Freedom of speech takes another tumble....

[orpheus]

Who said "the proper response to offensive speech is not censorship, but more speech."?

That's a good guideline.

[charlou]

Who said "the proper response to offensive speech is not censorship, but more speech."?

That's a good guideline.

[Martok]

Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society of America) has written about it in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

That is a must read, unless Shermer's opinions have been deemed hateful. Then they should be illegal.

That doesn't seem right. The first issue of Skeptic magazine I ever saw was about holocaust denial. I never got the impression that he supported claims made by deniers. That's very distressing if true.

[Hermit]

Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society of America) has written about it in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

That is a must read, unless Shermer's opinions have been deemed hateful. Then they should be illegal.

That doesn't seem right. The first issue of Skeptic magazine I ever saw was about holocaust denial. I never got the impression that he supported claims made by deniers. That's very distressing if true.

He doesn't. From the Wikipedia: "Shermer shows that the Holocaust deniers reject proven facts for, as he states, ideological reasons. Like the creationists, he asserted, many Holocaust denialists believe that the evidence sides with them. He describes meeting and arguing with the deniers and lays out their arguments then shows evidence to support his own statements."

[Coito ergo sum]

Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society of America) has written about it in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

That is a must read, unless Shermer's opinions have been deemed hateful. Then they should be illegal.

That doesn't seem right. The first issue of Skeptic magazine I ever saw was about holocaust denial. I never got the impression that he supported claims made by deniers. That's very distressing if true.

He supports some claims made by deniers. Why would that be distressing? Like, he supports the claim that there isn't any evidence that Nazis made people into lampshades and soap.

EDIT: But, of course, he doesn't support the bulk of what they say - Shermer has written books refuting the main denier allegations.

[Coito ergo sum]

Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society of America) has written about it in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

That is a must read, unless Shermer's opinions have been deemed hateful. Then they should be illegal.

That doesn't seem right. The first issue of Skeptic magazine I ever saw was about holocaust denial. I never got the impression that he supported claims made by deniers. That's very distressing if true.

He doesn't. From the Wikipedia: "Shermer shows that the Holocaust deniers reject proven facts for, as he states, ideological reasons. Like the creationists, he asserted, many Holocaust denialists believe that the evidence sides with them. He describes meeting and arguing with the deniers and lays out their arguments then shows evidence to support his own statements."

Yes, but Shermer is quite in favor of the right of holocaust deniers to spout their nonsense. That's why he has written on the subject and debated deniers.

[Martok]

Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society of America) has written about it in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

That is a must read, unless Shermer's opinions have been deemed hateful. Then they should be illegal.

That doesn't seem right. The first issue of Skeptic magazine I ever saw was about holocaust denial. I never got the impression that he supported claims made by deniers. That's very distressing if true.

He supports some claims made by deniers. Why would that be distressing? Like, he supports the claim that there isn't any evidence that Nazis made people into lampshades and soap.

EDIT: But, of course, he doesn't support the bulk of what they say - Shermer has written books refuting the main denier allegations.

I think deniers try to use the lampshade and soap "myth" to try to make their case against the holocaust.. From what I've been able to find out most real historians have never believed in the lampshade and soap myth either. So Shermer isn't agreeing with deniers, he's agreeing with the facts as they are.

[Coito ergo sum]

Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society of America) has written about it in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

That is a must read, unless Shermer's opinions have been deemed hateful. Then they should be illegal.

That doesn't seem right. The first issue of Skeptic magazine I ever saw was about holocaust denial. I never got the impression that he supported claims made by deniers. That's very distressing if true.

He supports some claims made by deniers. Why would that be distressing? Like, he supports the claim that there isn't any evidence that Nazis made people into lampshades and soap.

EDIT: But, of course, he doesn't support the bulk of what they say - Shermer has written books refuting the main denier allegations.

