'Nazi Grandma' Handed New Prison Sentence by German Court - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Bulma;51434408]:toot::toot:Rot in jail old hag![/QUOTE] Man, sweden sure is filled with a bunch of absolute shitters, eh? If you cheer at some lady who's completely misinformed getting jailed for the rest of her life (remember' she's like 88 or something) then you aren't the exact best person around

[QUOTE=wystan;51428852]People used to think they made soap and lampshades out of Jews, that turned out to be untrue, so I can understand why people would question it further.[/QUOTE] are you trying to say that my jewskin lampshade is non-authentic fucking hell what a week this is

[QUOTE=niiiiiiiiok;51435132]Man, sweden sure is filled with a bunch of absolute shitters, eh? If you cheer at some lady who's completely misinformed getting jailed for the rest of her life (remember' she's like 88 or something) then you aren't the exact best person around[/QUOTE] I'm sure that was bait.

[QUOTE=RB33;51434222] I still don't agree with that path. I think we can work this out in our own way. They should be held criminally responsible, not only socially responsible. Stop acting like Hitler is some holy rule you can't break. In a thread about the holocaust, someone says that hate doesn't spread. Asking how Hitler got to power is a legitimate question to ask to show how hate really do spread. He used the hate to gain power and fueled it further to crackdown on the jews. Tell me how that isn't relevant. It wasn't meant to shift the discussion, it was just a comparison. Highly relevant as the topic actually includes nazism. [b]I serious hope the "ideology is too complex" part isn't referring to holocaust denial, because it's the stupidest ideology there could ever be. Denying overwhelming evidence, trying to clean the image of nazis or just further fuel the hate of jews. If you weren't referring to that, tell me the principle of what ideology is too complex for me. Because i haven't agreed with you overall so far, this is just a matter of what principles we prioritize. Not who could be a 6 year old or not.[/b][/QUOTE] Everything. Everything I have talked about is clearly far too complex to you because you refuse to understand or acknowledge basic concepts. *gets proven wrong* "well I don't agree with that". Doesn't matter. It does not matter how you [i]feel[/i] about a subject or whether or not you agree with it, that is the way it is. And you refuse to acknowledge that. You're acting like a 6 year old because you're debating concepts you have no grasp of and are refuting basic facts in favor of feel good nonsense.

[QUOTE=Mr_Awesome;51428849]you're not seriously defending putting people in jail for saying stupid things are you[/QUOTE] if that were grounds for jailing, i think more than half of the people in this world would be in jail right now [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Trebgarta;51436201]Okay jailing people for questioning history is bullshit, but somebody here said misinformation doesnt work in 2016 and that is bull as well. Internet isnt an argument especially in 2016 since it is a sea of misinformation. Internet is the source of most misinformation in this day and age. How many people read Breitbart everyday? How many people organized on the internet when their lunacy couldnt find any correspondence in real life? /pol/ is a tiny example. No truth on the internet runs around with a certification on it. To the unsuspecting, true and false are on and the same: Pixels on a screen.[/QUOTE] you seem to think that breitbart is the only news source to put out misleading information, which isn't the case as even mainstream sources will put out misleading information, especially when in regard to scientific "breakthroughs".

[QUOTE=pentium;51428847]I'm known for my own antisemitism but bro, you don't deny it happened.[/QUOTE] I think it's super fucked up how you can just casually admit that

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51436059]Everything. Everything I have talked about is clearly far too complex to you because you refuse to understand or acknowledge basic concepts. *gets proven wrong* "well I don't agree with that". Doesn't matter. It does not matter how you [i]feel[/i] about a subject or whether or not you agree with it, that is the way it is. And you refuse to acknowledge that. You're acting like a 6 year old because you're debating concepts you have no grasp of and are refuting basic facts in favor of feel good nonsense.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? The one denying hate is a thing that spreads, claiming it was not hate, Hitler spread. But it was misinformation, propaganda. Those are ways to spread hate. I could spread misinformation because i want people to hate a certain group, this happens daily. Look at Sweden and immigrants. I got family members, who have gotten nazi propaganda posters talking about some global jewish conspiracy. That's spreading propaganda with the intent to hate. Are these basic concepts "you're wrong and i'm right"? Because that's the only thing i'm getting from you. You're not getting that whatever your point is, i disagree with it on a principle level. If this is some objective argument on your part, you failed to make it to me. You simply telling me over and over again that hate is not something that spreads doesn't make it true. I can clearly see that it does myself. [editline]28th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51429609]People always have this misconception that hate spreads. It doesn't. If I tell you "We should kill all Niggers because they're the inferior race!", does that suddenly mean that you agree with me, or any other person who heard it agrees with me? Of course not. The world is full of people who have free thought and we live in an age where we have the entirety of human knowledge accessible in one's pocket. Nobody is going to be swayed by overhearing a bigot on the street. People are dumb and thats just a fact of life; people being racist or denying historical events is not grounds to fine and jail people. You're banning steak because infants can't chew it.[/QUOTE] As you said here and really contradict yourself, some people are stupid. They are convinced of a global jewish conspiracy/that the holocaust was made up/muslims are out to get them. It's naive to assume that all people can't be swayed by a bigot. It spreads because some people will accept whatever viewpoint the bigot is having and become a bigot himself. I live in a country where this is a problem. You can't just tell me "no", when i live in the middle of this. These things are actually happening. [editline]28th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;51429668]It was refuting your point. Hate doesnt spread by merely existing. [i]You're wrong.[/i][/QUOTE] I went back and saw this again now. That was never my point and sorry if it came across that way. It spreads by being spread by other means, of course. Through misinformation and propaganda or even some truth. When one hateful person uses one of those means to communicate with someone else and if that person becomes convinced of the hateful persons message. The hate has spread, it goes from one person to another. It doesn't usually pop up in people without outside influence. It seems you were arguing for the point, i was making. The overall problem with those disagreeing with me is that you seem convinced that almost no one will ever be convinced of the hateful message holocaust deniers and neo-nazis try to spread. I think you are too optimistic. Another is that you separate things like 'misinformation' and 'propaganda', when they are one and the same. I would like you to tell me how they're not, otherwise. Hitler capitalizing on propaganda doesn't mean he was incapable of spreading it himself either. What i really come to wonder, how do you define hate? Because according to you it seems to be this static thing that can't be moved. So i end with a final question, is it possible for hate to spread through propaganda or misinformation? Either way, i want to know why you think so. That's the thing that kept this going for so long. But you don't have to answer and can just leave the thread buried. I don't think we got something other out of this than being mad at each other, unfortunately.

