• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former KKK leader detained in Prague

I say if they want to make idiots out of themeselves let them go for it.

Perhaps but the bottom line is a law was broken no matter how much you personally see it as FOS.

He was stupid to not research the laws of a country before entering.
 
Perhaps but the bottom line is a law was broken no matter how much you personally see it as FOS.

He was stupid to not research the laws of a country before entering.

I understand the reasoning behind the law in Germany. I can be both for and against it.
 
The US doesn't have any laws against Holocaust denial. It would violate our Constitution.

Not what I said. I said the US, Russia, France, UK and other allies forced many nations in Europe, including Germany and Austria, to put these laws on the books after WW2.
 
There aren't any laws in America denying slavery, Native American genocide, or Japanese internment camps. Nor should there be.

Well, you might not have laws against it, but there has been a collective denial of the truth for generations on some of those. Even today, you would be hard pressed for a right winger to admit that the US committed genocide against the native American population...It dont always need to take laws for a population to be in total denial of past misdeeds. Look at the Japanese and their WW2 history. Look at the Turks and the Armenian genocide.. look at certain politicians in Rwanda today who blame for the genocide but we all know that they participated in it as well. Denial can be a very strong and dangerous thing.

If they're making threats or committing violent acts or plotting domestic acts of terrorism, then by all means lock them up. But just for having their opinions? Definitely not. People should be able to voice any opinion they want, no matter how retarded, as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone.

Saying the Holocaust didn't happen doesn't cause harm to anyone.

In principle I agree, however reality is another thing.

We have seen time and time again situations where someone has claimed something and it has stuck as fact, regardless of the truth. Now in most cases it has not had any huge consequences, but in certain cases it has. In recent history we have the famous WMD, and we have the Saddam and links to Al Q, and we have the Gulf of Tomkin incident. Falsehoods can have dire consequences if pushed to the extreme and then being accepted as "fact". Even today you have considerably number of people in the US who actually believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.. are they stupid sure, but that does not change the fact that they believe what some people of "power and influence" have said.

Now in the case of holocaust denial we have 2 factors at least at play.

For one we have laws put in place by a 3rd party, namely the victors of WW2, of which the US was a key member.

Secondly we have nations where the atrocities of WW2 hit very hard and it is often human nature to be in denial of such things even with proof after proof. We have the American Indian example and the Japanese WW2 example or the Turkish Armenian example.

Now in such cases I would be all for having laws in place to punish people who actively spread lies and misinformation in order to press an aura of denial of past deeds. After all the saying goes.. If you dont understand history then you are doomed to repeat it... and frankly I would rather not.

And lets not forget, in the US at one point it was a crime to be a communist or have communist ideals.. well in fact just being accused of it was enough to get you convicted once.

But in this case, he broke the law.. he goes to jail. Jaywalking is not illegal in most of Europe, yet in the US you can get fined and thrown in jail. Does that mean that because I come from Europe I can not be punished for jaywalking? No of course not, but I still find the whole idea idiotic.
 
Yes it does.
He is not in US. There is no constitution protecting your rights in Europe. Besides, when you enter a country. You abide by the laws. If not, you suffer the consequences. No more than what would happen if someone broke the law in US.

I don't agree with hate speech laws. They violate mans natural rights, something I believe everyone has.

I don''t care how many hurt feelings there are, the guy didn't really do anything wrong to anyone.

He's just an incredible douche bag. That is not a crime.
 
I don't agree with hate speech laws. They violate mans natural rights, something I believe everyone has.

I don''t care how many hurt feelings there are, the guy didn't really do anything wrong to anyone.

He's just an incredible douche bag. That is not a crime.

According to US laws he did not do anything.
He broke the law and he is being charged under that law, what is so hard to understand?
I don't agree with every law in my statue books but i follow it. If i go to Saudi Arabia, i'd abide by theirs. Or if i visited US - I would not suddenly drive on the other side of the road would i?
 
According to US laws he did not do anything.
He broke the law and he is being charged under that law, what is so hard to understand?
I don't agree with every law in my statue books but i follow it. If i go to Saudi Arabia, i'd abide by theirs. Or if i visited US - I would not suddenly drive on the other side of the road would i?

I understand he broke their law.

We have to understand though that there is a minimum of what should or should not be laws.

Hate speech laws are supremely retarded.

"Ohh noes my feelings are hurt call the police."

Driving is a formality and not a way to control thought.
 
"Ohh noes my feelings are hurt call the police."

Driving is a formality and not a way to control thought.

That is not how hate speech works.

It was a example. The point i was trying to make was i'd follow the laws of any country i'd visit
 
That is not how hate speech works.

It was a example. The point i was trying to make was i'd follow the laws of any country i'd visit

I'm not trying to mock you but at some point someone has to get offended.

I understand cultural type laws.
In Turkey its advised that women wear at least pants and regular T-shirts because of cultural norms but it is not a hard and fast law.

Hate speech is a form of thought control.
 
No.
I do not pick and choose.

Slippery slope but balance is everything and generally we are doing an all right job imo.
I support laws against hate speech.

In Kanuckistan they proved these laws... not could be... but are abused.
It has Stalinist implications; sending people and their views underground for fear of saying the wrong thing.

Free speech is powerful because it identifies both brilliance and idiocy.
People should not be incarcerated because they said something some people find offensive.

