Freedom of speech takes another tumble....

[Trolldor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8656634.stm

Yay free thought! What wonders it brings to the world!

[Martok]

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?

Does history have something the International Astronomical Union?

[RuleBritannia]

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?

Does history have something the International Astronomical Union?

But they don't censor the false history, do they?

[RuleBritannia]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8656634.stm

Yay free thought! What wonders it brings to the world!

?

[Trolldor]

Want more examples of free thought? How about Yemen? Surely it would be a drastic loss to civil rights if we protected nine year old girls from being raped. How dare we legislate against ideas!

[RuleBritannia]

Want more examples of free thought? How about Yemen? Surely it would be a drastic loss to civil rights if we protected nine year old girls from being raped. How dare we legislate against ideas!

That's legislating actions, not ideas.

[Trolldor]

Wrong. Legislating against action IS legislating against ideas.

[RuleBritannia]

Wrong. Legislating against action IS legislating against ideas.

No it isn't.

[Trolldor]

How is it not? You're stopping someone from expressing themselves because you disagree with the idea.

[RuleBritannia]

How is it not? You're stopping someone from expressing themselves because you disagree with the idea.

But they're still free to have the ideas, and convince others that their ideas are better.

[Trolldor]

How is it not? You're stopping someone from expressing themselves because you disagree with the idea.

But they're still free to have the ideas, and convince others that their ideas are better.

No they're not. You've legislated against it from happening. You've made it a criminal act, and therefore they are advocating criminal actions and can thus be tried.

[Martok]

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?

Does history have something the International Astronomical Union?

But they don't censor the false history, do they?

They're a committee that sets astronomical standards. They recently changed Pluto's status from a planet to a planetoid. They also name or number celestial objects.

[RuleBritannia]

How is it not? You're stopping someone from expressing themselves because you disagree with the idea.

But they're still free to have the ideas, and convince others that their ideas are better.

No they're not. You've legislated against it from happening. You've made it a criminal act, and therefore they are advocating criminal actions and can thus be tried.

Of cause they're free to have the ideas, I can do it right now.

[RuleBritannia]

They're a committee that sets astronomical standards. They recently changed Pluto's status from a planet to a planetoid. They also name or number celestial objects.

Astronomical standards aren't facts nor 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?

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.

On many, if not most, historical issues many "qualified historians" differ quite markedly with other "qualified historians." But, this historical aristocracy will, I'm sure, be the surest path to the truth.

And, what would be the "qualifications?" Oh, that's o.k., we'll leave that up to the "Philosopher Rulers."

2) They may only judge in their respective fields of expertise. Different teams for different areas.

I'll take a visit to the Ministry of Approved History and see which State Approved Historians are qualified to opine on what is, and is not, Qualified Approved History. We an amass all the Approved History into one volume, and call it the "Authorized Version." All other un-approved, heretical histories would be burned.

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.

Good! Then we'll get those censors out with exacto knives and expunge from the Lives of the Caesars, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Herodotus' Histories, and Zinn's People's History of the United States to expunge all facts and assertions deemed by the Ministry of Approved History as "false." All false portions of those texts must be deleted, and no expressions of opinion except those not deemed "false" by the Ministry of Approved History will be punishable crimes.