03 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThen you should've posted a link to "trial transcripts, newspaper accounts of the time and some comments by the Framers regarding it" instead of wasting both our time with the link you actually posted.
I've read that article and studied the Zenger trial transcripts, newspaper accounts of the time and some comments by the Framers regarding it. Have you? Of course not. As I suspected, you are too brainwashed to see that Zenger is supportive of a broad principle, not merely a limited holding. And it was seen as such 250+ years ago.
In any case, I'm not interested in the sociological aspects of the case. If you have anything to say on the legal or philosophical aspects of the case, say it or provide a link that's relevant. So far, the only link you've posted does not make the case you said it does; and I have no objection to the basic legal points (truth as defence against slander) made in it.
03 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's funny you should say that "No associations are ALLOWED to form so they can vote" when that is exactly how States operate in the Presidential elections.
Every time you write anything on the US system, you show your massive confusion and ignorance. No associations are ALLOWED to form so they can vote even though voting is a right (or more precisely, a tool used to actualize a right). You have been arguing that it is somehow a violation of someone rights if an organization that they belong to isn't granted ...[text shortened]... t's job to make sure everybody is thought of by everybody else in the way they desire.
Stop chasing the old strawman - I never said that all organisations come under a blanket extension of all rights of its members.
You keep saying that there is no fundamental right to a "reputation" as though it's obvious. It's not - you have to demonstrate it. I argue that a person's reputation is critical to his ability to exercise certain other rights (e.g. right to life and livelihood under certain circumstances - as virtually any minority rights organisation can tell you) and therefore has a right to protect himself against false allegations.
And, while you're at it, stop chasing yet another strawman (I've lost count of the number you've chased in this thread) - I never said anything about making sure everyone thinks of you the way you desire.
03 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf one's reputation is important because it conduces to the satisfaction of other ends (e.g., life, livelihood, etc.), or because it is a necessary condition for the expression and protection of other rights, then a putative right to a reputation is, by definition, not fundamental.
It's funny you should say that "No associations are ALLOWED to form so they can vote" when that is exactly how States operate in the Presidential elections.
Stop chasing the old strawman - I never said that all organisations come under a blanket extension of all rights of its members.
You keep saying that there is no fundamental ri ...[text shortened]... - I never said anything about making sure everyone thinks of you the way you desire.
04 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerLMAO!! The link I provided has both excerpts from the trial and newspaper accounts. You obviously didn't bother to even read it.
Then you should've posted a link to "trial transcripts, newspaper accounts of the time and some comments by the Framers regarding it" instead of wasting both our time with the link you actually posted.
In any case, I'm not interested in the sociological aspects of the case. If you have anything to say on the legal or philosophical aspects of the ca have no objection to the basic legal points (truth as defence against slander) made in it.
04 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're ridiculous; you assert there exists a fundamental right to a "reputation". It is YOUR burden to show such a thing exists. "Reputation" is based on other people's opinion of you and no one has any "right" to have other people think well of them.
It's funny you should say that "No associations are ALLOWED to form so they can vote" when that is exactly how States operate in the Presidential elections.
Stop chasing the old strawman - I never said that all organisations come under a blanket extension of all rights of its members.
You keep saying that there is no fundamental ri - I never said anything about making sure everyone thinks of you the way you desire.
Please also stop making statements about the American political system; they are so laughably inaccurate that you should be embarrassed to show your utter ignorance.
04 Jun 06
The anti-Holocaust-denial law (in Austria and Germany at least) is defended mainly as a (successful) anti-hate-crime measure; it is generally used against small, dangerous, neo-Nazi groups. Austria is a country that has never quite come to terms with its Nazi past (witness the success of Haider).
Whether that's a philosophically sound justification is another matter, but there is no parallel with the RC chuch's reputation being "besmirched" by e.g. the DaVinci Code.
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI look at you NOW and wonder how you could be such a buffoon.
That's the point, Doc: it was modern then, for some mysterious reason, just as future historians will look back on our present system and wonder how we could have been such baffoons.
Christ, you can't even spell buffoon correctly.
How ironic.
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by dottewellSo you say. Actually it is a law suppressing speech on political grounds. Irving went to prison partially because he was accused on making untrue statements regarding historical facts. I see little difference between those facts and the RCC being allowed to sue an author because they claim he made up or got wrong historical facts.
The anti-Holocaust-denial law (in Austria and Germany at least) is defended mainly as a (successful) anti-hate-crime measure; it is generally used against small, dangerous, neo-Nazi groups. Austria is a country that has never quite come to terms with its Nazi past (witness the success of Haider).
Whether that's a philosophically sound justification is a ...[text shortened]... e is no parallel with the RC chuch's reputation being "besmirched" by e.g. the DaVinci Code.
