Support NeoGAF

[Ashes]

Why not? It is a ridiculous infringement of rights. Can I make a joke about or deny other genocides or attempted genocides? Why? Who decides what I can and cannot express an opinion about?

The law is completely stupid.

I'm not pointing out the infringement of rights, but of the distasteful possiblity of creating a draw a holocaust denial day. I don't for a second think you would get it to be as popular as it was with draw muhammed day, because I feel the greater part of the west will understand the sensitivities around draw a holocaust day, I think the greater part of the audience, it self will find it offensive to draw the holocaust in such a way. Thus the existance of a double standard. Having said, I hope we never get to find out either way.

This thing is trying to point out a double standard that exists in the west, and in that regard it did succeed. Although, I would be very surprised if they are trying to get the european law repealed. In fact it would be quite the irony if they did.

 

[fortified_concept]

Oh look, another European country makes a fool out of itself by restricting free speech like a goddamn totalitarian state.

As far as free speech is concerned let us all chant together: U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

 

[Sanjay]

Two situations aren't really similar. Religious cartoons are not the same as cartoons saying the Holocaust didn't exist or was completely overblown.

This. Ones about something made up and the other that actually happened.

 

[Cyan]

So, out of interest, how would you describe this decision?

Stupid and anti-free speech.

This thing is trying to point out a double standard that exists in the west...

Please don't conflate Europe with the West on this. The double standard does not exist in all western countries. At least, not in law.

 

[Gaborn]

The sad thing here is the same European countries rallying in support of free speech during the whole "drawing muhammed" flap all too often endorse this same kind of censorship. You should either have a ridiculous totally PC and unnecessary law restricting offense against ANY group - or you shouldn't have any such special protection that doesn't apply to certain groups for no apparent reason.

Also, for people arguing it's "different"... how? Because religion is "lulz worthy" and ethnicity isn't? Both are cultural constructs that really have minimal basis in reality, both are based in history, and both categories have a history of being discriminated against. Either both should be protected or neither should.

 

[FlawlessCowboy]

Holocaust is off limits, folks. People should know this by now.

 

[Ashes]

Please don't conflate Europe with the West on this. The double standard does not exist in all western countries. At least, not in law.

Point taken.

 

[Chichikov]

Also, for people arguing it's "different"... how? Because religion is "lulz worthy" and ethnicity isn't? Both are cultural constructs that really have minimal basis in reality, both are based in history, and both categories have a history of being discriminated against. Either both should be protected or neither should.

If you accept that offensive speech should be limited (and I don't, but most European countries do), you need to accept the lawmaker's ability to tell apart a reasonably offensive speech from an illegal one.
I think that under those set of rules, the holocaust and religion are different enough so that one could make a legal distinction between the two.

Though I agree that the American model of free speech is a superior one.

 

[gutter_trash]

you guys are getting slow

 

[Calantus]

The US is far superior in the very important issue of free speech.

 

[harriet the spy]

You should either have a ridiculous totally PC and unnecessary law restricting offense against ANY group - or you shouldn't have any such special protection that doesn't apply to certain groups for no apparent reason.

Also, for people arguing it's "different"... how? Because religion is "lulz worthy" and ethnicity isn't? Both are cultural constructs that really have minimal basis in reality, both are based in history, and both categories have a history of being discriminated against. Either both should be protected or neither should.

It's different because in one case there was systematic murders of millions of people, and in the other, not. you have to be pretty daft not to see there is a difference (not to say that either should carry a fine with it).

It's not specific to jews, either - denial of armenian genocide is a crime in France too.

 

[gutter_trash]

The US is far superior in the very important issue of free speech.

until you get sued for millions

 

[Ri'Orius]

Nice to have a topic about something the US is better at for a change!

Been spending too much time on reddit lately; spent twenty seconds or so looking for the upvote for this...

Holocaust is off limits, folks. People should know this by now.

Legally? Yes, it is off limits in some countries.

But it shouldn't be. Freedom means freedom.

 

[Gaborn]

If you accept that offensive speech should be limited (and I don't, but most European countries do), you need to accept the lawmaker's ability to tell apart a reasonably offensive speech from an illegal one.
I think that under those set of rules, the holocaust and religion are different enough so that one could make a legal distinction between the two.

Though I agree that the American model of free speech is a superior one.

