Fined for speaking her mind - Page 2

keith.kuslak · 12-07-2007

it's called critical thinking. When the act is what is punished not the thought it's not really thought crime. I'm sorry that you follow a trend of not actually reading the definition of a word before using it.

MRiGnS · 12-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I'm pretty sure in Germany, you aren't allowed to claim the holocaust didn't happen. Is that true Mrgins?

illegal.

As in: Belgium, France, Israel, Canada, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Slovakia, Spain, South Africa and the Czech Republic.

Quote:

Criminal Code: § 130 Public Incitement (1985, amendments of 1992, 2002 and 2005)

Volksverhetzung

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace: 1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or 2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population, shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years. (...)

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

(4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbes the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. (...)

Code of Crimes against International Law: § 130 Genocide
Völkermord

(1) Whoever with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial, religious or ethnic group: 1. kills a member of the group, 2. causes serious bodily or mental harm to a member of the group, especially of the kind referred to in section 226 of the Criminal Code, 3. inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part, 4. imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group, 5. forcibly transfers a child of the group to another group, shall be punished with imprisonment for life. (...)

Criminal Code: § 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons (1985, amendments of 1992)
Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener

Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.

Criminal Code: § 194 Application for Criminal Prosecution
Strafantrag

(1) An insult shall be prosecuted only upon complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the aggrieved party was persecuted as a member of a group under the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree, this group is a part of the population and the insult is connected with this persecution. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if the aggrieved party objects. When the aggrieved party deceases, the rights of complaint and of objection devolve on the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2). The objection may not be withdrawn.

(2) If the memory of a deceased person has been disparaged, then the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2), are entitled to file a complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the deceased person lost his life as a victim of the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree and the disparagement is connected therewith. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if a person entitled to file a complaint objects. The objection may not be withdrawn. (...)

Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

keith.kuslak · 12-07-2007

oh and btw... if you didn't notice... that article is currently disputed... if you read the disputed page you'll see why. 1) it isn't defined in context to the book. 2) thoughtcrime != speechcrime

among other things...

MRiGnS · 12-07-2007

What article?

hmarroqu · 12-08-2007

wikipedia states - "The term "Thought Police," by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness in any modern or historical contexts."

localzuk · 12-08-2007

I dislike what that woman believes and think she is a bigoted hateful person, but she is entitled to her views and making them illegal is just plain wrong.

What if it gets extended slightly to slightly more moderate opposition of government policies etc...? Why should any speech, so long as it isn't incitement to commit crime, be banned?

Rasczak · 12-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by localzuk

I dislike what that woman believes and think she is a bigoted hateful person, but she is entitled to her views and making them illegal is just plain wrong.

What if it gets extended slightly to slightly more moderate opposition of government policies etc...? Why should any speech, so long as it isn't incitement to commit crime, be banned?

Well said. It sets a terrible precedent.

why-rus · 01-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by localzuk

I dislike what that woman believes and think she is a bigoted hateful person, but she is entitled to her views and making them illegal is just plain wrong.

What if it gets extended slightly to slightly more moderate opposition of government policies etc...? Why should any speech, so long as it isn't incitement to commit crime, be banned?

I partially agree with you. I think she should be allowed to speak her mind because hate and bigotry are like stink, if other people get to experience it, they will know why it is so bad. On the other hand if she keeps this up, its likely she will get jumped in the parking lot by some of the "less moderate" brothas or sistas. So yeah, it is inciting crime.

Rasczak · 01-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by why-rus

I partially agree with you. I think she should be allowed to speak her mind because hate and bigotry are like stink, if other people get to experience it, they will know why it is so bad. On the other hand if she keeps this up, its likely she will get jumped in the parking lot by some of the "less moderate" brothas or sistas. So yeah, it is inciting crime.

Are you saying you're in favor of curtailing freedom of expression because "less moderate" people who don't want freedom of expression, and don't tolerate different points of view, might take out their anger on someone? Thus, that someone was inciting violence?

It sounds like that's what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe tell me what this woman said that qualifies as hate and bigotry.

why-rus · 01-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Are you saying you're in favor of curtailing freedom of expression because "less moderate" people who don't want freedom of expression, and don't tolerate different points of view, might take out their anger on someone? Thus, that someone was inciting violence?

It sounds like that's what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe tell me what this woman said that qualifies as hate and bigotry.

Like I said before, she should be allowed to speak her mind. Why is there doubt in your mind that what she says is hate and bigotry?

Rasczak · 01-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by why-rus

Like I said before, she should be allowed to speak her mind. Why is there doubt in your mind that what she says is hate and bigotry?

