Freedom of speech includes the right to deny the holocau$t myth

[Nordicist]

via MajorityRights.com

http://www.majorityrights.com/

Freedom of speech includes the right to deny the holocaust

“At 9:30am on Monday the 20th February 2006, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, will appear on Sky News to defend freedom of speech in general, and in particular the right of controversial historian David Irving to say anything he likes about the holocaust. Mr Irving is awaiting trial in Austria for the supposed crime of denying or minimising the holocaust. Commenting ahead of the broadcast, Dr Gabb says:

“Either freedom of speech means the right to say anything at all about politics, religion, science or history, among much else - or it means nothing at all. “There are those who say they believe in freedom of speech, but then insist that the promotion of “hatred” does not come within the meaning of free speech. The Libertarian Alliance utterly rejects this supposed distinction. What some call the promotion of hatred others call telling the truth. In any event, we believe in the right to promote hatred by any means that do not fall within the Common Law definition of assault.

“Whenever the State involves itself in arguments about the truth, disputes between opinions become disputes between opinions and power. And the State has neither special ability nor the right to decide what opinions may be true or false. “Whatever we may think about what he claims, whatever we may think about the motivation for his claims, the claims Mr Irving makes regarding the holocaust are a matter to be settled by historical debate - not by the criminal law....

“We also note with distaste that those journalists throughout Europe who are congratulating each other on how brave and liberal they have been over the anti-Moslem cartoons have not said a word for the freedom of Mr Irving to express himself. “The Libertarian Alliance believes in freedom of speech for all - WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.”
__________________

[Jimbo Gomez]

Funny how national socialists, otherwise among the biggest authoritrians, start quoting libertarians when it suits them.

If you would abolish freedom of speach if you were in control of society don't be a hypocrit when you're not in control by claiming it for those on your side.

It's as consistant as those idiotic moslem terrorists in London or Madrid who enjoyed the good life and government handouts in a society they despised so much.

[Nordicist]

Funny how national socialists, otherwise among the biggest authoritrians, start quoting libertarians when it suits them.

Sure, I'll even quote a Marxist-transsexual-feminist-Hottentot-pygmy-in-a-wheelchair if I agree with him.

If you would abolish freedom of speach if you were in control of society don't be a hypocrit [sic] when you're not in control by claiming it for those on your side.

Again, you presume that before quoting a source one must be in complete agreement with the said source on all possible points. That's a foolish stance.

It's as consistant as those idiotic moslem terrorists in London or Madrid who enjoyed the good life and government handouts in a society they despised so much.

That's neither here not there.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I don't expect people to quote folks only if they agree with them on everything. Hell, quote who you want. I find it remarkable you quote a man you'd have locked up in jail.

You don't care about freedom of speach (neither do I for that matter), you just like it that this guy is calling for the release of Irving. That's ok, you can admit it. ;)

[Nordicist]

You don't care about freedom of speach (neither do I for that matter)...

That's correct, I do favour, however, the right to a thorough and unhindered investigation of holocau$t claims. I share this position with libertarians, it seems.

I find it remarkable you quote a man you'd have locked up in jail.

You assume too much.

[Totenkopf]

Who is the Libertarian Alliance? They have no power so nobody cares whathey say.

[Nordicist]

you just like it that this guy is calling for the release of Irving. That's ok, you can admit it.

Although I'm not a libertarian I do favour the right to fully investigate holocau$t claims. Here I find myself in agreement with libertarians...and on other issues (such as taxation, for e.g.) I disagree with them. I wouldn't quote their ideas on a flat tax.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Actually, I do agree with them on flat taxation, heh.

[Crowley]

Even a national socialist government could allow freedom of speech on the margins of intellectual discussion. Since the judeo-liberal (multicult) establishment has control of the viewing material of 95% of the mass audience you would think they could allow 2 or 3 articulate intellectuals dissent.

[Basil Fawlty]

Funny how national socialists, otherwise among the biggest authoritrians, start quoting libertarians when it suits them.

If you would abolish freedom of speach if you were in control of society don't be a hypocrit when you're not in control by claiming it for those on your side.I don't think that's quite right. It is liberal democracy which claims these cherished princpiles, the holocaust and the criminalising of any discussion of it just exposes the fraudulence of that claim. Pointing this out is not hypocrisy.

