4 ms·

Decent summary of the contemporary German identity. However, I find it futile to debate the effect of publishing Mein Kampf when everyone who is interested can

Decent summary of the contemporary German identity. However, I find it futile to debate the effect of publishing Mein Kampf when everyone who is interested can download it from the internet.

braythwayt 11y ago
I don’t know if it’s futile. Some things exist purely as symbols of what is tolerable and what isn’t. Here in Canada, we have the Internet, and with the click of a mouse I can find lots and lots of web sites explaining that the holocaust is a giant conspiracy and didn’t happen. Nevertheless, it’s against the law for me to print them in a book and sell them in Canada. We know that people can read all that stuff, but there’s a statement being about what is and isn’t legal to publish. It’s not so much the information that we are trying to block, it’s the signal I would be sending if I opened a bookstore and started selling copies of my book in broad daylight. The meta-signal of selling the book in public is telling people that holocaust denial is no different than any other point of view. Canadians believe there is value in blocking the meta-signal, even if the signal itself flows somewhat freely across the country’s borders. Not everyone agrees, of course. I imagine that most Americans regard Canadian hate-crime laws as being a horrible infringement on civil liberties, right up there with gun control and socialized medicine. I’m not trying to convince anyone to abandon their principles and adopt the Canadian approach, I’m just pointing out that there can be a value in banning the publication of a work even if the work itself is available on the Internet. Whether that value outweighs the other considerations in play is, of course, a public policy decision.
- aianus 11y ago
  > Canadian hate-crime laws Saying the holocaust didn't happen isn't hateful, it's just stupid. Explicit calls to violence should be banned, not stupidity.
  - startling 11y ago
    Holocaust denialism (almost?) always comes with antisemitic conspiracy theories.
    - tomp 11y ago
      But why would holocaust denial be illegal, if not because of a pro-semitic conspiracy?
    - foiboitoi 11y ago
      So what? Is that your rationalization for banning it? If so, that is moronic.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- slavik81 11y ago
  > Nevertheless, it’s against the law for me to print them in a book and sell them in Canada. Citation needed. We're not on the Wikipedia list of countries in which Holocaust denial is either implicitly or explicitly illegal. [1] As a Canadian, I've long been proud that we have been willing to refute bad arguments rather than just imprisoning those who make them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_...
  - aikah 11y ago
    > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_... I happen to live in one of these countries (which name is easy to find out, continue reading...). While I certainly do not deny the Holocaust, on the contrary, I'm against these kind of laws. Should politicians decide what the historic truth is? because it can go both ways. So in that country of mine, some politician (well I should say the president of that country) wanted to force school teachers to make pupils learn that colonialism "had positive effects on the colonized people". So where does it stop? shouldn't we let this to researchers or specialists to decide whether or not that's true? why should a some politician,who isn't an historian, be able to decide in their place?
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      > politician wanted to force school teachers to make pupils learn that colonialism "had positive effects on the colonized people > So where does it stop? Your example is the government forcing the teaching of falsehoods, which is wildly different from forbidding the distribution of hate speech.
      - 7Z7 11y ago
        Yeah! What have the Romans ever done for us?
      - Latty 11y ago
        I can claim anything is a falsehood, and I can claim anything is hate speech. The ability to deny ideas is the ability to deny all speech. (There are some things we can clearly distinguish as truly wrong speech - 'kill that man', 'there is a fire' when there is no fire, etc..., but ideas and history? That needs to be free game).
- rdtwtf 11y ago
  https://youtu.be/jyoOfRog1EM https://youtu.be/jyoOfRog1EM
- pakled_engineer 11y ago
  Christopher Hitchens gave some good speeches in Canada against censorship laws http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-hitchens-freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-hate/ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-... Robert Jan van Pelt's testimony about the architectural plans of Nazi death camps in the David Irving libel trial is pretty fascinating. There is a documentary about his research, he takes the viewer through multiple plan revisions the Nazis made for these camps and shows how they even tried to hide the camp's true purpose from the people building it. http://documentaryaddict.com/films/auschwitz-the-blueprint-of-genocide http://documentaryaddict.com/films/auschwitz-the-blueprint-o...
- bcoates 11y ago
  It's not symbolic. Whatever you think of this: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/the-future-belongs-to-islam/ http://www.macleans.ca/culture/the-future-belongs-to-islam/ it's legitimate commentary on a present-day matter of public concern, and Canada's censorship apparatus came down hard on it.