Its not my burden to prove a negative, that belongs to those who made the claim.

why-rus · 01-03-2008

You are the only one that claimed to have a doubt about the woman's feeling by asking it to be proved that it was indeed hate and bigotry. And I am asking again, why is there doubt in your mind?

Rasczak · 01-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by why-rus

You are the only one that claimed to have a doubt about the woman's feeling by asking it to be proved that it was indeed hate and bigotry. And I am asking again, why is there doubt in your mind?

Are you claiming what she said in her book is hate and bigotry? Or are we talking about the hate and bigotry of those who want here dead?

The article linked at the beginning of the thread talks about the content of what she wrote, tho they wouldn't go into specifics. Nothing that was said would lead me to see anything hateful or bigotted. She discussed an accepted part of Muslim history/tradition. So, there is doubt in my mind - doubt that she said anything hateful or bigotted.

This is just a guess, only a guess, but I'm pondering whether what she said wouldn't be comparable in some ways to those who suggest Jesus had a wife. That throws the papists and bible thumpers into a tizzy, but I refuse to call it "hateful or bigotted." If this is the case with writing about Mohammed's 9 year-old wife, again - not hateful or bigotted.

simons-photography · 02-13-2008

her first comment I'd agree with actually if muslims come to our country (any non muslim country) they should abide by our laws. if we "offend" them there is an international incident but they expect to go abroad and be treated like in their own country. I haven't forgotten when in italy a teacher was forced ro remove a cross from the classroom while these muslims that wanted "justice" were going to school all veiled up thats not just if they want to keep their customs in another country they can't expect us to remit ours to keep them happy. the rest of her comments are just nastiness and I would think the first one was only logical by accident/chance she should not be nasty state her case yes but no be derogatory its not called for and dosn't inspire respectful debate, as to fining her I don't know, I know there are some nasty peole around and also many that take things they "read" as the gospel so publishing nastiness should be condemned. If I have a go at something or someone I back it with reasons not just nastiness

12-07-2007	#21 (permalink)
keith.kuslak Commentator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 47	Re: Fined for speaking her mind it's called critical thinking. When the act is what is punished not the thought it's not really thought crime. I'm sorry that you follow a trend of not actually reading the definition of a word before using it.
keith.kuslak Commentator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 47	One a day

12-07-2007	#23 (permalink)
keith.kuslak Commentator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 47	Re: Fined for speaking her mind oh and btw... if you didn't notice... that article is currently disputed... if you read the disputed page you'll see why. 1) it isn't defined in context to the book. 2) thoughtcrime != speechcrime among other things...
keith.kuslak Commentator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 47	One a day

12-07-2007	#24 (permalink)
MRiGnS the wicked one Join Date: May 2007 Location: Saarbrücken, Germany Posts: 1,987	Re: Fined for speaking her mind What article?
	regards, Julian my blog

12-08-2007	#25 (permalink)
hmarroqu Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 209	Re: Fined for speaking her mind wikipedia states - "The term "Thought Police," by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness in any modern or historical contexts."

12-08-2007	#26 (permalink)
localzuk Eligible for a custom title Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 154	Re: Fined for speaking her mind I dislike what that woman believes and think she is a bigoted hateful person, but she is entitled to her views and making them illegal is just plain wrong. What if it gets extended slightly to slightly more moderate opposition of government policies etc...? Why should any speech, so long as it isn't incitement to commit crime, be banned?

01-03-2008	#32 (permalink)
why-rus Interested participant Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 16	Re: Fined for speaking her mind You are the only one that claimed to have a doubt about the woman's feeling by asking it to be proved that it was indeed hate and bigotry. And I am asking again, why is there doubt in your mind?

02-13-2008	#34 (permalink)
simons-photography Commentator Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 44	Re: Fined for speaking her mind her first comment I'd agree with actually if muslims come to our country (any non muslim country) they should abide by our laws. if we "offend" them there is an international incident but they expect to go abroad and be treated like in their own country. I haven't forgotten when in italy a teacher was forced ro remove a cross from the classroom while these muslims that wanted "justice" were going to school all veiled up thats not just if they want to keep their customs in another country they can't expect us to remit ours to keep them happy. the rest of her comments are just nastiness and I would think the first one was only logical by accident/chance she should not be nasty state her case yes but no be derogatory its not called for and dosn't inspire respectful debate, as to fining her I don't know, I know there are some nasty peole around and also many that take things they "read" as the gospel so publishing nastiness should be condemned. If I have a go at something or someone I back it with reasons not just nastiness
	my website: www.simons-photography.com