Holocaust Denier Sentenced to 5 Years

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: KLin
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm glad we value free speech in our country.
Can you shout "fire" whenever you feel like it?

Of course you can.

Wrong. Your rights to free speech aren't limitless (i.e., you can't incite lawlessness).
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm glad we value free speech in our country.


There is no such thing as ultimate freedoms. "Free Speech" yet you cannot say somethings at sometimes. "Free Press" yet we can jail reporters for not revealing sources. "Free Assembly" yet it cannot impede normal business. The Courts have limited our freedoms and we have accepted it. Make no mistake, I do not see this as bad at all.


Back to the point at hand. I just read this story in The New York Times. I love the justification on how they got the guy extradited to Germany to face prosecution (he has been living in Canada for decades. "German prosecutors were able to seek his extradition on the ground that a Web site he ran was accessible in Germany."

Ah, gotta love that and its implications to Interstate Commerce here in the States.

yeah the reason they took him was BS.


but of course we do not have ultimate freedoms. As a business owner i do not think that a Assembly should be able to shut me down and of course things that are flat out dangerous such as yelling fire In a crowded stadium etc.


but i do have the right to say the Holocaust was a scam without fear of getting arrested.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,454
19,923
146
Freedom of speech is not measured by allowing only that speech we agree with, but by allowing that speech which offends us most.

I have, and always will oppose Germany's policy (yes, I know the US started it with denazification after WWII).
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
what I find laughable is that Bnai Brith Canada, a Jewish human rights group, lauded the decision to jail him for 5 years for some racist remarks and bigotry.

Well of course. It just goes to show that just because a person or group of people belong to a group that was "oppressed" can be bigots and racists too. Look at the basketball player recently that said he hates fags. I bet he'd be pretty pissed off if I said I hate blacks.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
Sad that people can get jailed for having an opinion.

Where's the black helicopter flying overhead?

This sort of reminds me of the WW2 Japanese General who got hanged for warcrimes because he was starving and killing American POW's. During the story it was talking about how there was month long battles against entrenched Japanese, and of course American troops were captured. As the battle went on, they were finding starving and starved to death Americans in bunkers as they were being liberated. On and on about how horrible this General was. Then in the end, it said the only way they could get this Japanese General to surrender was to blow up all supply lines to this island for months and eliminated their food and supply line. All of it... A real seige.

To say that this was not a warcrime should mean I should be locked up for 5 years? Anybody with a brain would realize that we destroyed the supply line for months, so if there was starving and starved American POW's, we probably were the ones who caused that to begin with. Should this Japanese General been hanged? I'd say no. Of course he is going to feed himself and his troops before he feeds American POWs...

How much of the "holocaust" was that sort of situation? Obviously Hitler didn't want all the Jews dead. Otherwise he would have just shot them in the head were they stood. Should I be locked up too for having doubts?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
His attorney, Ludwig Bock, said he would appeal.

"What is notable is the iron-hard refusal of the court to allow consideration of new scientific findings or expert opinions," Bock said.

Shouldn't this lawyer and these "experts" be prosecuted as well under German law?

That would make for an interesting conundrum.
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm glad we value free speech in our country.


There is no such thing as ultimate freedoms. "Free Speech" yet you cannot say somethings at sometimes. "Free Press" yet we can jail reporters for not revealing sources. "Free Assembly" yet it cannot impede normal business. The Courts have limited our freedoms and we have accepted it. Make no mistake, I do not see this as bad at all.


Back to the point at hand. I just read this story in The New York Times. I love the justification on how they got the guy extradited to Germany to face prosecution (he has been living in Canada for decades. "German prosecutors were able to seek his extradition on the ground that a Web site he ran was accessible in Germany."

Ah, gotta love that and its implications to Interstate Commerce here in the States.

yeah the reason they took him was BS.


but of course we do not have ultimate freedoms. As a business owner i do not think that a Assembly should be able to shut me down and of course things that are flat out dangerous such as yelling fire In a crowded stadium etc.


but i do have the right to say the Holocaust was a scam without fear of getting arrested.