[Jimbo Gomez]

It isn't hypocrisy when a libertarian does so. But when it comes from people ten times more authoritarian than the current system is these days, that's something different.

[Nordicist]

But when it comes from people ten times more authoritarian than the current system is these days, that's something different.

Is this a joke? The present multicult system is incredibly intolerant and oppressive toward those who fall outside of what the establishment decided is permissible. That's why the so-called West continues to enact "hate", "racist", and holocau$t laws. Why do you think we need all those "Human Rights Tribunals" where truth is no defence? All dissidents are relentlessly persecuted by the authorities. Tell your flat pieties to Griffin and Collett who are about to face a retrial for privatly criticizing Islam during a conversation.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Basil Fawlty]

It isn't hypocrisy when a libertarian does so. But when it comes from people ten times more authoritarian than the current system is these days, that's something different.No, the hypocrisy is a liberal democracy and its cheerleaders claiming freedom of speech as a hallowed principle whilst criminalising any criticism of the holy holocaust story.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Don't go putting words in my mouth freddy boy, dd you see me claim that present day society is free? No? Thought so.

It does know more freedom than nazi Germany did though.

Be honest: it's not the fact that people get locked up for their beliefs that bothers you, it's the fact that the wrong people decide which beliefs are criminal that really pisses you off.

[Felix the Cat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Holocaust_denial_examined

Public denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences.

When were these laws adopted?

[Jimbo Gomez]

The belgian law was passed in the 1990s I think (too lazy to look it up), I don't know about the other ones.

[Felix the Cat]

Interesting. Yes, I suspect most of these laws are quite recent

Why did this suddenly become an issue in the 1990s?

Fear of a Nazi revival after the Soviet collapse?

[Jimbo Gomez]

Most of the worst political correctness laws were passed in the 1990s. Guess eroding common sense out of people's minds is a gradual process, which took its critical turn in the 90's.

[Felix the Cat]

Someone born in 1950 would be 40 in 1990

ie. that decade saw the Boomers come into power

Here's our problem, I think

[Jimbo Gomez]

Oh yes, the boomers caused a huge part of the problem.

[Crowley]

Someone born in 1950 would be 40 in 1990

ie. that decade saw the Boomers come into power

Here's our problem, I think

Could you flesh out this theory a bit, please? Why is it that the spoiled sons and daughters of World War II veterans would be the ones to implement political correctness?

My theory is the Jews have consolidated their overthrow of the old WASP ruling elite at this period and in order to retain power they have instituted orwellian thought control laws. They are vulnerable, as always, because of their few numbers, which explains the frantic calls in the commissar media for more, more, and more immigration. Of course, the white liberal elite is also complicit up to its eyeballs.

[Jimbo Gomez]

The babyboomers added more than their share of decandence to the corpse of our culture in the 1960s and 1970s, and if you see how they behave once in power, a lot becomes obvious. No offense bardamu, there are exceptions to every rule, but the babyboom generation is not exactly the finest ever in the Western World.

[Felix the Cat]

Well, we're about to see if this theory is correct

These people are going to begin retiring over the next decade. My suspicion is that European politics will lurch violently to the right as it happens

Stupid laws like these will be among the first things to go

[Nordicist]

It does know more freedom than nazi Germany did though.

There was more dissent allowed in NS Germany than you seem to think.

Why did this suddenly become an issue in the 1990s?

Fear of a Nazi revival after the Soviet collapse?

No, there's no NS revival anywhere; hence, we can safely dismiss this hypothesis. As I've said many times before, the post-war arrangement -- particularly in Europe -- rests in large measure on the holocau$t story...and that's why we have seen it judicially erected by the political establishment into a quasi-religious dogma that mustn't be questioned or doubted or challenged. You can add to that the lobbying efforts of Israel and Diaspora Jews. Israel also needs the holocau$t myth, since it was founded on it.

