Slashdot Mirror
Manchester's Self-Described 'Internet Troll' Jailed For Offensive Web Posts
noob22 writes "According to BBC Online, 'An "internet troll" who posted obscene messages on Facebook sites set up in memory of dead people has been jailed. Colm Coss, of Ardwick, Manchester, posted on a memorial page for Big Brother star Jade Goody and a tribute site to John Paul Massey, a Liverpool boy mauled to death by a dog. The 36-year-old "preyed on bereaved families" for his "own pleasure," Manchester Magistrates Court heard.'" My favorite line: "Unemployed Coss was only caught when he sent residents on his street photos of himself saying he was an internet 'troll.'"
Why so few posts?
:)
First they came for the trolls...
Then it was a lot quieter?
"He was charged under the Communications Act 2003, for sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive." So if he'd used a megaphone and said to their faces they wouldn't have been able to charge him? Crazy laws. What I see here is the fact that it's written rather than verbal is how they got him. Does it make a difference to the offended families involved how the trolling was done? I bet not, it's just another example of how free-speech laws have diverged from today's technology.
TFA mentions that his messages included references to having sex with the mentioned corpses.
Why would you do this? I mean what disfunction must you have that you start to think that this is acceptable?
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
I love how "computer crimes" are punished on an entirely different scale to regular crimes. You can go bottle someone (break a glass bottle over their head) and you get an average of zero days in jail (suspended for two years). You can go mug someone and get only a week of "hard time" with a year of parole. I mean heck you can go run someone down in your car and still get a lighter sentence than 18 weeks...
There is no level of rationality to computer crime sentences because the "old people" on both sides of the bench are simply too ignorant and out of touch to really know what the crime involved or how serious it was. This case should never have wasted the UK's courts time and public money let alone the cost of keeping him in jail for any period at all.
Frankly I have a VERY low opinion of the police, judge, and state for this one. I want a million pounds spent on arrested serious criminals and keeping them locked away. Give the mugger, violent thug, or drug dealers 18 week sentences instead of saving them for the "omg computer terrurist?! he uses microsoft and word to send deadly communications of doom!"
What's more - he wasn't even punished for threatening people. It is one thing to make threats and to scare people. It is another thing entirely to offend or upset them. While I think the things he said were extremely rude and offensive - nobody felt in fear for their security.
Slightly OT, but I have met men who are sadists without being narcissists or psychopats (not in the BDSM sense, but "I would be euphoric if I set fire to a baby" sense), but who have moral inhibitions that seem sincere reflexive reactions. I cannot possibly begin to understand how these people's minds work subjectively, but I have a folk-psychological intuition I find useful in understanding some of the finer points of Asperger social deficits - on a deep level, all humans assume others to be like ourselves. So such a person might still find it intuitively acceptable to be cruel to others on a regular basis due to the "reward" afforded them, like a normal person would cut someone off in traffic on a rainy monday when late to work. It's just that the reward is completely unknowable to a person who isn't a sadist. One of these people work in the medical industry, and obviously enjoys (again, not just in the gallows humor sense) discussing gory injuries - but I still would consider him a good man. I suspect this is more common than one'd believe.
Emotions! In your brain!
It's a jailable offense to believe the Holocaust didn't occur in many EU countries. As screwed up as the US is sometimes, at least it's not illegal to be ignorant.
"Unemployed Coss was only caught when he sent residents on his street photos of himself saying he was an internet 'troll.'"
I'm not sure which is weirder - that his street photos have residents, or that a still photograph could convey him saying something. Was there a speech bubble drawn on the photograph or something?
... and then they built the supercollider.
1. Thinking about trolls on Slashdot
2. Getting degree in law and becoming a lawyer
3. ???
4. Profit!
So now whats to stop someone from trolling like this guy then posting a picture of a person he hates claiming it to be a picture of the troller? Getting the innocent person arrested, even if the charges are eventually dropped would be a pretty good troll....
Monstar L
You think they aren't close to doing this in the states, too?
The 36-year-old "preyed on bereaved families" for his "own pleasure," Manchester Magistrates Court heard.'"
As opposed to the media and politicians, which prey on bereaved families for the pleasure of their viewers and ratings.
Even in Europe, you can believe what you want. Publicly denying the holocaust might result in fines. If you do it to instigate hatred, you might do some jail time, too.
That's because one of the prerequisites for repeating Holocaust is getting people to forget how bad the previous one was. Your crime when you deny that Holocaust happened is not ignorance, but an attempt at social engineering conditions favorable for another Holocaust.
Thing is there was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and so it doesn't seems like anyone has learned from it.
