Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

Should all Holocaust deniers be imprisoned for their belief?

Nobody should be imprisoned for their beliefs.

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Should all Holocaust deniers be imprisoned for their belief?

Its not about her beliefs, its about her spreading it to others in Germany where it is illegal

 

 

49 minutes ago, connda said:

If she was in the US she could voice her opinion regarding the Holocaust without fear of being thrown into prison. 

I find that countries who don't hold the tenets of Freedom of Speech to be more of a threat to humanity then the Holocaust-denying elderly woman.  So Germany is embracing Totalitarianism by being as intolerant as were the Fascists and the Nazis and the Communists and all the other intolerant "-isms" in the world. 

Throwing a 95 year old elderly woman in prison for an opinion.  That's really needless as well as heartless.  That could pretty much end up being a death sentence for her.  Will throwing her in prison change her mind?  No.  It just attempts to shut her up.   

 

   Its that old question , should Nazis and other extremists who would silence all other opinions by force, be allowed to air their opinion  ?

   Should Nazis be freely allowed to gain power again and have another Holocaust, or should they be stopped before they gain power ?

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Should all Holocaust deniers be imprisoned for their belief?

Seems that this question was already answered and now we're on the full implementation phase.

 

I met those who were extreme deniers, those who would go berserk even for the smallest doubt and those in between. Never cared less. Freedom of speech yields "freedom of attention".

 

How hard to switch the channel and ignore?

1 hour ago, connda said:

Throwing a 95 year old elderly woman in prison for an opinion.  ... That could pretty much end up being a death sentence for her. 

So could sending her home...she's 90 fkin 5!   

56 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Should all Holocaust deniers be imprisoned for their belief?

Yes all, let the Nazi scums rot in hell including this 95 year old woman.

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Its that old question , should Nazis and other extremists who would silence all other opinions by force, be allowed to air their opinion  ?

   Should Nazis be freely allowed to gain power again and have another Holocaust, or should they be stopped before they gain power ?

Who did she harm? They are harming her for free speech. They are now acting like nazis. How ironic.

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its not about her beliefs, its about her spreading it to others in Germany where it is illegal

 

 

Telling lies is worse than violence? Weird world in 2024

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Aside from denying the Holocaust, you can anything you like and express any opinion you like in Germany .

   Your opinion wouldn't mean anything there either and you wouldn't be a citizen there .

   So you aren't concerned about any free speech , you just want to be able to deny that Holocaust t happened 

Free speech is free speech. Sadly some countries just don't get it.

56 minutes ago, UWEB said:

Yes all, let the Nazi scums rot in hell including this 95 year old woman.

So you are pro violence against 95yos. Doesnt that make you a nazi? I think so.

2 hours ago, UWEB said:

That's not a different opinion. Denying the Holocaust is in Germany a criminal offense by Law and especial in her age she should know it better. But she is still a fan of Hitler.

One guy back in 600 killed thousands. He has millions of fans. Why aren't they jailed then? Germany is a nutbag nation.

Like many desirable facets of a 'free society', you cannot consider 'free speech' in isolation as an absolute good. 

 

A society creates rules for itself in aim of the greater good.  For example, libertarians might say drug taking is a victimless crime, but the costs to society (cost of treatment and rehabilitation, cost of lawlessness to pay for addiction) mean that rules are applied. 

 

Free speech is the same.  Lack of 'free speech' in certain situations (hate speech, encouraging violence and crime, or in Germany's case Holocaust denial) is a product of a democratic society setting rules for its own health. As such, to call this aspect of censorship tyranny seems deliberately naive and disingenuous. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, susanlea said:

Free speech is free speech. Sadly some countries just don't get it.

Try Thailand.

some senile (I assume) woman takes so much attention?

I think news channels who aired her should be fined. Bigly!

4 hours ago, connda said:

I may disagree with her, but I'd fight for her right to express her views. 

