San Francisco Train Stations Feature Holocaust Denial Ads

[sid]

This city is really going down the toilet.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/12/san-francisco-bart-stations-feature-ads-from-holocaust-denial-group.html

[Vern Humphrey]

Nobody ever goes to jail for parroting the government line. No body gets shouted down and attacked for saying what everyone else agrees with.

Freedom of speech is for Unpopular, offensive speech. So as much as we deplore what they say, we have a duty to defend their right to say it.

And in fact the best defense against crap like this is to LET them speak -- let people hear and see what they are and make up their own minds.

[Sandpebble]

Nobody ever goes to jail for parroting the government line. No body gets shouted down and attacked for saying what everyone else agrees with.

Freedom of speech is for Unpopular, offensive speech. So as much as we deplore what they say, we have a duty to defend their right to say it.

And in fact the best defense against crap like this is to LET them speak -- let people hear and see what they are and make up their own minds.

Really Vern ?... did you actually write these words Sir?...... and if so... did you mean it ?

a very refreshing break from the wingate troll fonzaanoon bullcrap, Sir

[dogtag]

"Going down the toilet" ? It got flushed some time back
and managed to bypass the sewage treatment plant.

[Mark in Ottawa]

This kind of ad demonstrates the real issue with free speech - just where do you draw the line between the concept of allowing people to say things that you don't agree with and saying things that are so vile that you feel that in spite of supporting free speech, you want to shove a sock in the speakers mouth. It is not an easy problem to solve. Here in Canada, it is generally held that you can say pretty much what you want as long as it doesn't promote hatred of an identifiable group. That ad would be a problem in that it contains nothing related to either hatred not an identifiable group and yet the sponsor is known to be anti-Semitic. Another problem that has apparently surfaced in Scandinavia is that you can't make statements that can be interpreted as promoting hatred, even if they are true. For example, you apparently can't rent a billboard and print quotes from the Koran that call for the degradation or hatred of Christians or Jews because such a billboard would promote hatred of Muslims. Not an easy issue to deal with!

[Vern Humphrey]

This kind of ad demonstrates the real issue with free speech - just where do you draw the line between the concept of allowing people to say things that you don't agree with and saying things that are so vile that you feel that in spite of supporting free speech, you want to shove a sock in the speakers mouth. It is not an easy problem to solve. Here in Canada, it is generally held that you can say pretty much what you want as long as it doesn't promote hatred of an identifiable group. That ad would be a problem in that it contains nothing related to either hatred not an identifiable group and yet the sponsor is known to be anti-Semitic. Another problem that has apparently surfaced in Scandinavia is that you can't make statements that can be interpreted as promoting hatred, even if they are true. For example, you apparently can't rent a billboard and print quotes from the Koran that call for the degradation or hatred of Christians or Jews because such a billboard would promote hatred of Muslims. Not an easy issue to deal with!

You solve that problem by not drawing a line.

Most people don't know it, but Holmes' famous ruling, "There is no right to shout fire in a crowded theater" was issued in a case of protesters peacefully handing out leaflets at an Army induction center in WWI. He used that over-the-top analogy to justify sending them to prison. A beautiful example of an over-compliant judge violating his oath of office.

[togor]

The whole point of having a line is to set limits at the extremities, as safeguards against those who would use the rules of open society to seize power. History is full of groups who, upon using free elections (and free speech) to legally attain power, then use the power of the state to entrench themselves. Such groups won't bat an eye at using the most incendiary and deceptive language possible in the service of their extreme ends. Moreover, in this country, devising novel interpretations of what constitutes "speech" and thereby secures First Amendment protections is something of a growth industry in legal and lobbying circles.

[dogtag]

You solve that problem by not drawing a line.

Most people don't know it, but Holmes' famous ruling, "There is no right to shout fire in a crowded theater" was issued in a case of protesters peacefully handing out leaflets at an Army induction center in WWI. He used that over-the-top analogy to justify sending them to prison. A beautiful example of an over-compliant judge violating his oath of office.

Then what DO you shout if there's a fire ?

[Vern Humphrey]

Then what DO you shout if there's a fire ?

Chocolate! of course!

[JB White]

Many "deniers" do not deny anything happened. They claim that it's mostly anti-Nazi propaganda, overly exaggerated body count and taken to the extreme by Zionist hyperbole. They say the Japanese and the Soviets were just as ruthless. That last part we all know to be true.
If they are correct to any degree, then hearing another side of history couldn't hurt.

[Vern Humphrey]

Many "deniers" do not deny anything happened. They claim that it's mostly anti-Nazi propaganda, overly exaggerated body count and taken to the extreme by Zionist hyperbole. They say the Japanese and the Soviets were just as ruthless. That last part we all know to be true.
If they are correct to any degree, then hearing another side of history couldn't hurt.

Whether they are correct or not, let them talk! If they are wrong, people will know it. After all, are we the ONLY smart people in the country, and are all of our fellow citizens so gullible that we need to censor what they hear?

[togor]

Many "deniers" do not deny anything happened. They claim that it's mostly anti-Nazi propaganda, overly exaggerated body count and taken to the extreme by Zionist hyperbole. They say the Japanese and the Soviets were just as ruthless. That last part we all know to be true.
If they are correct to any degree, then hearing another side of history couldn't hurt.

It's no coincidence that Holocaust denier-ism arose as the generation of witnesses on all sides faded into history. But it's not as though those who participated in the Holocaust, as perpetrator, victim, or liberator, failed to leave a documented account behind of what they did or saw. And we have artifacts of the places themselves. No, the people who seek to moderate the tale of the holocaust have motives other than being truthful custodians to the record. Invariably they have some other agenda that can be advanced if only the massive stone that is the Holocaust can be somehow eliminated from the field of view.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant for dealing with such people and ideas.

[kj47]

All part of rewriting history.