I think the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church has been able to continue inflicting emotional pain against grieving families provides a counter example to such implementation in the US.
An "internet troll" who posted offensive messages on the World Wide Web has been revealed to be the Daily Mail.
The Mail "preyed on bereaved families" for its "own pleasure", the Press Complaints Council heard.
The paper was charged with sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive. The posts included comments claiming the victims had brought it upon themselves by being asylum-seeking homosexual Poles who caused EU cancer.
it was only caught when it sent residents copies of itself saying "FREE DVD FOR EVERY READER."
The term "troll" was described in court as someone who creates numerous identities, called "columnists," and then posts offensive bollocks to upset or provoke a reaction from others and gain page hits and advertising revenue.
"You preyed on bereaved families who were suffering trauma and anxiety," said chairwoman of the bench Pauline Salisbury. "We know you gained pleasure and you aren't sorry for what you did."
The paper has been convicted of sending "malicious communications" and the editor has been given a knighthood and a rôle as official advisor on government policy.
The defence raised possible mental health issues, but this was dismissed by the bench.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Well, patting yourself on the shoulder about the freedom-loving stance of your country is certainly self-gratifying, but don't forget that this particular legislation was forced on Germany as a condition of their surrender. By the US, alongside the other winners of the WWII.
Asperger's is the new sheik.
Asperger's is the new Arabian tribal elder?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
As screwed up as the US is sometimes, at least it's not illegal to be ignorant.
Probably just as well
They feel they need to make an example of the ones they catch to discourage to acts. How else are people going to fear consequences for something they can easily execute with a feeling of anominity and detachment.
Watch out Anonymous Coward, you might me next!
Thing is, Yugoslavia was one of the "victorious" countries, so they were never subjected to strict laws about ethnic cleansing, despite history Serbia has of doing it to neighboring nations, e.g. Bulgaria.
So, you could argue that the seeds for later problems were planted by the policy that excused any and all war crimes, perpetrated by the winning parties.
I think many people would also use them as a reason to have such laws. No one likes WBC. No one.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
There are several reasons why "free speech" is important. One of the primary ones is that it allows people to criticize the society/government/etc. which is very important part of the democratic system. Another common one is that it is a human right to freely express yourself (creating whatever type of art, shouting out your sexual identity, whatever) without being restricted by laws. Actually, in most of Europe the constitutions are based on these two concepts. For example, finnish constitution states that you have (among other things): Freedom of religion and conscience (Section 11), Freedom of expression and the right of access to information (Section 12), Freedom of assembly and freedom of assosciation (Section 13) and so on.
Now... Free speech means that people who disagree with you also have free speech. Think that Hitler was a great fellow? Go ahead, blog about that. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If you really think that way, nobody should have the right to jail you for your opinions (or for expressing them).
But if you want to go to a funeral of someone you don't even know and shout obscenities simply because you enjoy causing sorrow to other people? With no other motivation (Such as political reasons for protesting outside a public figure's funeral) involved? I am more than happy to let the cops drag you away. I do not think that there is any reason why such activities should have constitutional protection (and on this side of the ocean, they don't). Now, there is always gray area: You think that it is art to mess with the feelings of other people? Well, in those cases I would be fine with everything from stating "Well... Fine, them." to declaring that as a crime against humanity. But in a case like this, there really wasn't any excuse.
Sometimes I wonder if "gold spammers" are not only spamming gold, but a digital version of a Numbers station..
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
War crimes are violations of the laws of war, regardless of the side, which commits them.
Actually, I should correct my post above -- as ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, not a war crime.
Nobody cares about a small country nearly as much as they care about an entire religion.
There's this little matter of scale...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
He dun goofed. Now consequences will never be the same, since someone obviously backtraced him and sent the information to the cyberpolice. Maybe now you guys will listen.
I said many people, not myself. I have no problem just ignoring them.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
This is not about expressing an objectionable belief. The guy in question was not expressing his beliefs at all. He boasted that he was trolling - and that's what a troll is, someone who makes statements not because they believe in them, but to hurt other people and cause outrage. I see no reason why that should be given the same protection as expressing your beliefs.
And considering just these two cases, it's clear that the UK law has served the people better than the US law.
Whether there's a wider argument that that's not generally true needs demonstrating. Feel free to bring up some more cases.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
You mean scale of how the Albanians, Bulgarians, Armenians, etc, don't all have relatives with controlling shares in major Western media outlets to make sure we never, ever get to stop hearing about it? After all, to quote Adolf Hitler, "Who now remembers Armenia?"