Decent summary of the contemporary German identity. However, I find it futile to debate the effect of publishing Mein Kampf when everyone who is interested can download it from the internet.

braythwayt 11y ago

I don’t know if it’s futile. Some things exist purely as symbols of what is tolerable and what isn’t. Here in Canada, we have the Internet, and with the click of a mouse I can find lots and lots of web sites explaining that the holocaust is a giant conspiracy and didn’t happen. Nevertheless, it’s against the law for me to print them in a book and sell them in Canada. We know that people can read all that stuff, but there’s a statement being about what is and isn’t legal to publish. It’s not so much the information that we are trying to block, it’s the signal I would be sending if I opened a bookstore and started selling copies of my book in broad daylight. The meta-signal of selling the book in public is telling people that holocaust denial is no different than any other point of view. Canadians believe there is value in blocking the meta-signal, even if the signal itself flows somewhat freely across the country’s borders. Not everyone agrees, of course. I imagine that most Americans regard Canadian hate-crime laws as being a horrible infringement on civil liberties, right up there with gun control and socialized medicine. I’m not trying to convince anyone to abandon their principles and adopt the Canadian approach, I’m just pointing out that there can be a value in banning the publication of a work even if the work itself is available on the Internet. Whether that value outweighs the other considerations in play is, of course, a public policy decision.

aianus 11y ago
> Canadian hate-crime laws Saying the holocaust didn't happen isn't hateful, it's just stupid. Explicit calls to violence should be banned, not stupidity.
- startling 11y ago
  Holocaust denialism (almost?) always comes with antisemitic conspiracy theories.
  - tomp 11y ago
    But why would holocaust denial be illegal, if not because of a pro-semitic conspiracy?
  - foiboitoi 11y ago
    So what? Is that your rationalization for banning it? If so, that is moronic.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
slavik81 11y ago
> Nevertheless, it’s against the law for me to print them in a book and sell them in Canada. Citation needed. We're not on the Wikipedia list of countries in which Holocaust denial is either implicitly or explicitly illegal. [1] As a Canadian, I've long been proud that we have been willing to refute bad arguments rather than just imprisoning those who make them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_...
- aikah 11y ago
  > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_... I happen to live in one of these countries (which name is easy to find out, continue reading...). While I certainly do not deny the Holocaust, on the contrary, I'm against these kind of laws. Should politicians decide what the historic truth is? because it can go both ways. So in that country of mine, some politician (well I should say the president of that country) wanted to force school teachers to make pupils learn that colonialism "had positive effects on the colonized people". So where does it stop? shouldn't we let this to researchers or specialists to decide whether or not that's true? why should a some politician,who isn't an historian, be able to decide in their place?
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    > politician wanted to force school teachers to make pupils learn that colonialism "had positive effects on the colonized people > So where does it stop? Your example is the government forcing the teaching of falsehoods, which is wildly different from forbidding the distribution of hate speech.
    - 7Z7 11y ago
      Yeah! What have the Romans ever done for us?
    - Latty 11y ago
      I can claim anything is a falsehood, and I can claim anything is hate speech. The ability to deny ideas is the ability to deny all speech. (There are some things we can clearly distinguish as truly wrong speech - 'kill that man', 'there is a fire' when there is no fire, etc..., but ideas and history? That needs to be free game).
rdtwtf 11y ago
https://youtu.be/jyoOfRog1EM https://youtu.be/jyoOfRog1EM
pakled_engineer 11y ago
Christopher Hitchens gave some good speeches in Canada against censorship laws http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-hitchens-freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-hate/ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-... Robert Jan van Pelt's testimony about the architectural plans of Nazi death camps in the David Irving libel trial is pretty fascinating. There is a documentary about his research, he takes the viewer through multiple plan revisions the Nazis made for these camps and shows how they even tried to hide the camp's true purpose from the people building it. http://documentaryaddict.com/films/auschwitz-the-blueprint-of-genocide http://documentaryaddict.com/films/auschwitz-the-blueprint-o...
bcoates 11y ago
It's not symbolic. Whatever you think of this: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/the-future-belongs-to-islam/ http://www.macleans.ca/culture/the-future-belongs-to-islam/ it's legitimate commentary on a present-day matter of public concern, and Canada's censorship apparatus came down hard on it.