Well, in the United States, you're correct. If you happen to live in the county that murdered x million "undesirables" during WW2 and have passed, through the Democratic process, a law that restricts what you can and cannot say regarding said genocide, then you wouldn't be allowed to say anything negative about the Holocaust.

The German government applies this law very selectively. In Germany, there is a growing nationalist movement (see: neo-nazis) that the German government hasn't prosecuted because of the potential riots.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,454
19,923
146
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm glad we value free speech in our country.


There is no such thing as ultimate freedoms. "Free Speech" yet you cannot say somethings at sometimes. "Free Press" yet we can jail reporters for not revealing sources. "Free Assembly" yet it cannot impede normal business. The Courts have limited our freedoms and we have accepted it. Make no mistake, I do not see this as bad at all.


Back to the point at hand. I just read this story in The New York Times. I love the justification on how they got the guy extradited to Germany to face prosecution (he has been living in Canada for decades. "German prosecutors were able to seek his extradition on the ground that a Web site he ran was accessible in Germany."

Ah, gotta love that and its implications to Interstate Commerce here in the States.

yeah the reason they took him was BS.


but of course we do not have ultimate freedoms. As a business owner i do not think that a Assembly should be able to shut me down and of course things that are flat out dangerous such as yelling fire In a crowded stadium etc.


but i do have the right to say the Holocaust was a scam without fear of getting arrested.

Well, in the United States, you're correct. If you happen to live in the county that murdered x million "undesirables" during WW2 and have passed, through the Democratic process, a law that restricts what you can and cannot say regarding said genocide, then you wouldn't be allowed to say anything negative about the Holocaust.

The German government applies this law very selectively. In Germany, there is a growing nationalist movement (see: neo-nazis) that the German government hasn't prosecuted because of the potential riots.

And you realize the ban has only given them strength.

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: jpeyton

If that were true, the Klan would have been outlawed a long time ago.

it was outlawed a long time ago.

WTF are you talking about?

Text

A Klan chapter in my state did road cleanup on a section of interstate and had their name on a sign.

i'm thinking of the first ku klux klan. sorry.
 

meltdown75

Lifer
Nov 17, 2004
37,548
7
81
They should just let them have their say. They don't believe the Holocaust happened, big deal. It just exposes the level of idiocy inherent in just about everything they believe in. I'd rather have their free speech protected so we can see just how ridiculous their arguments truly are.

Same goes with every other tool out there that incites hatred and breeds ignorance, all the while clinging to one of the most valuable tenets of modern democratic society - freedom of speech. Let them say what they want, it makes it possible to engage in debate and discussion about the issues at hand.

Not too long ago I was seriously offended by certain words and phrases that were being used on another forum (n-bombs). Now I hold back my disgust because I would rather remain silent and see what makes these sort of people tick than freak out and go into exile.
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm glad we value free speech in our country.


There is no such thing as ultimate freedoms. "Free Speech" yet you cannot say somethings at sometimes. "Free Press" yet we can jail reporters for not revealing sources. "Free Assembly" yet it cannot impede normal business. The Courts have limited our freedoms and we have accepted it. Make no mistake, I do not see this as bad at all.


Back to the point at hand. I just read this story in The New York Times. I love the justification on how they got the guy extradited to Germany to face prosecution (he has been living in Canada for decades. "German prosecutors were able to seek his extradition on the ground that a Web site he ran was accessible in Germany."

Ah, gotta love that and its implications to Interstate Commerce here in the States.

yeah the reason they took him was BS.


but of course we do not have ultimate freedoms. As a business owner i do not think that a Assembly should be able to shut me down and of course things that are flat out dangerous such as yelling fire In a crowded stadium etc.


but i do have the right to say the Holocaust was a scam without fear of getting arrested.

Well, in the United States, you're correct. If you happen to live in the county that murdered x million "undesirables" during WW2 and have passed, through the Democratic process, a law that restricts what you can and cannot say regarding said genocide, then you wouldn't be allowed to say anything negative about the Holocaust.

The German government applies this law very selectively. In Germany, there is a growing nationalist movement (see: neo-nazis) that the German government hasn't prosecuted because of the potential riots.