Your crime when you deny that Holocaust happened is not ignorance, but an attempt at social engineering conditions favorable for another Holocaust.
No, it is an opinion. I think it is wrong to say that a person cannot believe that the holocaust did not happen or that it happened differently to how history portrays it. It is not social engineering, it is just a minority opinion. There are countries where you can get into trouble for deciding that Mohammed was not a prophet or that Osama bin Ladin is an OK guy and fit to drive around town. As these are opinions I cannot see what the crime is. If you go into a synagogue and shout your opinion in a way that is guaranteed to cause offense then you are hurting people and I can see the crime but if you write a book for like minded people then that is just financial suicide.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
There is ethnic cleansing in Palestine which is far more ironic...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I defended the right that people have to freely express and defend their opinions, even if I disagree with them or find them offensive. I like how you used the "disagree" word yourself because that is rather important. If someone says that Stalin was a nice fellow, I can say "I disagree, but you should have the right to say that".
If someone harasses the family of a recently diseased person... How can you say "I disagree"? You can't because it is direct action, not expression of opinion. You can't disagree or agree with it any more than you can disagree with punching someone in the face.
Free speech means that you should be able to say "I think that communists should be thrown to concentration camps". Free speech doesn't mean that you should be allowed to actually commit the act.
You shouldn't defend a thing just because it is "free speech". I can say "I think murder is an act of free speech", murder someone and say "It was freedom of speech!". Rather, you should state why freedom of speech is important (I did so by stating what things are required for a functional democracy or considered human rights) and base the rest on that.
Freedom of speech isn't important for the sake of freedom of speech. It is important for a functioning democracy, etc. and the laws protecting it should be based on that. If allowing people to bully families of people who died recently has nothing to do with why freedom of speech is important, it shouldn't be protected by those laws.
The question is why don't we see more actual cruel acts? I would say it is because in normal societies social inhibitions prevail. But when societies break down, e.g. in times of war, acts of the cruelty are everywhere.
One might note that cruelty is easier when it's more impersonal. You will see many people making statements and expressing views on the internet that they would never actually say right to someone's face. (I am not one of these, I am an asshole, er I mean I speak my mind, in person also. If some douche does something douchey I say something.) When someone gets mad at you then there's possible consequences at arm's length. This is just a way of putting consequences back into the equation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ahem:
Let's kill everyone in $COUNTRY < Let's kill everyone everywhere who's $ATTRIBUTE
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
And yet, if I go around saying that MacGyver2210 kept me locked in his basement for three years while he raped me every night, I expect you will try to have me silenced. In most places, I'd even be subject to fines and possibly imprisonment if I'm vocal enough in my speech. If I shout outside your bedroom window through a megaphone all night, I expect you'll try to have me silenced.
Your quote refers specifically to political speech, especially the right to criticize government, corporation, and personal behavior. A society demands limits on speech, or it degenerates into anarchy. Prohibitions against telling lies and inciting violence are among the most common limits.
how little it takes to get people upset enough to give away their own freedoms
So you want the freedom to shout obscenities at grieving families during the funerals of soldiers who died giving you all your freedoms?
There are exceptions to every rule. You can't shout "Fire!" in a theater. And you shouldn't be able to shout and display obscenities at and during the time of a funeral. Simple as that... we don't have to change the rule, just make rare and necessary exceptions.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
You're not the only who has wondered that. See Kret, 2004. BlackHat Spam exists not because it is profitable - the revenue derived from people replying to spam messages is actually tiny - but because it is useful as a communications channel.
Surely, surely, it's only an offence to profess that the Holocaust didn't occur? Still screwed up, of course, but not quite as badly.
Well they test for it by asking you if you believe in it. If you say 'no' you've just professed it. ;)
I've never understood the movement of holocaust denial. What is the aim / benefit of teaching that it didn't happen or what world view does it enable?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I highly doubt many people really disbelieve the evidence left behind by the Holocaust. It's too overwhelming to deny. However, many people deny it because they want a second Holocaust. The bigotry and hatred they encourage and keep alive is their reason for the denial. It's their agenda that makes them deny it happened, not lack of evidence or doubt that it really happened. IOW's their denial is a lie as they don't actually believe their own denial.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Who are the only people you see denying the Holocaust? I'll tell you. Bigots, that's who. People who hate Jews because they're Jews. I've never seen a denial of the Holocaust by anyone outside that group.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
You cannot shout "Fire" at a theatre because it is dangerous and can cause injury to other people. yelling obscenities at a funeral is not similar in any meaningful way. I would not shed any tears if the entire WBC clan got hit by a wayward airplane, but until then, I support their right to be assholes.