As to the plethora of "hate" or "racist" legislation...well, obviously the poltical establishment decided to flood Western nations with racially and religiously inassimilable migrants without first consulting indigenous populations who, it's safe to say, never wished to get racially replaced by the newcomers in the first place. The Western governments did this mostly to please capitalist/plutocratic interests who were greedly searching for sources of cheap labour to exploit. Now, the the said Western governments find themselves enacting oppressive legislation in a desperate effort to drown out the protests of the original inhabitants who suddenly find themselves living in multicultural, multiracial societies (with all the inherent social problems) that they never wished or desired. Furthermore, to keep a semblance of social peace in such multicultural, multiracial settings one must enact totalitarian laws to keep the situation from exploding into a full-blown conflict. However, I don't believe that the establishment will be able to contain the simmering confrontation indefinitely -- try as they may. I agree with the French author Guillaume Faye that a civil war is inevitable and approaching. It's only a matter of time before the conflagration. In sum, the situation will have to get worse before it gets better.

Actually, I do agree with them on flat taxation, heh.

That's because you know nothing about economics.

[Basil Fawlty]

Don't go putting words in my mouth freddy boy, dd you see me claim that present day society is free? No? Thought so.I'm not sure if this response is addressed to me or not?

[Crowley]

The babyboomers added more than their share of decandence to the corpse of our culture in the 1960s and 1970s, and if you see how they behave once in power, a lot becomes obvious. No offense bardamu, there are exceptions to every rule, but the babyboom generation is not exactly the finest ever in the Western World.

No doubt the boomers are the first truly decadent generation of Americans. The reason for this is fascinating subject and in my opinion is the result of being the first generation heavily indoctrinated with electronic mass media, especially television, not to mention the always deleterious effect of being materially spoiled. I don't take any offense, thank you :). I have zero vested allegiance to my generation, per se. It simply doesn't make sense to me why white boomers would care a fig about politically correct tales of the Jewish holocaust, or for that matter affirmative action -- another main tenet of political correctness --- since it is aimed directly at the white male boomers ability to make a good living.

[Anima Eternae]

I always found it strange net Nazis talk about how fake the "holohoax" is, yet never fail to utter "6 million wasn't enough lol".

[Crowley]

I always found it strange net Nazis talk about how fake the "holohoax" is, yet never fail to utter "6 million wasn't enough lol".

You are mistaken. It is actually rare to hear this. Now and then on VNN maybe.
I don't remember reading it once on the Phora. Would you care to cut and paste a few examples in from this forum?

[leondegrance]

I always found it strange net Nazis talk about how fake the "holohoax" is, yet never fail to utter "6 million wasn't enough lol".

Or that Miller has a nocturnal emission whenever he thinks of the gas showers. lol

[Nordicist]

Don't go putting words in my mouth freddy boy, dd you see me claim that present day society is free? No? Thought so.

You said that today's Western societies are a 100 % freer than NS Germany, no? If so, you're both ignorant of the freedoms enjoyed by normal Germans under National Socialism and delusional if you think that present Western societies are 100 % freer.

But you're right in the sense that all that was diseased, perverted, sociopathic, destructive...in sum, Jewish... was outlawed in NS Germany. Today, however, all those corrupting and degenerate elements are not only given free rein but are actively encouraged and promoted by our Judaized and Niggerized culture. Conversly, all those in favour of our racial preservation and health are mercilessly hounded and persecuted.

You see, I opt for the first system -- which was essentially a group survival mechanism for German gentiles.

[Nordicist]

I always found it strange net Nazis talk about how fake the "holohoax" is, yet never fail to utter "6 million wasn't enough lol".

You're probably referring to agents provocateurs or the mentally unstable or perhaps teenagers anonymously spouting stupidities. I've never personally witnessed anyone uttering something of the sort. But then again, I'm not a denizen of VNNForum.

[Donny the Punk]

Nordicist - why do you value freedom of speech?

[Fade the Butcher]

I think what he is actually referring to here is open inquiry.

[Arthur Daley]

You said that today's Western societies are a 100 % freer than NS Germany, no? If so, you're both ignorant of the freedoms enjoyed by normal Germans under National Socialism and delusional if you think that present Western societies are 100 % freer.