.
 
How is it control?

Don't incite racial or religious violence
It's very simple

Its attempting to control how people think by punishing them for their words.

To fill what the law describes as hate speech you don't have to do those things.

You just have to say something negative about a race. It may not be true but that is all David Duke did.

He said some things that are negative and disparaging about Jews but he didn't incite violence.
 
How is it control?

Don't incite racial or religious violence
It's very simple

One question... would calling someone a N*gg*r in front of thousands count as an offense?

yes or no?

.
 
Last edited:
One question... would calling someone a N*gg*r in front of thousands count as an offense?

yes or no?

.

I'm not sure, i don't think so. I'll check if you want

The law does not need to step in.
The thousands of people will sort it out.
 
You just have to say something negative about a race. It may not be true but that is all David Duke did.

He said some things that are negative and disparaging about Jews but he didn't incite violence.

Oh no, i was talking about UK. I'm not sure about hate speech in all european countries.

In the case of Duke, denying the Holocaust is a crime in that European country.
 
I'm not sure, i don't think so. I'll check if you want

The law does not need to step in.
The thousands of people will sort it out.

If a white guy called somebody a "N*gg*r", in front of thousands... that doesn't risk inciting violence?

yes/No?

.
 
If a white guy called somebody a "N*gg*r", in front of thousands... that doesn't risk inciting violence?

I'd say Yes.
It is also defined as "Racial hatred"
Who and i quote 'uses threatening, abusive or insulting words' intending to stir up racial hatred
 
Last edited:
I'd say Yes.

Thanks for your straight answers.

I could have ended after your first answer as you could not, or had difficulty defining if an offense had occurred.
This is ripe grounds for abuse. When the law can be swizzled around to get the intended result for the party seeking damage... that is scary, as you can see where it will lead.

The second answer... "yes" to a white guy called somebody a "N*gg*r", in front of thousands" has actually happened not too long ago. Except the white guy was black, the user of the term also wanted to castrate the individual referred to as "N*gg*r", and it was in front of Millions, not thousands. I suppose you would begin a process to incarcerate Jesse Jackson, and if not... why not?

This... illustrates the dangerous sliding scale of justice when such laws are implemented.

They are... ripe to be abused... and how.

.
 
Last edited:
If in UK, sure.
But i'd assume it occured in US which prides itself on it's 1st Amendment. So anything goes no?
 
If in UK, sure.
But i'd assume it occured in US which prides itself on it's 1st Amendment. So anything goes no?

Point being and point proven... such laws are ripe for abuse.

If it is so in the UK, do Mohammad cartoons count?
Lord knows beheadings, terror attacks and the like generate no public outrage amongst Muslims, but a few cartoons of Mohammed do.
So... cartoons incite religious violence... therefore the cartoonists should be punished under the law.

Which means cartoonists must look over their shoulder or submit cartoons to the Dept. of Censorship... to be safe.

.
 
Last edited:
The cartoons do not go under it.
Freedom of press in UK is held up, if a newspaper wish to publish something. They have that right too.

Someone calling me the N word, would do so with the intent to offend. The cartoons was not drawn with the sole purpose and intention to offend and therefore i do not view it as hate speech in anyway.

Exactly.
If Muslims went just as crazy over beheadings, bombings and stonings. We may have the ground to shout if someone is seen as insulting us. But since we don't; we need to learn to shut up and tolerate it
 
Last edited:
The cartoons do not go under it.
Freedom of press in UK is held up, if a newspaper wish to publish something. They have that right too.

Someone calling me the N word, would do so with the intent to offend. The cartoons was not drawn with the sole purpose and intention to offend and therefore i do not view it as hate speech in anyway.

So Jesse Jackson's comments to a "hot mic" are ripe for criminal prosecution?
Or is skin color an exception too?

Does a journalist have the "Right" to incite violence?
So, if David Duke were a journalist spouting his blather it would exempt him too?
A little like Murtha using his position as a Congressman do hide from his remarks about the case brought against him better known as Haditha.

http://warchronicle.com/MurthaFile/LegalDocuments/Govt_Reply7.9.07.pdf

.
 
So Jesse Jackson's comments to a "hot mic" are ripe for criminal prosecution?
Or is skin color an exception too?

Nope, it's the same in my eyes.
 
Nope, it's the same in my eyes.

At least you are consistent.

I disagree with your view about punishing offensive speech, white, greem, yellow or brown profusely, but respect your honesty.

You obviously seek a tranquil existence, and believe this is a good way but the costs are far greater than the imagined tranquility; the hostilities simply go underground and cannot be released or addressed as the individual wishes; as distasteful as you or I may find it.

The former Yugoslavia is a power example. They had a tranquil coexistence during Commi times, but the hostilities obviously did not cease. When unleashed it was with tremendous force and cost.

.
 
Last edited:
I disagree profusely, but respect your honesty.

You obviously seek a tranquil existence, and believe this is a good way but the costs are far greater than the imagined tranquility; the hostilities simply go underground and cannot be released or addressed as the individual wishes; as distasteful as you or I may find it.

I try to be consistent.

Perhaps the costs are great and the Govt. can manipulate and abuse such systems but every law and system is open to abuse. But on the whole, the law does more good than it does bad from my viewpoint.
Such laws protect Gays, minorities from abuse and discrimination. That is surely something that should be good not bad.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom