"Free Speech on Trial" Blog

[Drooperdoo]

One of my big hobbies is onomastics [the study of name-origins]. In looking at old family crests, I came upon a funny one. It's from the Hitler family. Adolf's father is the first to transliterate it "Hitler". Before that it was spelled "Hiedler" [and sometimes Hutler]. Here's a link to a website that provides the family crest. I think you'll be amused by the accidental--or perhaps omen-like--similarity between his family's crest and a certain nation's flag.

www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_details.asp?sId=&s=hiedler

[anodyne]

I was speaking to the idea of claiming a right to free speech where one is not enumerated.

The English may not have any acknowledgement of freedom of speech written on a piece of paper, but since man (and WOman ) is born with a rational mind then it's inhuman to not allow that person to excercise his/her thoughts. That's what I mean by a natural right.

[anodyne]

I'm an old-school believer in freedom. I think you should be allowed to say anything. Anything! Now if you ACT on calls to violence, then you should be held to account. But merely speaking of violence shouldn't be a crime.

Because what does "violence" mean? Who decides that?

That's a problem since anyone can claim a remark will lead to violence but for me it has to be clear cut. Telling people to go out and commit murder, attack an ethnic group, or business, etc. is clear cut.

Look at the Israeli lobby and its "hate crimes" laws. They're arresting people not for inciting violence but for disputing the figures of the Holocaust. Not a single person they've arrested has said "Kill Jews!" They just dared to say "Maybe 6 million didn't die. Perhaps it was closer to 1 million."

How is that "hate"?

Hate crime laws in general are stupid. Murder is murder regardless of its motivation, for example. I don't understand why one person's motivation is considered more heinous than another's.

Drooperdoo, although I agree that stating 6 million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration shouldn't be a reason to throw a person in prison since no harm is done except maybe hurt feelings (which doesn't matter) you have to admit that it's people who have a hatred of Jews who use this belief for other reasons. Even this Finkelstein character you and Duke like to reference has a history of what many could consider being anti- semitic, even though he is Jewish. That he is Jewish is the reason people like to bring him up. Same reason people bring up Chomsky or some other Jew who has issues with his ethnic group or Israeli policies. As if that's supposed to carry more weight.

Accounting becomes misrepresented as "hate," calls for factual scrutiny are presented as "calls for violence".

I would like an open debate about the Holocaust as anyone. Constanly shutting down people, regardless of their intentions, is an approach that puts people who stay with the current belief that there was 6 million Jewish deaths as attempting to hide something. It's best to bring the debate out in the public with each side getting its best minds together to argue their cases. I love that kind of stuff. I'd pay good money to watch and even sit in if they let me There should be a debating channel. I'd be willing to pay a good amount of money for that type of channel.