But you're right in the sense that all that was diseased, perverted, sociopathic, destructive...in sum Jewish... was outlawed in NS Germany. Today, however, all those corrupting and degenerate elements are not only given free reign but are actively encouraged and promoted by our Judaized and Niggerized culture. Conversly, all those in favour of our racial preservation and health are mercilessly hounded and persecuted.

You see, I opt for the first system -- which was essentially a group survival mechanism for German gentiles.
Precisely. For example Hitler was scornful about Franco's vindictive attitude to his opponents. Hitler on the other hand had quite a dynamic approach. Subversive elements pre-33 where confronted with a choice; to renounce their previous hateful activities or accept their place within the national community. Those who choose the latter had the slate wiped clean. Noske in particular I'm thinking off. One can even argue that this stellar example of magnaminity was taken too far.

Far too much importance is attached to political liberty for my liking; its largely mythological in character as it stands anyhow. Dissent threatening to the democratic charade is stamped out..

[Donny the Punk]

I think what he is actually referring to here is open inquiry.
I assume that a 35 year-old is capable of answering his own questions.

[Nordicist]

It would be more exact to say that I favour free inquiry of the holocau$t story.

[Donny the Punk]

It would be more exact to say that I favour free inquiry of the holocau$t story.
Why do you value free inquiry? Or do you only value free inquiry of the Holocaust? If so, why?

[Fade the Butcher]

Why do you value free inquiry? Or do you only value free inquiry of the Holocaust? If so, why?

Because it is essential to the discipline of history?

[Donny the Punk]

Because it is essential to the discipline of history?
That is the least of concerns on the minds of Holocaust Revisionists. :p However, I am interested in seeing his answer.

[Nordicist]

Why do you value free inquiry? Or do you only value free inquiry of the Holocaust? If so, why?

I value free inquiry. Hell, I even have a subscription to Free Inquiry magazine. :)

[Donny the Punk]

I value free inquiry. Hell, I even have a subscription to Free Inquiry magazine. :)
I assume you are a Nazi, is that correct? If not, can you correct me?

[Kodos]

Freedom of speech includes the right to deny the holocau$t

Yes it does though it doesn't mean you have to like it. And its annoying you keep bringing it up.

myth...

I've yet to see a holocaust debate where the proponents of it being a myth didn't get pwn3d.

[Die]

I assume you are a Nazi, is that correct? If not, can you correct me?
Today 12:24 PM

Oh don't be silly, Nordicist is simply a leptoprosopic, dolichocephalic individual who was unfortunate enough to have been circumcized, and then found out he couldn't rap during the critical formative years of his youth

[Jimbo Gomez]

I'm not sure if this response is addressed to me or not?


It was directed to nordicist. When I started typing, his post was the most recent in the thread. You submitted your reply a few seconds before I submitted mine it seems.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Oh don't be silly, Nordicist is simply a leptoprosopic, dolichocephalic individual who was unfortunate enough to have been circumcized, and then found out he couldn't rap during the critical formative years of his youth


Keep it clean please. :)

[Jimbo Gomez]

Freddy: without going into detail about flat taxation (we both know what the other guy will say so why bother?) let's stick to the freedom of speach issue. I did not say present day society is 100% more free than nazi Germany was, because every system encourages free speach on the issues the elite agrees with. This is the reason why you can question the holocaust in Iran (not because they value free speach but because this particular opinion suits them). If you want to know how much free speach matters, see how much slack is given to the opinions the elite dislikes. Western Europe sadly has its many PC thoughtcrimelaws and therefor has no free speach, and yet it still beats nazi Germany. We both know a holocaustdenier in presentday Germany will be punished less severe than an open stalinist would be in 1935 nazi Germany.

[Basil Fawlty]

We both know a holocaustdenier in presentday Germany will be punished less severe than an open stalinist would be in 1935 nazi Germany.No difference that I can see, both would be incarcerated.

[Nordicist]

Freedom of speech includes the right to deny the holocau$t

Yes it does though it doesn't mean you have to like it. And its annoying you keep bringing it up.

myth...

I've yet to see a holocaust debate where the proponents of it being a myth didn't get pwn3d.

How many debates have you witnessed?

