A reminder that Americans shouldn’t take our precious First Amendment protections for granted: British historian David Irving got a three-year jail sentence last week for denying the Holocaust in remarks he made 17 years ago in Austria, where making such an assertion is a crime — even though Irving has since acknowledged that the Nazis systematically slaughtered Jews during World War II. Of course, the case also can remind Kansas legislators that they continue to allow a criminal defamation law to remain on the books. As long as they do, there remains a chance that Kansans can be jailed for exercising their free speech, too.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
19 Comments
The legislature should draft a bill similar to the Canadian Parliament’s C-250 then we can throw Ian’s a$$ in jail!ROTFLMAO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250
Also check the conservatives reaction in the ff:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm
Supporting a Nazi Lover
David Irving, a British “historian”, was called “an active Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist” by a British Judge in a civil case. And that may be putting it mildly. But I’m supporting him. To be more accurate, I am not defending him, but condemning the criminal trial in which he is a defendant in Austria. His “crime” was to “publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust”. Under an Austrian law that could put him in prison for 10 years.
Austrians are understandably rather sensitive about Nazis and the holocaust. They want to make sure that the world sees that they are repentant about the crimes of the third Reich, and to prevent a resurgence of neo-Nazism. Nothing wrong with that.
There is something wrong with criminalizing ideas, thought, and opinion. It is ironic that in their effort to condemn fascism, they are employing one of the fascist’s favorite tools – banning free expression and imprisoning those who dissent. It is wrong no matter how laudable the intent, nor the noxiousness of the thought they wish to suppress.
Some Americans might feel a bit superior to the Austrians and point to our fidelity to free speech. They shouldn’t – we tread down the same path in our own way. We allow universities to have policies that ban and punish “hate speech”. So much for their commitment to free expression. We create special criminal penalties for “hate crimes”. A hate crime statute adds punishment for the motivation – the thoughts and feelings – of the defendant.
If we tolerate the criminalization of thoughts and feelings, we abandon our basic belief in intellectual freedom. The intent may be good, but the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions.
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/supporting-nazi-lover.html
Brandon,I agree, consequently that’s why Phelps is still running loose. I was joking about my previous post. Way I see it, free speech is too important to be wasted away cuz of the likes of ultra homophobes and neo-Nazis, that’ll just curtail our freedoms of expression.
Can’t we just put Fred in jail until they get that outdated law off the books? Please?
It is one of the most important rights that we have. Freedom of Speech.
If you love your freedom of speech, you should know that some right wingers are advocating for laws that mean anyone who disgrees with the war could be prosecuted for sedition:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2006/02/15/186543.html
Yep, right here in the good ol’ u.s. of a!
Damoon, putting fred in jail would cause the other prisoners to sue for cruel and unusual punishment for having to listen to his hate!!
That is why it is important to keep the freedom of speech a part of our lives. Even if you dislike the message.
The Right-wingers, if they could get away with it, would turn the US into a theocracy. The left-wingers, if the could get away with it, they would turn the US into the Nazi regime.
Some people believe that the US won’t go so far as to those extremes, but I rather keep on eye on it and fight for my freedom if it ever approaches the point where the politics turns on the freedoms of our country.
Extremism be it Left or Right is incompatible with democracy, or more correctly, a polity such as our country’s. Moderation is the only solution!!!
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
If this were Canada, Fred would be in jail. Not that I would give a hoot.
Ks,Ben Shapiro is just a law student. He’s not advocating any specific law in his writings, he’s just questioning the ethics of a hypothetical situation of prosecuting seditionists. It’s a pretty interesting legal theory, but I don’t see the Supreme Court being able to prosecute seditionists because thats the legislature’s job, not the judiciary’s, and you won’t have to worry about Ben Shapiro because he’s studying to be a lawyer which is one who is part of the legislative branch of government. Now if he ran for office and worked as a legislator than I would say you would have a probable cause of worrying about him making such a bill that would allow for the prosecution of seditionists. So be thankful that he’s in Harvard studying law instead of being one of many boot-licking A-holes that run for office.
P.S.I’m still sorry.
but I don’t see the Supreme Court being able to prosecute seditionists because thats the legislature’s job,
That should read:…being able to make laws that would prosecute seditionists…Sorry, haven’t had my coffee. :)
We’ve had sedition laws in the past, and they’ve been held unconstitutional.A note to the editors: when you remove offensive posts on this blog (Ian, et. al), you deny the rest of us the right to take potshots at the warped logic therein, which is the only effective way to deal with prejudice.
because he’s studying to be a lawyer which is one who is part of the legislative branch of government.
…. part of the JUDICIAL branch…Gawd! I need coffee!!!
Jed,I don’t think MLK took potshots at the prejudice of others. In fact (I know this will likely upset you) he probably prayed for them.
Ksgirl, putting someone in a cell next to Fred could be a good substitute for lethal injection, those poor guys on death row would just kill themselves, saving the taxpayers lots of money on appeals, etc.
Let’s put Rader, The Carr Bros and fred in the same cell and let em have at it. Chuck Manson could be the play by play announcer.
NoJo,Yes, Dr. King was a better man than I could hope to be. I sometimes succumb to the temptation to shoot back at people taking potshots at people I love. I do prefer words to guns as weapons though.