It enables further promotion of bigotry against Jews, Homosexuals, and other groups. If you claim it didn't happen then you can much more easily glorify Hitler and the NAZI party...the funny thing is that this is done primarily (in the US at least) by people who really don't know much at all about Hitler or the NAZI's.
It also allows an argument that "evil Jews have completely character assassinated poor Hitler with this Holocaust nonsense and that's why they should be killed."
In my somewhat limited experience, it's a white man's version of "the man is keeping me down" which is used as a call to arms.
The lawyer joke about what do you call a bus load of lawyers drowned in the sea? Well I would say I would prefer it be a bus load of internet trolls.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
Correct. The term you are looking for is jus cogens. International law is usually laterally oriented with nobody above anyone else, even the UN, but war crimes, piracy, genocide, and torture are acts that every nation has an erga omnes obligation to follow. Being victorious allows you to defend your actions, but does not grant immunity due to sovereignty. Unfortunately, nobody ever actually holds anyone accountable for these things.
Lets kill everyone in China > Lets kill everyone who is a Mormon, in terms of numbers.
And Lets kill everyone who is Armenian = Lets kill everyone who is Jewish, in terms of semantics. They're both ethnic groups. Presumably the Ottomans were happy enough to leave any ethnic Turks resident in Armenia happily alone.
Well, I've never heard MacGyver2210 deny that he kept you locked in his basement for three years while he raped you every night. I'm not saying he--but why won't he deny it????
Ethnic cleansing shouldn't be confused with the methods used to achieve it, such as genocide. Ethnic cleansing is the removal of an ethnic group from a certain location by any targetted means, either legal, semi-legal or otherwise. Ethnic cleansing is fairly universally acknowledged as having taken past in Israel in the past:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
Arguably the creeping borders of the security fencing and steady expansions of Jewish settlements represents a low-intensity ethnic cleansing to this day. How welcome do you think local Arab farmers would feel in buying a house in the new Jewish settlements?
I'm no expert, but it doesn't sound preposterous to call that ethnic cleansing.
If it's illegal to be an a-hole, a whole lot of people are in trouble.
OMG!
It's C6gunner!
LOL!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Well, we could start with the UK Libel laws, where the truth is no defense.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
You didn't bother reading your link did you.
Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement),
It's also stemming from sheer stubbornness and lack of contact with reality sometimes. I'm reminded of the bit in Douglas Hoffstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach", where the Tortoise character gets into an infinite regression: "So if I accept A, B, and C, then I have accepted your premise? Not so fast - lets call that statement D - don't I have to include A, B, C, and D to really accept your premise? Now lets call that claim statement E - Don't I now have to accept A, B, C, D, and E to accept your premise? We can see where this is going - How dare you demand I accept your infinite series of claims without inspection!".
Part of the frustration many of us feel over, say, the climate change or abortion debates seems to be the same sort of thing. There's always some person on the side we don't agree with, taking an 'obviously impossible, absurd' stance, and the possibly more reasonable people on that same side don't distance themselves from their own fanatics. One of the things I saw during my own involvement in the abortion debate was that on the Pro-Choice side, there were a few women who claimed all sex with males was rape, so the 'except in cases of rape and incest' clause always applied anyway. Some of these wanted to do away with all men and use cloning to copy human females only. There's an odd feeling when somebody casually advocates the genocide of 3 billion people and the use of a technology we don't actually have as the solution to all the world's problems, and nobody else in the room is willing to call them crazy. On the Pro-Life side I saw people (mostly Roman Catholic priests), who saw banning abortion as only the first step in passing laws banning all extramarital sex, then banning masturbation and all pornography including the bra section of the Sears catalog, bringing back the laws that required showing all married couples in movies as sleeping in twin beds, the ones dictating skirt lengths, and on and on.
I suspect many organisations would actually be stronger if they tossed out some people who claim to be part of their coalitions, even if their overall numbers of members dropped. Sometimes the smart thing to do is to say "He doesn't speak for me, even if he claims to.".
The real key is, whether somebody is lying (as you suggest), or insane (as I suggest here), doesn't really matter, and nobody ought to be given a free pass to disrupt discourse because we can't tell if they are one or the other. I don't know if Glenn Beck is insane or mendacious, and the people who say he is crazy like a fox may be the rightist of all, but what he does sheds more heat than light, either way. I don't have to decide if he is nuts or faking it to realise he isn't contributing anything useful. That goes in spades for the holocaust denialists. A specific statement of theirs may seem insane, or a deliberate lie, or sometimes a reasonable statement, but examining a whole series of statements they make, sooner or later you realise they are not adding anything constructive to any of the processes of debate, discussion or education.