In any case, visit the Revisionist Forum and do a search for "Mathis" http://www.yourforum.org/revforum/index.php There you'll see real Revisionists and not little teenagers having fun.

You'll see a Believer get pwn3d (how old are you?).

[Nordicist]

We both know a holocaustdenier in presentday Germany will be punished less severe than an open stalinist would be in 1935 nazi Germany.

No, I don't know that. Those who question the holocau$t story are imprisoned. The rank-and-file of the Communist party (there were no "Stalinists") didn't end up in prison in '35.

[Nordicist]

Yes it does though it doesn't mean you have to like it. And its annoying you keep bringing it up.

Awww...it makes you uncomfortable? Get used to it, buddy.

Here's what someone I consider a friend ("Fred", btw, he's Jewish) wrote on MajorityRights.com

It seems apparent that the present régime of criminalization of Holocaust denial ought to make everyone deny the Holocaust or at least be a skeptic. How could it not?

Imagine the government forbidding the questioning of the truth of the Cambodian genocide and sentencing politicians, historians, and scientists to jail for questioning it.

Imagine that, for a moment—that only scholars agreeing with the official version were allowed to speak; only that official version was allowed to be communicated to the public.

What would the result be? Obviously it would be that no sensible person, no person with integrity, would believe the Cambodian genocide—or at least the official version.

Imagine that governments did the same for the Kulak genocide, the Katyn Forest massacre, the Armenian genocide, the massacre of students at Tian An Men Square, the Rwandan massacres, the three-hundred-year North American Red Indian genocide: forbade questioning of them on pain of arrest and prison.

Obviously, people of sense and integrity would stop believing they occurred, and rightly so.

The effect which this outrageous criminalization of questioning of the Holocaust has had on me—especially these arrests and prosecutions of Zundel, Rudolph, and Irving—has been to make me a Holocaust skeptic. I’m someone who never read much on the Holocaust (still haven’t) and never doubted the official version in the slightest—never saw any reason to, and never gave it much thought.

I now consider that I do not know whether the official version is true or not. For one thing, if it were true, why would they be putting people in jail for questioning it? Do we put people in jail for questioning that the world is round?

This will be my last comment referring to “the Holocaust.” I’m referring to it from now on as “the alleged systematic Nazi massacre of Jews.” I don’t know what Rudolph’s, Irving’s, or Zundel’s arguments are but until they are let out of jail and allowed to publish their opinions and give speeches like anyone else, I expect to continue to be a Holocaust skeptic.

I’m not going to believe anything, whether it be that the world is round, the Americans landed on the moon, or the Holocaust took place, if scholars critical of it aren’t permitted to speak.

Knowing that creating even more skeptics and deniers will be the inevitable consequence of criminalization of Holocaust denial, one has to wonder why the powers-that-be are doing it.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/may_15th_set_for_griffin_collett_retrial/#comments

Of all the things in today’s world I’m mad about, the criminalization of “Holocaust denial” is one of the worst. It is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable, no excuses possible, no conceivable justifications, no ifs, ands, or buts. In fact, the people who are doing this are themselves criminals—moral criminals, criminals against our civilization. (I refer not just to the segment of Jews who support it, but to the Euros in European governments and Canada who support it as fervently as Jews do, for their own nauseating destructive ends.) The doors to research into exactly what happened and what did not happen in “The Holocaust” must be thrown wide open. If the powers-that-be criminalized all public expression of doubt about two plus two equaling four I’d have exactly the same reaction: I’d declare myself a skeptic as to whether or not two plus two equaled four until those claiming it didn’t were let out of jail and freely allowed to express their points of view. THIS IS A FUCKING NO-BRAINER AND I CAN’T EXPRESS THAT STRONGLY ENOUGH! There can be no two ways of viewing this question. Either we are civilized or we are not. And there’s this, of course: the shutting down of free historical inquiry is bad enough and unacceptable enough in and of itself, and must be stopped on that gound alone, but it’s also intricately intertwined, in the case of “The Holocaust,” with some sort of Western-World-wide acceptance of the vague notion that non-Jewish whites are now morally bound to auto-genocide themselves as atonement for “The Holocaust” and any sort of white nationalism is STRENG VERBOTEN!!! for the reason it was that sort of thing that led to “The Holocaust.” If that’s what “The Holocaust” is bound up with, there damn well better be free and open inquiry into any doubts raised as to what really happened from 1942 to 1945. If today’s generally-accepted version is indeed what really happened, let that be shown convincingly by rebuttal of its critics and I’ll be the first to declare I’m no longer a skeptic. Until then, the Thought Police can FUCK THEMSELVES!