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by howardgeeSay, here's a novel contest: let's see who has had more spelling and/or grammatical errors per post/capita, me or you. Smart money is on you, jackass.
I look at you NOW and wonder how you could be such a buffoon.
Christ, you can't even spell buffoon correctly.
How ironic.
05 Jun 06
5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNot "so I say"; it is a fact that that is how it is defended. As I said, whether it is justifiable is another matter.
So you say. Actually it is a law suppressing speech on political grounds. Irving went to prison partially because he was accused on making untrue statements regarding historical facts. I see little difference between those facts and the RCC being allowed to sue an author because they claim he made up or got wrong historical facts.
The right to respect is in fact written into the German constitution.
http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_printcontent/0,,1896750,00.html
Of course if fundamental rights are your only moral code you will see this as ridiculous; but not everyone sees that as the best way of approaching moral questions.
One difference, by the way, is the potential for harm. There is no real potential for harm in the case of offending the RCC church with a book like the DVC, or at least any "harm" is limited mainly to offence and is clearly outweighed by the desirability of protecting free speech. The scale of the offence is also relevant.
Germans are as wary as many other European countries (and more wary than most) of protecting free speech. But not to an absolute degree, and not at any cost.
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by dottewellI really don't care how they are defended; they are suppression of speech on political grounds, pure and simple. Labelling someone else's beliefs a "hate crime" is just a tactic to repress them.
Not "so I say"; it is a fact that that is how it is defended. As I said, whether it is justifiable is another matter.
The right to respect is in fact written into the German constitution.
http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_printcontent/0,,1896750,00.html
Of course if fundamental rights are your only moral code you will see this as ridiculous; but ...[text shortened]... ry than most) of protecting free speech. But not to an absolute degree, and not at any cost.
What is the "best way to resolve moral questions"? Allow the majority (or the government) to say what beliefs are acceptable and jail those who express different ones?
You are absurd; there is no possibility of harming anyone by saying anything i.e "sticks and stones" etc etc etc. I don't see any difference in the "scale" of the offenses discussed; if I said the RCC had killed 50 million people during the Inquistion, how is the "scale" of that any different from saying the Nazis killed a half a million Jews for example? Cuz you say so? Give an actual reason rather than a flat, unsupported assertion.
Most European countries never accepted Lockean philosophy and are less supportive of fundamental rights than the US is, at least in theory. That's their problem. But your link where the German government wants to jail a man for writing things in another country show the outrageous lengths some censors of thought will go to. Maybe the Germans haven't learned as much as you think.
05 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMost people don't base their morality on a theory of fundamental rights. Most people, for example, would agree that spreading race hate was morally wrong; the question is whether we should therefore legislate against it. Most countries in Western Europe, like America, take a conservative view - that, for various ethical and pragmatic reasons, it is usually right NOT to limit free speech.
I really don't care how they are defended; they are suppression of speech on political grounds, pure and simple. Labelling someone else's beliefs a "hate crime" is just a tactic to repress them.
What is the "best way to resolve moral questions"? Allow the majority (or the government) to say what beliefs are acceptable and jail those who express rs of thought will go to. Maybe the Germans haven't learned as much as you think.
Countries that have Holocaust denial laws (and there are many) take the view that this atrocity is a special case, because it happened in the recent past and because the far-right are still doing very well above the political radar (le Pen, Haider) and below it. As far as I know (and Ivanhoe can correct me if I am wrong), the RCC is no longer sending out hit-squads to torture and kill.
It is also clear that there is a link between virulent anti-semitism, and other forms of racism, and racial violence/social unrest. The fact it is often difficult or impossible to prove, to courts' satisfaction, a link between a specific act of "saying" and an actual or likely act of "doing" does not invalidate the point.
Where do such limits on free speech stop? Well for countries like Germany, pretty much there. There has been no "slippery slope". One can think of countless examples of pretty bilious politicians and others across western Europe who are allowed to express some unpalatable views.
Of course there are other reasons AGAINST having a Holocaust denial law; not least that it may act as a way for the far-right to accuse the state of being some sort of censorious monster of evil intent. That simply hasn't proved the case in France, Germany, Austria, etc., where free speech is alive and well.
Free speech has never been absolute; we, for example, still have a criminal libel law as well as civil defamation law (though it is rarely used). Should we, generally, legislate against free speech? No. Is a Holocaust denial law some massive transgression of a vital right to say something particularly repugnant and potentially harmful? Probably not.
Your first problem has always been that you are not able to see that some acts are simply right, regardless of what "the majority" say, and some acts are simply wrong. Helping an old woman across the street is right; spitting in her face and calling her "a Jewish [insert insult]" is wrong. That doesn't mean we should legislate to force people to help old women across the road, but it is relevant to these considerations.
The second problem is that you don't see the irony of your position, which is: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it. Then, when you do, I won't listen."