> Where are you talking about?  In the USA, many police would probably 
> agree. I think you'd find it quite different in China, for example.

Exactly my point, here in the countries I've lived in, expressing your 
opinion in a sensible manner would never get you in trouble.

>> However if I start telling him about how I don't believe in the 
>> holocaust, or how I want to try and convince everyone to become Nazis, or 
>> if I start making insulting comments about people or groups of people
>
> You're not supposed to get in trouble for any of that stuff in the USA.

I think the whole holocaust/nazi/hitler thing here is a bit different from 
the rest of the world.  Germany needed to be seen as taking action, so were 
kind of forced to pass these laws.  As Warp pointed out, sometimes it's a 
bit stupid with eg the nazi symbol in books, but they have the laws to give 
the police power to really stop anything like that ever happening again.

> What possible benefit do you get from arresting someone who doesn't 
> believe in the holocaust?

It's not so much the arresting them, but the seriousness of the situation 
that it instills on everyone else.  It's like saying "look this is a really 
important part of history that we must never forget, there's no way anyone 
is allowed to try and mess it up by spreading false information and 
beliefs".

> The problem comes when you start arresting people next for not believing 
> that men are superior and that God exists and should be obeyed.

I think the holocaust is a just exception to normal beliefs.

> "Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book 
> about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got banned 
> in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.

I think with that one they just don't want to define a line to divide what 
is ok and what's not ok regarding the nazi symbol, far easier to just say 
nothing is ok.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
> > trying to achieve.

> I think the idea is to have an excuse to arrest people who are actually 
> advocating a return of Nazism. Same as the law against holocaust denial, 
> really.

  But I find it hard to believe that such a law is passed in congress without
anyone presenting some logical, legally sound arguments about why the law is
valid and makes sense. I don't believe "so that we will have an additional
convenient excuse to arrest neonazis" is a legally sound argument.

  They must have come up with *some* rationalization to pass the law other
than that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!

> http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like

  I really don't see too much of a difference between that and the internet
censorship in China...

  (The scary thing is that that kind of attitude is getting more and more
common in western countries.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   But I find it hard to believe that such a law is passed in congress without
> anyone presenting some logical, legally sound arguments about why the law is
> valid and makes sense. I don't believe "so that we will have an additional
> convenient excuse to arrest neonazis" is a legally sound argument.

	You find it _hard_ to believe?

	Congress over here just authorized giving out $700 billion with almost
no oversight, and based on a flimsy 3 page report. The "logical, sound"
argument for the amount of money? "Sounded like a good figure. Oh, and
BTW, I have no idea if this plan will work. The economy is funny
sometimes" (paraphrased).

-- 
In an Astronomy class (toward an Astronomy major, not that gen-ed crap)
the professor did not tell us we would have to remember constants, and
he asked them as questions. They were short questions, and weren't worth
a lot.

One of them was: What is the orbital period of Saturn? (2 pts/100)

I started thinking about Bode's law and the posibility I could calculate
it from an approximate radius I would get from that law... if I could
remember it. But when you expect a 72% to be an A on a test, you have
bigger fish to fry.

Then I got it. It was right, it should work, and no one would have to be
nailed to anything.

I wrote: One Saturn-Year

I didn't get credit for it. A couple years later a sophomore was telling
me about this funny question he had in the same class. He showed it to
me. It read:

What is the orbital period of Saturn? (Do not put one Saturn-Year)

I was so right that it had to be guarded against. Yet those were 2
points I would never have.

(as told by SetupWeasel on Slashdot)


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> The problem comes when you say something that is your opinion/stance, 
> and it harms someone else enough to warrant action. 

I believe the expression for that in our country is "tough noogies."

No, you don't get to beat me up for expressing my opinion, no matter how 
much you dislike it. Instead, you too have freedom to explain why my 
opinion is so wrong.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   They must have come up with *some* rationalization to pass the law other
> than that.

Well, I *think* the reason is "Nazism was awful, and killed millions and 
millions of people in the worst war the world has ever seen, so it makes 
sense to prevent people from advocating we do that again."

It's rational. Not what I'd think is a good idea, but rational.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!
> 
>> http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like
> 
>   I really don't see too much of a difference between that and the internet
> censorship in China...

You mean, other than China being a developing totalitarian state 
struggling with economic and political stability, while the UK is a 
stable democracy?  No, not too much difference. :-)

>   (The scary thing is that that kind of attitude is getting more and more
> common in western countries.)

Well, yes, that was kind of my point there. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> have the laws to give the police power to really stop anything like that 
> ever happening again.

So, no matter how much the population might want that, they can't have 
it. Welcome to lack of democracy.

> It's not so much the arresting them, but the seriousness of the 
> situation that it instills on everyone else.  

So, we don't really want to arrest you. We want you to just understand 
we really, really mean it.

 > It's like saying "look
> this is a really important part of history that we must never forget, 
> there's no way anyone is allowed to try and mess it up by spreading 
> false information and beliefs".

And I'm sure there are large numbers of people in the USA that would say 
*exactly* the same thing about the Bible, and large numbers of people in 
the middle east who would say *exactly* the same thing about the Koran.

>> The problem comes when you start arresting people next for not 
>> believing that men are superior and that God exists and should be obeyed.
> 
> I think the holocaust is a just exception to normal beliefs.

Why?  Isn't it better to show people they're wrong than to arrest the 
people who hold unpopular opinions? And don't think they don't get 
arrested - that's what laws are for.

> I think with that one they just don't want to define a line to divide 
> what is ok and what's not ok regarding the nazi symbol, far easier to 
> just say nothing is ok.

And that's the other half of the problem. Censorship isn't OK just 
because you're censoring an unpopular opinion. Indeed, that's kind of 
the point.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   They must have come up with *some* rationalization to pass the law other
> > than that.

> Well, I *think* the reason is "Nazism was awful, and killed millions and 
> millions of people in the worst war the world has ever seen, so it makes 
> sense to prevent people from advocating we do that again."

> It's rational. Not what I'd think is a good idea, but rational.

  Yeah, I see how history books advocate nazism and thus should be banned.
Very rational.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!
> > 
> >> http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like
> > 
> >   I really don't see too much of a difference between that and the internet
> > censorship in China...

> You mean, other than China being a developing totalitarian state 
> struggling with economic and political stability, while the UK is a 
> stable democracy?  No, not too much difference. :-)

  Ok, there is a difference: China has some kind of excuse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message