But as any good and sensible atheist will tell you, more people have been killed based on their religious affiliation than in just the Holocaust (which killed Jews, gays, gypsies, and basically anyone not "purely German"). I think if Europe were honest, the reason for Holocaust denial laws is not the scale of the event (although it was beyond horrifying and tragic), it's because it happened IN Europe.

I mean, Europe is never going to outlaw 9/11 truthers, or conspiracy theories about things that happened outside of Europe... because it didn't happen in THEIR continent so it's not "important" to them. Europeans want to ban Holocaust denialism because it is personally offensive to THEIR sensibilities and they don't care that OTHER forms of speech are offensive to OTHER people's sensibilities because they're smaller in number.

Don't get me wrong, I support free speech, in fact I think that the MOST disgusting speech deserves the highest level of protection precisely because it faces the most dissent. I just despise the hypocrisy of "pick and choose" free speech when it seems based on nothing more than protecting the sensibilities of the majoritarian culture.

harriet the spy - Right. The Crusades, a religious Holy War perpetuated by Europeans don't count. I forgot.

 

[goomba]

Any exceptions to free speech mean there is no free speech.

 

[Tashi]

The next cartoon will just say "See what I mean?"

 

[gutter_trash]

people who don't understand the concept of hate crimes also do not understand history.

 

[harriet the spy]

Any exceptions to free speech mean there is no free speech.

a) Please go to a very crowded space and start screaming "fire".

b) that's remarkably simplistic, like religious people who insist to follow any line of their book to the letter because it's so much intellectually simpler to do that than to lose yourself in a discussion about where boundaries should be. I get the appeal, it's very simple and pure. But it still feels stupid to me.

 

[Eteric Rice]

The Dutch group says it had no intention of disputing the Holocaust, but wanted instead to highlight what it described as double standards in free speech.

Damn, they weren't kidding.

This is retarded, even if they were trying to discount the holocaust (which would be duobly retarded), they shouldn't get fined for a fucking drawing.

That's stupid.

 

[harriet the spy]

harriet the spy - Right. The Crusades, a religious Holy War perpetuated by Europeans don't count. I forgot.

This has nothing to do with the cartoons. but you can continue pretending to not understand.
No one pretends the crusades didn't occur. Find me someone and i'll give you a brownie point. Until then, learn to use your brain.

 

[Gaborn]

a) Please go to a very crowded space and start screaming "fire".

Because that's TOTALLY the same thing as making a political/ideological point.

b) that's remarkably simplistic, like religious people who insist to follow any line of their book to the letter because it's so much intellectually simpler to do that than to lose yourself in a discussion about where boundaries should be. I get the appeal, it's very simple and pure. But it still feels stupid to me.

The fact that something is simple does not mean it's false. Applying a false complexity to a simple issue is intellectually dishonest.

also, I'm not contending there are "crusades denialists" what I'm saying is that if you're arguing that the systematic genocide of Jews and other groups the Nazis disapproved of (or scape goated) is wrong and thus those groups deserve special protection as some sort of tribute, what about other groups that were systematically butchered?

 

[gutter_trash]

the crusades are like............ OLD

 

[goomba]

 

[harriet the spy]

Because that's TOTALLY the same thing as making a political/ideological point.

No, it's not. But it is a limit to free speech. I am just pointing that those snippets 'limits of free speech mean no free speech' are completely useless discourse.

The fact that something is simple does not mean it's false. Applying a false complexity to a simple issue is intellectually dishonest.

To be honest, I mostly agree with you on the issue, and partially playing devil's advocate.
But it's far from a simple issue - and the 'simple defense' , the one i pointed at above, is entirely unconvincing from an intellectual standpoint.

 

[perfectchaos007]

If only they let Hitler into art school, 12million Jewish lives would have been saved

I mean, I would have let Hitler in.

 

[Gaborn]

the crusades are like............ OLD

When is the cut off for genocides against a particular group that should be recognized and that should not be for the purposes of restricting speech?

No, it's not. But it is a limit to free speech. I am just pointing that those snippets 'limits of free speech mean no free speech' are completely useless discourse.

Intellectually there is a clear difference between speech designed for the purpose expressing an ideological/political/social/whatever opinion and one having no discernible purpose other than to cause a panic. I mean, should bomb threats be protected speech?

But what we're talking about, Holocaust denialism and depictions of Muhammad, are both clearly speech expressing an ideological opinion. I think Holocaust denialism is objectively false, just like I don't personally find depictions of Muhammad offensive, but I don't see any reason to ban either of them just because some people might find either offensive. Should we ban any and every speech someone finds offensive? Where do we draw the line? Why THERE and not somewhere else?