Incidentally, of the references Friedrich posted last night I’ve read the following so far (and will read all the others he posted this week-end or next): here, here, and here. They are extremely interesting. I plan soon, for the first time in my life, on reading everything I can get my hands on in regard to “The Holocaust,” a subject whose details never interested me in the past but which I’m now forced to delve into because of this shit about putting people like Rudolph in jail for giving their versions. JAILED FOR GIVING THEIR VERSIONS! CAN IT BE BELIEVED??? WE’RE LIVING UNDER THE FUCKING KGB, GESTAPO, AND STASI ALL ROLLED INTO ONE! I never questioned “The Holocaust” before, but I damn well question it now, for one reason and only one: THE ASSHOLE MOTHERFUCKERS WHO ARE JAILING SCHOLARS FOR EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT IT! I don’t know who’s right and of course I expect there are rebuttals to everything Rudolph has written here and elsewhere, but that’s the whole point: you rebut historical points of view, you don’t throw the ones expressing them in jail! This whole thing just makes me so sick! I cannot express adequately how mad I am at the people doing this. They are sick, bad, truly evil people, Jews and gentile politicians alike who are doing this to scholars—putting them in jail for their opinions I don’t give a flying fuck what the opinions are, you rebut them, you don’t put them in jail! What is this, the god damn middle ages? The fucking Reign of Terror? Fricking Kim Jong-Il and the madmen of North Korea? It’s the purest shit, that’s what it is. I’m not going along with it.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE EXPLANATION: THE CREEPS DOING THIS HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE, SOMETHING THEY DON’T WANT THE WORLD TO FIND OUT ABOUT. DAMN RIGHT!

[Jimbo Gomez]

THE ASSHOLE MOTHERFUCKERS WHO ARE JAILING SCHOLARS FOR EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT IT!

Nice to see you are able to support your claims with quotes of people as eloquent as this one.

[Nordicist]

Don't be such a prissy priggish prude.

[raven]

Funny how national socialists, otherwise among the biggest authoritrians, start quoting libertarians when it suits them.

If you would abolish freedom of speach if you were in control of society don't be a hypocrit when you're not in control by claiming it for those on your side.

It's as consistant as those idiotic moslem terrorists in London or Madrid who enjoyed the good life and government handouts in a society they despised so much.
Exactly. And didn't David Irving and Paul Fromm take people to court for libel as they were labelled "neo-nazis" and so forth? These advocates and many of the other advocates are "free speech" only want free speech for themselves and not universal free speech.

As for myself I actually truly believe in freedom of speech sponsored by the state (in private property, speech should be limited depending on the owner... for eg. you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre just to piss people off is one of the many examples of what I mean). Like think about it. What the hell is to someone if they say, "the holocaust is a hoax!" or on the other spectrum, "that bastard is a fascist neo-nazi!"

I can understand why a lot of people are irritated at jews but the jewish boogeyman crap has gotten to the point that we have "nationalists" sympathizing with bloody islamist monsters. (usually from places where they don't have many muslims... like Americans. Though not all American nationalists are like this obviously) I bet that if they lived around these islamists they would have a different view. Especially if that islamists were to gang up on their sister/daughter (as seen in Australia) and tell them that they are going to be raped "leb style." Then they would see that it is absurd to favour the islamists way more than the jews.

[Nordicist]

Exactly. And didn't David Irving and Paul Fromm take people to court for libel as they were labelled "neo-nazis" and so forth? These advocates and many of the other advocates are "free speech" only want free speech for themselves and not universal free speech.

First get your facts straight. You're mixing apples and oranges. Libel laws don't negate the principle of "freedom of speech." If I write a column tomorrown in the New York Times casually referring to you as a sodomite paedophile and you're nothing of the sort, I committed a libel. You can sue me in a court of law for libel and expect damages. I haven't infringed on your freedom of speech.

