexterity. The evidence at hand can become subordinate to articulacy. Why bother with such a problem, why not sidestep it by pointing to the real drive of these people's comments and criticising that? Er...I've not expressed that very well, but maybe you see the point I'm getting at...

Hoogstraten'sSmilingUlcer

Of course Holocaust deniers should have the right to express their opinions (quote Voltaire...), no matter how repellent they seem, and how implausible they might be. But their implausibility shouldn't enter into the debate; they should be allowed to express it no matter how plausible, implausible, racist, or factually untrue their opinions are. I have a wee problem with people dismissing Holocaust deniers as Nazi-sympathising loonies. I agree, they are naysaying hard documentary fact, and the evidence against the Holocaust is so minimal as to be non-existent (at least, compared to evidence for it), but it seem stupid to shout them down and insult them just because they air an opinion different from ours. If someone did stand up and start denying the Holocaust and claiming it was all a Zionist conspiracy, then, admittedly, I probably would tell them to fuck off and get some proof, but - and here's the rub - I don't feel wholly comfortable calling them Nazis and nutters. I don't agree with them, their argument isn't based on reason or fact, and most of them are anti-Semitic, but tarring with the 'weirdo' brush seems to trivialise them. It's the same with calling Omi Bakri Mohammed (sp?) a madman and a loony preacher etc. It's not dealing with any reality, it's just spiralling off into absurd hyperbole. I'd be interested to actually talk to a Holocaust denier, because I've never met one - though I remember David Irving's hiliarious appearance on Newsnight ("you taught your son to sing racist songs in front of black men?"). But they do have a complete right to say it, and it's not hate speech as such, because not all deniers claim Jews should be killed, it's just denying the Holocaust was as catostrophic as many claim - it's a thin line.

mayer

Quote from: "Hoogstraten'sSmilingUlcer"Of course Holocaust deniers should have the right to express their opinions (quote Voltaire...), no matter how repellent they seem, and how implausible they might be.

What about other opinions? I don't think "free-speech" is ever, or ever should be absolute, and it never is in law. As someone in this thread has already said, what about Libel/Slander laws? In law, you can't say something untrue and repellent about someone. You can get done for it!

What about; "n**gers have smaller brains than pure white people, and thus if brain power is what makes us human, these coons are subhuman. When you go home, run one over, it'll be no different than killing a hedgehog. KILL KILL KILL THE n**gers *repeat till crowd is in a frenzy*".

If your defence of free expression is as simple and to-the-point as rolling out Voltaire, then you should reject all limitations on free speech, be they laws regarding slander, or incitement.

Hoogstraten'sSmilingUlcer

I can sympathise with the libel/slander laws, and I would support them, even though it restricts absolute freedom of speech. But I'm not sure about the 'incitement' argument - and the proposed laws of religious hatred etc. I feel that's too restrictive, even if it's used to whip up racist feeling. It seems another restriction on us that's claimed to be good for society. On the other hand, if we allow every racist sentiment to be expressed freely, then either it becomes a commodity and loses its offensiveness or it does lead to inciting racist violence. I don't think there should be limits on saying 'Blacks are subhuman,' there should be on restrictions on saying, 'Blacks are subhuman, therefore let's lynch them.' Yeah, I know it's a very thin line and the difference between saying 'The West is corrupt and the infidel' and 'The West is the infidel, let's bomb it.' I think there is a difference between slandering someone (ie. 'George Bush rapes children') to denying the Holocaust; the former is a personal attack and totally untrue (probably), whilst the latter is a historical opinion, no matter how ill-supported. I agree that absolute free speech is probably risky, though I love the theory of it, but I feel that if we do limit it, if a government/institution/event does happen that I truly hate, I fear that I'll be hoist by my own petard and won't be able to criticise. It's neuroses more than anything.

Blumf

A while ago I heard a point made about slander/libel laws to the effect that, if there weren't any people would eventually get used to it and be more weary of anything they heard about someone, they wouldn't just take it at face value.