Who is John Cabal?
As long as someone's not doing it to directly incite hatred, I see no problem. It's kind of like poorly-written profiles on dating sites: if someone wants to out themselves as a dumbass, then please let them. It lets us other sensible people see who they are, so we can avoid them.
how little it takes to get people upset enough to give away their own freedoms
So you want the freedom to shout obscenities at grieving families during the funerals of soldiers who died giving you all your freedoms?
There are exceptions to every rule. You can't shout "Fire!" in a theater. And you shouldn't be able to shout and display obscenities at and during the time of a funeral. Simple as that... we don't have to change the rule, just make rare and necessary exceptions.
One, the "soldiers who died giving me all my freedoms" died over two hundred years ago. Two, I can certainly shout "fire!" in a theater. If the fire is a lie, I pay the consequences of that action. Part of the cost of living in a free(er) society is accepting that some people are going to be royal dickheads and behave in ways that are disgusting and obnoxious. I will never, however, support any law curtailing that.
It's also stemming from sheer stubbornness and lack of contact with reality sometimes. I'm reminded of the bit in Douglas Hoffstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach", where the Tortoise character gets into an infinite regression: "So if I accept A, B, and C, then I have accepted your premise? Not so fast - lets call that statement D - don't I have to include A, B, C, and D to really accept your premise? Now lets call that claim statement E - Don't I now have to accept A, B, C, D, and E to accept your premise? We can see where this is going - How dare you demand I accept your infinite series of claims without inspection!".
Part of the frustration many of us feel over, say, the climate change or abortion debates seems to be the same sort of thing. There's always some person on the side we don't agree with, taking an 'obviously impossible, absurd' stance, and the possibly more reasonable people on that same side don't distance themselves from their own fanatics. One of the things I saw during my own involvement in the abortion debate was that on the Pro-Choice side, there were a few women who claimed all sex with males was rape, so the 'except in cases of rape and incest' clause always applied anyway. Some of these wanted to do away with all men and use cloning to copy human females only. There's an odd feeling when somebody casually advocates the genocide of 3 billion people and the use of a technology we don't actually have as the solution to all the world's problems, and nobody else in the room is willing to call them crazy. On the Pro-Life side I saw people (mostly Roman Catholic priests), who saw banning abortion as only the first step in passing laws banning all extramarital sex, then banning masturbation and all pornography including the bra section of the Sears catalog, bringing back the laws that required showing all married couples in movies as sleeping in twin beds, the ones dictating skirt lengths, and on and on.
I suspect many organisations would actually be stronger if they tossed out some people who claim to be part of their coalitions, even if their overall numbers of members dropped. Sometimes the smart thing to do is to say "He doesn't speak for me, even if he claims to.".
The real key is, whether somebody is lying (as you suggest), or insane (as I suggest here), doesn't really matter, and nobody ought to be given a free pass to disrupt discourse because we can't tell if they are one or the other. I don't know if Glenn Beck is insane or mendacious, and the people who say he is crazy like a fox may be the rightist of all, but what he does sheds more heat than light, either way. I don't have to decide if he is nuts or faking it to realise he isn't contributing anything useful. That goes in spades for the holocaust denialists. A specific statement of theirs may seem insane, or a deliberate lie, or sometimes a reasonable statement, but examining a whole series of statements they make, sooner or later you realise they are not adding anything constructive to any of the processes of debate, discussion or education.
It's also stemming from sheer stubbornness and lack of contact with reality sometimes. I'm reminded of the bit in Douglas Hoffstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach", where the Tortoise character gets into an infinite regression: "So if I accept A, B, and C, then I have accepted your premise? Not so fast - lets call that statement D - don't I have to include A, B, C, and D to really accept your premise? Now lets call that claim statement E - Don't I now have to accept A, B, C, D, and E to accept your premise? We can see where this is going - How dare you demand I accept your infinite series of claims without inspection!".
Part of the frustration many of us feel over, say, the climate change or abortion debates seems to be the same sort of thing. There's always some person on the side we don't agree
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
yes it is, learn your countries laws
While one is free to say whatever he or she may want, one is also responsible for that speech.
This is where laws regarding defamation of character, inciting violence/panic, and noise pollution come into play.
Over the long run, people who make untruthful speech or otherwise misuse their speech are generally recognized for this, at which point society can ignore them. That is why regardless of how hateful or untrue certain speech might be, I fully support the ability of a person to cry it from their soapbox. If nothing else it lets me know they can be ignored, but it also gives me the opportunity to address or refute it.