To be honest, I mostly agree with you on the issue, and partially playing devil's advocate.
But it's far from a simple issue - and the 'simple defense' , the one i pointed at above, is entirely unconvincing from an intellectual standpoint.

It's fair enough that you're playing devil's advocate, but to say that there is no difference between speech that serves to convey absolutely NO message other than to induce a panic and speech about an event or the existence or non existence of an individual is ridiculous.

 

[itsgreen]

Damn, they weren't kidding.

This is retarded, even if they were trying to discount the holocaust (which would be duobly retarded), they shouldn't get fined for a fucking drawing.

That's stupid.

Well that is the problem.

Clearly the courts see the Holocaust as proven and truth. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. The degree of severity of what the Holocaust is/was is so high that they have deemed it illegal to misrepresent it.

See it as something slanderous. Misrepresenting something that, without any doubt, happened and happened in a certain way is slander.

Just like you can sue someone if he says untrue things about you.

And not to mention it would fuel extremists that deny it. Extremists that would abuse a perversion of the truth to gather souls for their own agenda of hate (against Jews or other races/religions).

 

[Gaborn]

Well that is the problem.

Clearly the courts see the Holocaust as proven and truth. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. The degree of severity of what the Holocaust is/was is so high that they have deemed it illegal to misrepresent it.

See it as something slanderous. Misrepresenting something that, without any doubt, happened and happened in a certain way is slander.

Just like you can sue someone if he says untrue things about you.

And not to mention it would fuel extremists that deny it. Extremists that would abuse a perversion of the truth to gather souls for their own agenda of hate (against Jews or other races/religions).

So, I accept evolution 100%. But let's say I didn't. Should it be against the law to be a creationist? Or... any batshit insane theory?

 

[bonesmccoy]

I guess some people have never considered that the right to freedom of speech can be abused. Or that the state has a role in maintaining the universality of the right. Or that the state has any interest in maintaining public order and the safety of all its citizens. If a larger group uses freedom of speech to explicitly target and marginalize a smaller group, the state - in virtually every Western country - has an obligation to intercede. This is why we have things like hate crimes, decency acts, and anti-racism laws on our books. In this case, you could convincingly argue that an instance of 'free speech' that posits that the Shoah never occurred, and is at best a complete fabrication concocted by a Global Jewish Conspiracy, could result in Jewish people in Holland seeing their ability to enjoy exercise their basic rights restricted. The court would have acted the same way if a Dutch Christian group ran an cartoon stating that the Srebrenica massacre never occurred.

By the way, if the Muslim group wanted to point out a double-standard, they only needed to look at how frequently derogatory images of Jesus Christ and Christians make their way into newspapers and magazines, and compare that to how all those same publications pussyfooted away from printing the depictions of Mohammed. There's your double-standard, AEL.

And lastly, the whole Shoah denial movement that appears to dominate Muslim society is really, really weird. I mean, these are people who - since Arab Nationalism decided to in the 19th Century - talk about the Crusades as if they occurred last week, and as if these were somehow morally equivalent to what ( even though they believe it never) happened to the Jews in World War 2.

 

[itsgreen]

So, I accept evolution 100%. But let's say I didn't. Should it be against the law to be a creationist? Or... any batshit insane theory?

Not really needed, but the Holocaust is a special cocktail of circumstances that (according to the EU) need special protection from being distorted. Severity, scale, outcome, impact, sensitivities, proof and if it is distorted the consequences it might have in terms of being abused by an agenda full of hatred.

All those things factor in.

It shouldn't be needed, but the EU thinks it does. Mostly because of the consequences and the ability to use misinformation as a tool to gather minds to divide societies.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Not really needed, but the Holocaust is a special cocktail of circumstances that (according to the EU) need special protection from being distorted. Severity, scale, outcome, impact, sensitivities, proof and if it is distorted the consequences it might have in terms of being abused by an agenda full of hatred.

All those things factor in.

It shouldn't be needed, but the EU thinks it does. Mostly because of the consequences and the ability to use misinformation as a tool to gather minds to divide societies.

Gilbertt Gottfried has balls. Don't worry it was a roast so obviously he wasn't serious. Wasn't Ahmadinijad the first one to start this whole Holocaust didn't exist idea?