And you realize the ban has only given them strength.
I do. Frankly, it doesn't matter how much "strength" they have since once they perk the attention of the German gov, your movement is pretty much over.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: jpeyton

If that were true, the Klan would have been outlawed a long time ago.

it was outlawed a long time ago.

From Wikipedia:
The ACLU has provided legal support to various factions of the KKK in defense of their First Amendment rights to hold public rallies, parades, and marches, and their right to field political candidates.

The only thing outlawed with regards to the KKK is cross burning and even those laws have been challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court ruled on a Virginia law banning cross burning in Virginia v. Black in 2003 striking down the Virginia law. The court left open the possibility of being prosecuted for a cross burning if it is done with the intent to intimidate.

That's stupid... the only legality should be whether you burned a cross on your own property or someone else's.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,454
19,923
146
Originally posted by: chambersc

I do. Frankly, it doesn't matter how much "strength" they have since once they perk the attention of the German gov, your movement is pretty much over.

My movement?
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of speech is not measured by allowing only that speech we agree with, but by allowing that speech which offends us most.

I have, and always will oppose Germany's policy (yes, I know the US started it with denazification after WWII).

I definitely agree. I was raised Jewish, and it saddens me that other Jews would take such an authoritarian approach to what you can or can't say after being oppressed by authoritarians at many points throughout their history.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,454
19,923
146
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of speech is not measured by allowing only that speech we agree with, but by allowing that speech which offends us most.

I have, and always will oppose Germany's policy (yes, I know the US started it with denazification after WWII).

I definitely agree. I was raised Jewish, and it saddens me that other Jews would take such an authoritarian approach to what you can or can't say after being oppressed by authoritarians at many points throughout their history.

Yep. I hate Nazis (especially Illinois Nazis ;)) And I support Israel 100%.

But this kind of oppression is crap.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,425
14,829
146
While I don't agree with their message, I DO believe they have the right to believe what they want, and have the right to spout whatever kind of nonsense they choose, as long as it's not along the lines of "Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. If we start jailing people for their ridiculous beliefs, who'll be next? Mormons? ;)
 

nweaver

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2001
6,813
1
0
Originally posted by: brandonb

How much of the "holocaust" was that sort of situation? Obviously Hitler didn't want all the Jews dead. Otherwise he would have just shot them in the head were they stood. Should I be locked up too for having doubts?

are you freaking serious?

To deny the Holocaust (while not illegal, nor should it be) is like (as stated) trying to claim the sun rises in the west.
The most hushed and sad I ever saw my grandfather was when he talked about going through Germany and into the concentration camps (he was in a MASH unit under Patton's command). His simple statement was that "we can never risk that again, ever."
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Originally posted by: Howard
Can you shout "fire" whenever you feel like it?

How does owning an anti-semitic website equate to that at all?
Anti-Semitic rhetoric may incite bigotry and hatred.

Actually it DOES. The Nazis, KKK, etc... have said their numbers have grown very well in the last couple years. They are using the internet more and more and gaining new recruits. They are mostly using the mexican illegals as their "new" love to hate group to add new people.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Originally posted by: brandonb
Sad that people can get jailed for having an opinion.

Where's the black helicopter flying overhead?

This sort of reminds me of the WW2 Japanese General who got hanged for warcrimes because he was starving and killing American POW's. During the story it was talking about how there was month long battles against entrenched Japanese, and of course American troops were captured. As the battle went on, they were finding starving and starved to death Americans in bunkers as they were being liberated. On and on about how horrible this General was. Then in the end, it said the only way they could get this Japanese General to surrender was to blow up all supply lines to this island for months and eliminated their food and supply line. All of it... A real seige.

To say that this was not a warcrime should mean I should be locked up for 5 years? Anybody with a brain would realize that we destroyed the supply line for months, so if there was starving and starved American POW's, we probably were the ones who caused that to begin with. Should this Japanese General been hanged? I'd say no. Of course he is going to feed himself and his troops before he feeds American POWs...

How much of the "holocaust" was that sort of situation? Obviously Hitler didn't want all the Jews dead. Otherwise he would have just shot them in the head were they stood. Should I be locked up too for having doubts?