Funny thing is, if Germany had Hitler as royalty they would still have the blood line as the head of state.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
American soldiers have fought for no one's freedoms since WWII, to me and many people in my generation they are just a bunch of mercenaries.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Interesting. That's where the disconnect is then. I figured people who approved of the Holocaust (god help them) would wish to glorify it, not sweep it under the carpet.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
That could be a consequence of the laws against Holocaust denial: only those committed enough to their beliefs that they are willing to face censure and jail (that is, highly motivated bigots) will give voice to denialist ideas.
But the whole denial thing is really anti-Nazi. No one denies that Hitler hated jews... I have yet to hear a neo-Nazi claim that Mein Kampf wasn't authentic. Few would argue what was meant by "Final solution".
So denying the holocaust is just a big fucking middle finger to Hilter and all his friends... basically calling them incompetent.
It's anti-Nazi and anti-Hitler. And who will protect them??!
Luckily section 189 of the German Criminal Code, where it is illegal to disparage the memory of a deceased person... So these neo-Nazis are breaking that law as well.
We have come to a point where all the test cases for free speech are people being unambiguous assholes, rather than people simply stating unpopular political opinions. As a result, we are put in a situation where we have to choose between an absolute commitment to free speech and a society where people can mourn their dead in peace. The latter will win, ultimately, even if it means using the Constitution as toilet paper (hopefully, it won't come to that.) And I think, ultimately, I would rather that the latter won. I don't value free speech for its own sake: I value it as a means of checking power, of keeping discourse lively and intellects rigorous, of keeping us from getting complacent, dumb, or too obedient.
It also occurs here in North America among expatriate Germans. It is an expression of hyper-nationalism. "My country is so great, it would never have done such a thing". Some Japanese do the same thing when they attack any attempt to talk about Japan's crimes before and during WWII. They "deny" the Rape of Nanking, the mistreatment of Allied POWs etc. Not to say that either case doesn't also include a large dose of "we are racially superior".
That could be a consequence of the laws against Holocaust denial: only those committed enough to their beliefs that they are willing to face censure and jail (that is, highly motivated bigots) will give voice to denialist ideas.
Bigots have been publicly hating Jews for more than a 1000 years, and you're going to make a claim that some law passed in the last decade or so is responsible for all the expressions of bigotry throughout the previous centuries? What made bigots express their bigotry before this law was passed?
And what creates the publicly expressed bigotry against the Jews outside of Europe where the law in question doesn't exist? Have all those who have denied the Holocaust in all nations of the world for the last 30 or 40 years done so because of some European law that wasn't even in existence at the time?
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
I think you do not understand what I wrote.Try again.
How does this crap get modded up?
Zemran, unless you're on Hamas' RSS feed there is nothing like 'ethnic cleansing' going on in 'Palestine'. I mean, if the Israelis were trying to kill all the Palestinians ... don't you think they'd be done by now? Sorry, I didn't know offering half your country counted as 'cleansing'. You realize that 'Palestine', created by the Brits in the 20s was a lot larger? And that what the Jordanians did in 71 was a lot more like 'cleansing' (although, since they let most of them flee to Israel - not really applicable there either).
bsD, right, it's always the Jews fault, huh? (Controlling shares in what? Getting your stereotypes mixed up?) It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Holocaust affected thousands of times more people (millions of victims, and all of fucking Europe making/letting it happen). I notice you didn't mention Cambodians, Rwandans, Angolans, Zimbabweans ... But I guess you're just saying that people should forget about the Holocaust, because it happened oh so long ago, but always mourn for the Armenians.
No, I don't know why I'm feeding the trolls, but I really don't get how they're Interesting, not Flamebait.
I think many people would also use them as a reason to have such laws. No one likes WBC. No one.
But that's pretty much the point, isn't it? The test of a country's commitment to freedom of speech is whether or not they are willing to protect the right of free speech for those groups that no one likes.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Well said.
expandfairuse.org
What technical means did not exist here? You can make anything on facebook private; you can block specific people if you don't like what they say.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Another holocaust, if it came, would result from people (once again, as in the last holocaust) believing that Jews were sub-human.
Remembering how “bad” the holocaust was is utterly worthless if you think that the victims were of sub-human value, because then “bad” turns into “good”.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
No one likes WBC. No one.
I like WBC. I like how they demonstrate repeatedly that they’re idiots.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I've never understood the movement of holocaust denial. What is the aim / benefit of teaching that it didn't happen or what world view does it enable?