I think deniers try to use the lampshade and soap "myth" to try to make their case against the holocaust.. From what I've been able to find out most real historians have never believed in the lampshade and soap myth either. So Shermer isn't agreeing with deniers, he's agreeing with the facts as they are.

The point is, that often what people rail against as "holocaust denial" is really a discussion of the details of the events, and a denial of some of the details. The "Holocaust Deniers" of course have their own agendas, and often revel in the protests and finger pointing at them. They say "see, these folks want to shut me up to cover up the truth" or words to that effect. So, yes, absolutely, you are right that they use the myths and arguable points to bolster their larger goal, to deny the entire thing. But, if the former are squelched and buried by law, people tend to be more apt to believe the latter.

In any case - here is a good defense of absolute freedom of speech:



John Stuart Mill - On Liberty If all of society were agreed on the truth and value of one proposition all except one person it would be even more important to be permitted to hear the voice of that one person - that that one heretic be heard. Because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling views.
Thomas Paine - Introduction to Age of Reason. "I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall."
John Milton - Aeropagitica - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica

The freedom of speech is meaningless unless it includes the freedom of speech of those who think differently.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq1e4cfv ... re=related[/youtube]

How many of you don't think you are grown up enough to decide these things for yourselves?

Every time you violate the right of someone else to speak freely, you make a rod for your own back.

To whom do you give the power to decide what speech is harmful. To whom would you give this job?

[Martok]

The point is, that often what people rail against as "holocaust denial" is really a discussion of the details of the events, and a denial of some of the details.

Holocaust denial is about much more than quibbling over some details. Its about, as one of Shermer's books is titled, denying history.

[Coito ergo sum]

The point is, that often what people rail against as "holocaust denial" is really a discussion of the details of the events, and a denial of some of the details.

Holocaust denial is about much more than quibbling over some details. Its about, as one of Shermer's books is titled, denying history.

I agree.

But, does that mean that we prosecute people for crimes for denying history? In many cases, certain things were accepted historical events or perspectives and then later found out to be wrong, mythological, unsupported by the evidence, etc. Sometimes, certain aspects or details of historical events are CORRECTLY revised.

To suggest that someone can't "deny history" is to enact an orthodoxy.

If some history is so clear that it is factually "undeniable" then it will stand on its own accord. To suppress opposition to the obvious serves only one purpose, to breathe life into what is suppressed. What is suppressed must be suppressed for a reason? It becomes the "secret knowledge" and the "Truth" that "They" don't want you to know about.

That's why Shermer is not in favor of censoring the Holocaust Deniers. He's in favor of refuting them, which he has done fantastically.

[Trolldor]

people for crimes for denying history?

Actually, yes. I quite abhor anyone who misrepresents history, look at how many endless conflicts have begun because of some misrepresentation of history.

[Coito ergo sum]

people for crimes for denying history?

Actually, yes. I quite abhor anyone who misrepresents history, look at how many endless conflicts have begun because of some misrepresentation of history.

Well, who would you put on the "Approved History Commission" to make all decisions about which history is the "true" history and which is the "false" history?

[Trolldor]

people for crimes for denying history?

Actually, yes. I quite abhor anyone who misrepresents history, look at how many endless conflicts have begun because of some misrepresentation of history.

Well, who would you put on the "Approved History Commission" to make all decisions about which history is the "true" history and which is the "false" history?

1) Qualified Historians who learn how to qualify and who have displayed, in their writings, an ability to acknowledge, credit and write out opposing points of view.
2) They may only judge in their respective fields of expertise. Different teams for different areas.
3) They do not judge what is true, only what is false. You can never speak of 'truth' of the past, you can never know anything. What you can not do is abuse the past to justify the actions of the present.

[Martok]

In many cases, certain things were accepted historical events or perspectives and then later found out to be wrong, mythological, unsupported by the evidence, etc. Sometimes, certain aspects or details of historical events are CORRECTLY revised.

What historical details have holocaust deniers corrected and is being suppressed by other historians?

[RuleBritannia]