 

[KHarvey16]

I guess some people have never considered that the right to freedom of speech can be abused.

I considered it and then rejected the notion.

Or that the state has a role in maintaining the universality of the right. Or that the state has any interest in maintaining public order and the safety of all its citizens.

Speech is not action.

If a larger group uses freedom of speech to explicitly target and marginalize a smaller group, the state - in virtually every Western country - has an obligation to intercede.

Bullshit. Again you need to separate speech from action.

This is why we have things like hate crimes, decency acts, and anti-racism laws on our books.

Again, actions...not speech.

In this case, you could convincingly argue that an instance of 'free speech' that posits that the Shoah never occurred, and is at best a complete fabrication concocted by a Global Jewish Conspiracy, could result in Jewish people in Holland seeing their ability to enjoy exercise their basic rights restricted.

What? No one has a right to not be offended, nor should they.

The court would have acted the same way if a Dutch Christian group ran an cartoon stating that the Srebrenica massacre never occurred.

And they'd be just as ridiculous.

 

[sangreal]

Wasn't Ahmadinijad the first one to start this whole Holocaust didn't exist idea?

Not even close

 

[Gaborn]

I guess some people have never considered that the right to freedom of speech can be abused. Or that the state has a role in maintaining the universality of the right. Or that the state has any interest in maintaining public order and the safety of all its citizens. If a larger group uses freedom of speech to explicitly target and marginalize a smaller group, the state - in virtually every Western country - has an obligation to intercede. This is why we have things like hate crimes, decency acts, and anti-racism laws on our books. In this case, you could convincingly argue that an instance of 'free speech' that posits that the Shoah never occurred, and is at best a complete fabrication concocted by a Global Jewish Conspiracy, could result in Jewish people in Holland seeing their ability to enjoy exercise their basic rights restricted. The court would have acted the same way if a Dutch Christian group ran an cartoon stating that the Srebrenica massacre never occurred.

This is a classic misunderstanding of what "Freedom of Speech" means. It doesn't mean the literal right to say anything and everything at any time. It means the government cannot punish you purely because they don't like what you say (that is, "I hate blacks/gays/jews/people with purple skin). But they CAN restrict your speech based on safety/when there is no poltical or social commentary (Fire in a crowded theater) It also has never been construed to cover libel as another example, you cannot deliberately smear someone's reputation with false and misleading allegations. Another area, you can say "I hate blacks" but you can't say "I hate the (black family's name) at (black family's address) and something should be done about them" that is, you cannot threaten a specific individual or family even though you can hate them and spew hateful words all you want in a free society. None of those "Restrictions" should come as a shock to any thinking person and none of it has ANYTHING to do with justifying banning Holocaust denialism no matter how disgusting it is.

By the way, if the Muslim group wanted to point out a double-standard, they only needed to look at how frequently derogatory images of Jesus Christ and Christians make their way into newspapers and magazines, and compare that to how all those same publications pussyfooted away from printing the depictions of Mohammed. There's your double-standard, AEL.

Actually I think the way they did it was more effective. Christians don't have the same cultural view of Jesus as Muslims do of Muhammad (that is, Muslims believe even the IMAGE of Muhammad is sacred, a belief Christians don't share as evidenced by the common anti-historical blue-eyed blonde haired portrayal of him)

And lastly, the whole Shoah denial movement that appears to dominate Muslim society is really, really weird. I mean, these are people who - since Arab Nationalism decided to in the 19th Century - talk about the Crusades as if they occurred last week, and as if these were somehow morally equivalent to what ( even though they believe it never) happened to the Jews in World War 2.

I doubt that a majority of Muslims deny the Holocaust.

 

[Xeke]

Hate crimes are the stupidest thing ever conceived. A crime shouldn't be punished by its intent.

 

[itsgreen]

Gilbertt Gottfried has balls. Don't worry it was a roast so obviously he wasn't serious. Wasn't Ahmadinijad the first one to start this whole Holocaust didn't exist idea?

Intent and context are also factors .

Laughed my ass off watching the roast, Roger Ebert joke was a little misplaced though...

 

[Tristam]

Well, they did expose a legal double standard--no doubt--but it is ironic because of the many Muslims who raised hell about the Mohammed cartoons were also (at least implicitly) supporting a double standard, i.e., that their man-in-the-sky is just TOO DAMN HOLY to joke about and/or draw, and offenders should be punished appropriately.