Not to mention, the evidence is completely overwhelming and undeniable. The only possibly point of contention is exactly how many millions were murdered. At which point, you're splitting hairs. Does eight million fail to qualify where ten million does - or whatever the actual numbers are? I mean, where exactly is the cut off, where mass murder and genocide on an epic scale no longer qualifies as a holocaust?
And I completely agree with you - what is the benefit of splitting hairs where its a disagreement without a difference.
I guess. I still don't like them.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Furthrmore, the Jews of Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, and many other Arab countries fled to Israel in the 1950s after their property was expropriated and their lives threatened with full state support. Not surprisingly, their descendants form the political base of the right wing of Israeli politics.
I have never heard anybody speak seriously about a "right of return" for those refugees. Nor have I heard anyone seriously suggest returning the Gaza Strip to Egypt, as there's no way they would accept it.
In an argument, there can be two things gone wrong:
- Invalid premises
- Faulty conclusion drawn from valid premises
I will illustrate the first.
1) Obama's father was a Kenyan Muslim. ** true **
2) Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. ** false ** (everything after this is irrelevant, because this premise is flawed.)
--
3) Obama is not a natural citizen. ** nonsense **
4) Where's the birth certificate?? Obama stole the election!! ** nonsense **
I will illustrate the second.
1) George Soros is a left-leaning billionaire. ** true **
2) George Soros has donated millions to left-leaning causes. ** true **
3) George Soros has donated to the Tides Foundation. ** true **
--
4) George Soros uses the Tides Foundation as a front group to support left-wing extremism. ** false **
5) The Tides Foundation must be stopped!! ** false **
Glenn Beck may not make the kinds of errors seen in demonstration #1. With near-perfect consistency, he makes the kinds of errors seen in demonstration #2.
If only they'd let Fred Phelps into the UK in the first place we'd be rid of one extra dirtbag....oh, you mean he doesn't use a OMFG computer? He just shows up and yells obscenities at funerals? Well that's OK then. This is so fucked.
Why Politicians are not jailed when they make obscene speeches?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Your quote refers specifically to political speech, especially the right to criticize government, corporation, and personal behavior. A society demands limits on speech, or it degenerates into anarchy.
So it is no coincidence that the quote in question is from an anarchist originally.
It is also true of Americans -- and any other nation for that matter.
How many Americans acknowledge the bombing campaigns against civilian population in Japan and Germany as war crimes - which they, undoubtedly, are? (Yes, they are, if they weren't, US would not have insisted that clauses, banning prosecution of those are included in every peace treaty signed post WWII).
Forget Germany and Japan, how about the bombings of the "allies" of Germany in Europe like Austria and Hungary, or Romania and Bulgaria, countries, that were basically forced into Hitler's arms by the distribution of military power during the war? Their cities were heavily bombed by the US and UK after 1943, although they were no military threat to any of the powers.
How about the documented thousands of documented rapes of women in Germany, France and the UK by US troops, which went unpunished? Some put the documented rapes figure at over 40,000. That means at least 10% of the US troops engaged in it. Are those accounts in your history books alongside the D-day accounts? I seriously doubt it.
Denying crimes is so common, and so done by everyone that it is ridiculous to pretend amazement.
What is amazing is most of those countries who lost WWII are still largely acknowledging their crimes 70 years down the road.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents".
Smedley Darlington Butler
(July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Our royalty's bloodlines still exist but they aren't in power anymore, the most they manage is make an ass of themselves in public.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Furthrmore, the Jews of Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, and many other Arab countries fled to Israel in the 1950s after their property was expropriated and their lives threatened with full state support.
I don't disagree. Many of the Islamic countries in the Middle East have appalling records when it comes to dealing with their non-Muslim minority populations, Jewish populations perhaps worse of all. There would be good cause for calling that ethnic cleansing too.
Two wrongs don't make a right though.
While one is free to say whatever he or she may want, one is also responsible for that speech. This is where laws regarding defamation of character, inciting violence/panic, and noise pollution come into play.
Using THAT reasoning, you have freedom of speech in China, too. You're free to say what you want, after all, you just have to deal with the consequences when the laws regarding defamation of the party, inciting protests, and advocating democracy come into play.
I understood exactly what you wrote. It makes no sense.
The only people who have ever expressed hatred of Jews because they are Jews are bigots. Law or no law it's bigots that deny the Holocaust. The law doesn't stop those who don't hate Jews and want to cause them pain from denying the Holocaust. They don't deny the Holocaust because they have no motivation to deny it.