Well, that's the difference between living in a Neo-Totalitarian state and living in a country in which Freedom of Speech is enshrined in a constitution.  Throwing people into prison for opinions is paving the road to Hell.  Personally I wouldn't live in Germany.  I don't like totalitarians anymore than I like Nazis.  They both suck. 

 

Germany is not a totalitarian state.

 

You seem to be arguing in favour of absolute Freedom of Speech? What about a scenario whereby Person A states, "All Jews are evil. Evil has no place in our country". Clearly this is factually incorrect as all Jews are not evil. However, Person B kills a Jew and when questioned states that he did so because he wanted to rid the country of evil and was influenced by Person A's words.

 

Obviously, Person B is guilty of a crime but what about Person A? Should they be absolved of all responsibility and accountability? Are crimes which are a direct by-product of a person's words to be considered an acceptable price to pay for absolute Freedom of Speech?

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Germany is not a totalitarian state.

 

You seem to be arguing in favour of absolute Freedom of Speech? What about a scenario whereby Person A states, "All Jews are evil. Evil has no place in our country". Clearly this is factually incorrect as all Jews are not evil. However, Person B kills a Jew and when questioned states that he did so because he wanted to rid the country of evil and was influenced by Person A's words.

 

Obviously, Person B is guilty of a crime but what about Person A? Should they be absolved of all responsibility and accountability? Are crimes which are a direct by-product of a person's words to be considered an acceptable price to pay for absolute Freedom of Speech?

 

I'd go with freedom of speech. 

 

I don't think it should be illegal to say anything. 

12 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

I'd go with freedom of speech. 

 

I don't think it should be illegal to say anything. 

 Try open your mouth in Thailand or just mention section 112 let me know the result.

1 hour ago, FruitPudding said:

 

I'd go with freedom of speech. 

 

I don't think it should be illegal to say anything. 

 

Even if that ultimately leads to murder?

3 hours ago, susanlea said:

Free speech is free speech. Sadly some countries just don't get it.

 

   Free speech has its limits in all Countries .

Free speech doesn't give you the right to lie and abuse other groups of peopke .

   Some people just don't get what free speech means

1 hour ago, FruitPudding said:

 

I don't think it should be illegal to say anything. 

 

   So you think that it should be legal to be able  tell random children that you would like to touch their genitals and asking them how much money they want for sex  ?

4 hours ago, susanlea said:

So you are pro violence against 95yos. Doesnt that make you a nazi? I think so.

 

   No, you are not a Nazi if you think that Nazis should be jailed for breaking the law 

21 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   No, you are not a Nazi if you think that Nazis should be jailed for breaking the law 

Yes they are. Jailing free speech, what nazis did.

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Free speech has its limits in all Countries .

Free speech doesn't give you the right to lie and abuse other groups of peopke .

   Some people just don't get what free speech means

So if I say Stalin didnt kill anyone I should go to jail? 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Even if that ultimately leads to murder?

Jail the murderer. 

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Germany is not a totalitarian state.

 

You seem to be arguing in favour of absolute Freedom of Speech? What about a scenario whereby Person A states, "All Jews are evil. Evil has no place in our country". Clearly this is factually incorrect as all Jews are not evil. However, Person B kills a Jew and when questioned states that he did so because he wanted to rid the country of evil and was influenced by Person A's words.

 

Obviously, Person B is guilty of a crime but what about Person A? Should they be absolved of all responsibility and accountability? Are crimes which are a direct by-product of a person's words to be considered an acceptable price to pay for absolute Freedom of Speech?

So then you would have to jail the makers of video games and movies. 

3 minutes ago, susanlea said:

So if I say Stalin didnt kill anyone I should go to jail? 

 

   No , you shouldn't go to jail 

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   No , you shouldn't go to jail 

Why not?

6 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Yes they are. Jailing free speech, what nazis did.

 

  The logic of : Nazis drank water , so anyone who drinks water is a Nazi

Just now, susanlea said:

Why not?

 

  Because there's no law against saying it 

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  Because there's no law against saying it 

So if there was a crazy law then jail is ok