Hitler did want all the Jews dead. His problem was one of logistics. The Nazis did not fully implement the "Final Solution" until 1942 and they experimented with many different methods trying to find the most efficient way of killing and disposing of large numbers of people. If you really think that Hitler didn't want all the Jews dead you need to go back and re-read some real history books.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: brandonb
Sad that people can get jailed for having an opinion.

Where's the black helicopter flying overhead?

This sort of reminds me of the WW2 Japanese General who got hanged for warcrimes because he was starving and killing American POW's. During the story it was talking about how there was month long battles against entrenched Japanese, and of course American troops were captured. As the battle went on, they were finding starving and starved to death Americans in bunkers as they were being liberated. On and on about how horrible this General was. Then in the end, it said the only way they could get this Japanese General to surrender was to blow up all supply lines to this island for months and eliminated their food and supply line. All of it... A real seige.

To say that this was not a warcrime should mean I should be locked up for 5 years? Anybody with a brain would realize that we destroyed the supply line for months, so if there was starving and starved American POW's, we probably were the ones who caused that to begin with. Should this Japanese General been hanged? I'd say no. Of course he is going to feed himself and his troops before he feeds American POWs...

How much of the "holocaust" was that sort of situation? Obviously Hitler didn't want all the Jews dead. Otherwise he would have just shot them in the head were they stood. Should I be locked up too for having doubts?

Hitler did want all the Jews dead. His problem was one of logistics. The Nazis did not fully implement the "Final Solution" until 1942 and they experimented with many different methods trying to find the most efficient way of killing and disposing of large numbers of people. If you really think that Hitler didn't want all the Jews dead you need to go back and re-read some real history books.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that idiotic statement.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Hitler also killed 4 million non-jewish christians... I have never heard Jews say sh1t about that... it always about their suffering and horror. What about about the estimated 20-30 million russian orthodox christians, germans and other political "undesirables" that Stalin killed? What about the "killing fields" of the khmer rouge? The list of horrors continues...

Rather than focus attention on one holocaust, their holocaust, Jews should talk about all recent historical holocausts... because, regardless of the numbers killed or race/ethnicity, every holocaust all equally horrible.

Updated with some links and corrections:

Khmer rouge

Stalin...scroll down to the stuff about purges
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Hitler also killed 4 million non-jewish christians... I have never heard Jews say sh1t about that... it always about their suffering and horror. What about about the estimated 20-30 million russian orthodox christians, germans and other political "undesirables" that Stalin killed? What about the "killing fields" of the khmer rouge? The list of horrors continues...

Rather than focus attention on one holocaust, their holocaust, Jews should talk about all recent historical holocausts... because, regardless of the numbers killed or race/ethnicity, every holocaust all equally horrible.

Updated with some links and corrections:

Khmer rouge

Stalin...scroll down to the stuff about purges
The only concern the jewish people have, and should have I'd argue, is to their own holocaust. Leave the current slaughters to others activists.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Hitler also killed 4 million non-jewish christians... I have never heard Jews say sh1t about that... it always about their suffering and horror. What about about the estimated 20-30 million russian orthodox christians, germans and other political "undesirables" that Stalin killed? What about the "killing fields" of the khmer rouge? The list of horrors continues...

Rather than focus attention on one holocaust, their holocaust, Jews should talk about all recent historical holocausts... because, regardless of the numbers killed or race/ethnicity, every holocaust all equally horrible.

Updated with some links and corrections:

Khmer rouge

Stalin...scroll down to the stuff about purges
The only concern the jewish people have, and should have I'd argue, is to their own holocaust. Leave the current slaughters to others activists.

That is exactly what much of the world did to them during their holocaust... it wasn't until the US got bombed that we finally decide to get in the war. I think we should have got involved in WWII sooner mainly because of the holocaust.

If they aren't doing something to raise awareness of current slaughters... to me, that is short sighted of them and, in a way, highly prejudiced. Some may consider it "a lack or regard for the sufferings of others (which is very selfish) or even bigotry/racism".
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,454
19,923
146
Originally posted by: chambersc

The only concern the jewish people have, and should have I'd argue, is to their own holocaust. Leave the current slaughters to others activists.

What an absurd statement.