The law against murder doesn't keep me from murdering anyone. I don't commit murder because there is nothing within that desires to commit murder. The laws against theft don't stop me from stealing. I don't steal because it doesn't lie within me to steal. Laws against that type of behavior are there so those people who are motivated to commit those crimes can be punished when they are caught. That's why all laws relating to criminal behavior have punishment for the crime as an integral part of the law.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
You're wrong in your assertions. Your assertions numbered 4 and 5 are only true if you start your logical process from a completely different perspective than Beck does.
Your basic premise is that socialistic policies are the best thing for the country. Beck's basic premise is that the founders of our country got things right and that the constitution, as written, is the best basis for our laws and our prosperity. These are two diametrically opposed basic premises. Holding to either premise doesn't make either person deranged or a liar. But, they do cause perfectly logical holders of the opposing basic premises to disagree on assertions numbered 4 and 5, as well as on a host of other issues.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
How many Americans acknowledge the bombing campaigns against civilian population in Japan and Germany as war crimes
Much revisionist of history.
During WWII, it was frequently difficult to bomb the right city, let alone a specific target, especially in a blacked out city at night. The solution? Saturate an area. Thusly, this is dubbed, saturation bombing.
The reality of the situation is, civilians were not the specific targets. They wanted protection from prosecution because they didn't want to be prosecuted for the realities of fighting a war.
War is hell. That's the truth. The problems come from idiot, anti-War people, who ignorantly believe man is perfect, accidents never happen, soldiers are not human (with emotions), and spur of the moment logic is perfect. As such, when humans do the things humans do, they want to persecute anyone and everyone so they can continue to stand on their ivory tower while thumbing their nose at the rest of humanity. The sad truth is, people like than and presumably you, actually look far more pathetic than those who actually started the damn war in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh
Sheikh, also rendered as Sheik, Cheikh, Sjeik, Shaykh, Shaikh, Sheekh, Sheyh, eih, ejh, eyh and other variants (Arabic: , shaykh; pl. shuykh), is a word or honorific term in the Arabic language that literally means "elder".
Got that? Good!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I don't disagree with you at all on the unintended consequences of the law. I'm not even sure I like the idea of the law itself as bigots are going to be bigots no matter what laws are enacted, and laws cannot change human nature.
In my view the hate crimes laws are overreactions. We already have laws against murder, harassment, assault, etc... and those laws already have provisions to cover particularly heinous actions in their sentencing recommendations, and since laws cannot change human nature hate crimes laws are redundant. I feel the same way about hate speech laws. They're political correctness run amok, and when they reach their logical end they do nothing but limit the individual freedoms of everyone and burden the court systems with lawsuits as there are a lot of people out there looking to see what excuse they can find to be offended over so they can sue.
Here's an example of how outrageous things can get with political correctness. My last name has 3 k's in it, and if I make fun of myself as to how I'm a bigot because of those 3 k's I've been accused of bigotry for pointing them out. Having enough of a sense of humor to mock yourself is enough to get you accused of being a bigot these days of political correctness run amok. I guess I ought to sue myself for not being politically correct. I wonder what I'd get in monetary damages if I won.... Maybe I'd get rich....
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Crazy fucking nut job is what you are!
This explains how hard it was to hit a target during Vietnam, where hit ratios were way up from WWII due to more advanced targeting solutions.
In reality, it took been 500-800 bombs to hit a single target during WWII, with low altitude runs. The fact they were dropped from such high altitudes only made the odds of success even more unlikely and misses much, much farther from target. In order to offset such horrible odds, they completely gave up on precision bombing and went the route everyone else had already gone - which was saturation or carpet bombing.
Its extremely well documented that the entirely wrong cities were carpet bombed because of navigation errors. To mislead claiming this didn't happen is to be delusional and well into ignorance or revisionist territory.
Rape was never supported by the Allies and anyone who says otherwise is fully of delusional bullshit.
As for theft of property, this was considered "Spoils of War." This has a long, long, long established history throughout the war. I don't agree with it, but it was in fact, what made many a military commander extremely wealthy over the centuries. It was a commonly accepted fact of war by all parties involved and as such, has absolutely no bearing on the subject matter at hand. The fact you believe it does only underscores you are either completely ignorant of the subject or a delusional nut job.
Your bigotry comments only validate you are a bigoted but job as I never said anything one way or the other - at least not in this post. The simple fact is, I don't disagree one bit with the history books and almost endless facts which support the Jews were horribly murdered and that genocide was the agenda. Which only underlines you are a bigot and a delusional nut job.
I encourage you to actually read some history and learn about the topics to which you are clearly impassioned. Until you do so, you will forever remain and bigoted nut job.