[raven]

Exactly. And didn't David Irving and Paul Fromm take people to court for libel as they were labelled "neo-nazis" and so forth? These advocates and many of the other advocates are "free speech" only want free speech for themselves and not universal free speech.

First get you facts straight. You're mixing apples and oranges. Libel laws don't negate the principle of "freedom of speech." If I write a column tomorrown in the New York Times casually referring to you as a sodomite paedophile and you're nothing of the sort, I committed a libel. You can sue me in a court of law for libel and expect damages. I haven't infringed on your freedom of speech.
Like Irving and Fromm haven't committed libel themselves. :rofl: The difference is that Irving and Fromm lost even more face after they pressed charges and brought even more attention to them. Also, in order for the accusation of "sodomite paedophile" to hold any water in the public there would have to be evidence. With Irving and Fromm, their actions were completley know... so calling them a neo-nazi was just a matter of opinion. And once again, Irving and Fromm worsened their standing when they took these people to court.

[Nordicist]

Like Irving and Fromm haven't committed libel themselves.

This is irrelevant to your initial point, i.e. that Irving was trying to stifle "freedom of speech." BTW, I don't know what you're talking about. When have they (Irving and Fromm) made defamatory statements or representations? Be precise. I don't recall either one of them getting sued for defamation.

The difference is that Irving and Fromm lost even more face after they pressed charges and brought even more attention to them.

Again, this is irrelevant to your initial point.

Also, in order for the accusation of "sodomite paedophile" to hold any water in the public there would have to be evidence.

Not if it's libel, obvioulsly. A definition of libel from Webster-Mirriam Online Dictionary:

2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

With Irving and Fromm, their actions were completley know... so calling them a neo-nazi was just a matter of opinion.

When did Fromm sue for defamation?

And once again, Irving and Fromm worsened their standing when they took these people to court.

One more time: irrelevant.

Irving felt that Lipstadt and her pubisher made defamatory statements, he had a right to sue...this has absolutely nothing to do with denying them their "freedom of speech", as you stated in your initial comment.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

My problem with all this is not this "freedom of speech" which quite correctly I would be the first to supress. Its rather the galling hypocrecy of these so called "democrats" who "enjoy" this nice public relations bouns associated with their political choice. A bonus, NS does not even attempt to make its own, a bonus which makes NS less atractive to the masses. A bonus Democrats trumpet at each occasion possible (along with "freedom", etc..).
Well...in fair play (which we do not have of course) democrats should pay the political price of the "bonus" they sell to the masses. IMHO you can not have your pie and eat it too.
This is what irritates me. At least they could tear down their fake mask and say outloud that freedom of speech is not really guaranteed under this political system and move on from there by saying Democrats will bend and twist their own basic poltical premises as to defend their system from possible advances of those who would tear them down.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I never understood this saying: how can you eat a pie if you don't have it?

[Anarch]

I'm a little lost. What's the point of freedom? Why should it even be necessary to write about the damage Muslims inflict on the West? Why should some people have to find it necessary to give a damn about a tribe that got kicked around 60-70 odd years ago? These questions should be answered and cleared up and democracy should be over and done with. Democracy is incapable of protecting the liberty necessary for civilization.

[A. Radek]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel
Funny how national socialists, otherwise among the biggest authoritrians, start quoting libertarians when it suits them.

If you would abolish freedom of speach if you were in control of society don't be a hypocrit when you're not in control by claiming it for those on your side.

It's as consistant as those idiotic moslem terrorists in London or Madrid who enjoyed the good life and government handouts in a society they despised so much.

Exactly. It's like Glenn Miller, the parasite welfare bunny, cashing hisFederal pension checks while whining about overthrowing the government.

[cerberus]

Freedom of speech , fine and dandy - with any freedom comes responsibility.
When you assert that right please don't do so at the expense of another.
Perhaps if denial was in some way factually based it might not get such a rough ride.
( Sorry I forgot the conspiracy aspect of the all powerfrul "ZOG." which must be true as all else hinges on it , so we are told).