EDIT: I'm not condoning the legal decision though. What I said above is not a direct comparison; it's a legal double standard versus a moral one. The government is culpable for the former.

 

[Monocle]

Hate crimes are the stupidest thing ever conceived. A crime shouldn't be punished by its intent.

Intent matters. If I accidentally shoot to death a man who breaks into my house, I shouldn't be punished as severely as if I had successfully halted the robbery, forced the burglar to kneel, then executed him.

In the first case, panic at the sudden intrusion might have overridden reason and caused me to reflexively pull the trigger. In the second case, my panic response is not a factor. I might just as easily have held the robber at gunpoint and called the police than killed him, but I chose in full awareness the option that resulted in a loss of life.

 

[KHarvey16]

Intent matters. If I accidentally shoot to death a man who breaks into my house, I shouldn't be punished as severely as if I had successfully halted the robbery, forced the burglar to kneel, then executed him.

But intent isn't what separates those scenarios into legal and illegal.

 

[Gaborn]

Well, they did expose a legal double standard--no doubt--but it is ironic because of the many Muslims who raised hell about the Mohammed cartoons were also (at least implicitly) supporting a double standard, i.e., that their man-in-the-sky is just TOO DAMN HOLY to joke about and/or draw, and offenders should be punished appropriately.

EDIT: I'm not condoning the legal decision though. What I said above is not a direct comparison; it's a legal double standard versus a moral one. The government is culpable for the former.

I don't think individuals should be held liable for an opinion in a civil society. I think they should as far as any riots, violence, or deaths that occcurred in protests about the cartoons, but that's the extent of it. Christians protested against Piss Christ afterall in the US. In a civil society we SHOULD expect protests and dissenting opinions. This is TOTALLY on the government for actually FINING someone based on a cartoon's content.

 

[Monocle]

But intent isn't what separates those scenarios into legal and illegal.

There's no legal distinction between self-defense and cold-blooded murder?

 

[KHarvey16]

There's no legal distinction between self-defense and cold-blooded murder?

The distinction is not one of intent.

 

[artist]

Double standards.

 

[itsgreen]

But intent isn't what separates those scenarios into legal and illegal.

Walking into a bank and shooting only people of a certain skin color is quite different than just random killings.

Targeting a specific kind of people also has the intention, or at least result, to scare that group.

That should be punished more severe. Simple.

 

[KHarvey16]

Walking into a bank and shooting only people of a certain skin color is quite different than just random killings.

Targeting a specific kind of people also has the intention, or at least result, to scare that group.

That should be punished more severe. Simple.

So they have to kill more than one to qualify? I mean it's only a pattern if there's at least, like, 3.

 

[Arthrus]

Can I draw comics denying what happened in Rwanda, or will I get fined?
What if I deny it indirectly by denying WWII and all associated events, or the notion that the universe is more than 50 years old?

 

[Gaborn]

Walking into a bank and shooting only people of a certain skin color is quite different than just random killings.

Targeting a specific kind of people also has the intention, or at least result, to scare that group.

That should be punished more severe. Simple.

Serial killers typically kill within their own ethnic group, or if by chance not, then they tend to kill within ONE ethnic group. Should then, their crimes be more serious because they tend to target one specific type of person rather than for the fact they've killed multiple people?

 

[itsgreen]

So they have to kill more than one to qualify? I mean it's only a pattern if there's at least, like, 3.

If a target is specifically target based on certain characteristics that aren't general (i.e. age/sex) sounds like a good way to qualify...

 

[Monocle]

The distinction is not one of intent.

Perhaps I chose a poor example. Nevertheless, mens rea is a fundamental ingredient of a criminal offense. It seems patently absurd to me that a reasonable and just law system would reject intention as an important factor in determining the severity of a crime. On one hand, accidents happen and people do stupid things. On the other hand, discrimination exists, and sometimes it manifests as a violent crime that specifically targets a particular ethnic group. There must be a distinction between ignorance and criminal intent, or we risk placing every offender on the same level as a career criminal, murderous bigot or psychopath.

 

[Gaborn]

If a target is specifically target based on certain characteristics that aren't general (i.e. age/sex) sounds like a good way to qualify...

But how can you KNOW that? and why should it matter? Let's say someone is brutally murdered in a rape/robbery scenario, and then another person, and then another, and more and more down the line. Should that be treated less seriously than someone who killed someone else because they didn't like their skin color?