[QUOTE=Dantz Bolrew;51428882]I would hope that developed, 1st world country like Germany would have freedom of speech, especially given their past.[/QUOTE] As far as I know they do, unless it involves nazis, they're absolute nazi's about that shit

[QUOTE=Maloof?;51428981]What happened in 1984?[/QUOTE] They stopped counting the years.

[QUOTE=RB33;51437898]Another is that you separate things like 'misinformation' and 'propaganda', when they are one and the same.[/QUOTE] In this thread you're separating 'censorship' and 'legal punishment for expressing a particular belief', apparently on the basis of 'I don't think suppressing some viewpoints is bad, therefore it can't be censorship'. I'd find your perspective much more understandable if you acknowledged it was censorship and then argued that not all censorship is bad, or at least that it serves a greater good. But instead, when confronted with how blatantly obviously this fits the definition of censorship, you try to rationalize it into not-censorship as a means of inherently justifying it, and this is what's making several others in this thread frustrated with you. You seem resolutely unwilling to see how this sort of regulation, whatever you want to call it, can be abused by those in a position of power, and why the term 'censorship' has such baggage in the first place. Even if you want to arbitrarily declare this not censorship, it still provides the legal and political framework for 'actual' censorship to be carried out. If a government started to use the same laws to restrict speech in a manner you would actually consider censorship, like suppressing certain political beliefs, an argument of 'it was okay when it happened to [i]those guys[/i], but it's not okay when it happens to [i]us[/i]' would likely not get you far in court. Since we've already gone full Godwin, 'it's not censorship, it's just restricting the ability of hateful bigots to spread their message' is not that far from 'it's not censorship, it's just restricting the ability of seditious dissenters to undermine our people' or 'it's not censorship, it's just restricting the ability of Jews to spread lies and misinformation'. When you justify restricting free speech by appealing to a greater danger posed by letting a politically unpopular group spread their beliefs, [i]that's censorship[/i]. It doesn't matter that Jews were an unfairly persecuted minority while Holocaust deniers are ignorant shitheads, the justification is exactly the same. And [i]that's[/i] why people are telling you this is concerning, because you're saying that it's a valid justification in this specific instance without considering the broader context. Did you know that the American Civil Liberties Union [url=https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech]once protected the KKK[/url]? They didn't try to justify denying the KKK equal protection under free speech law, even though the rhetoric the KKK preaches is directly harmful to the goals of the ACLU. They recognized that allowing the government to restrict the expression of distasteful opinions is allowing censorship, and that precedent is far more harmful to civil liberties than anything the KKK could possibly abuse their free speech to say. I'll admit, people like Trebgarta have convinced me that an all-or-nothing attitude to free speech is misguided, and protection for free speech can coexist with limitations on hate speech when both terms are clearly defined and enforced. But restrictions on hate speech in public are not at all the same as restrictions on historical beliefs in private correspondence- that goes way too far.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51439722]In this thread you're separating 'censorship' and 'legal punishment for expressing a particular belief', apparently on the basis of 'I don't think suppressing some viewpoints is bad, therefore it can't be censorship'. I'd find your perspective much more understandable if you acknowledged it was censorship and then argued that not all censorship is bad, or at least that it serves a greater good. But instead, when confronted with how blatantly obviously this fits the definition of censorship, you try to rationalize it into not-censorship as a means of inherently justifying it, and this is what's making several others in this thread frustrated with you.[/QUOTE] This is strange, because i don't think i have really denied it being censorship. I denied that it will lead to an authoritarian state though. I would like a quote were i said otherwise if i did deny it. [QUOTE]You seem resolutely unwilling to see how this sort of regulation, whatever you want to call it, can be abused by those in a position of power, and why the term 'censorship' has such baggage in the first place. Even if you want to arbitrarily declare this not censorship, it still provides the legal and political framework for 'actual' censorship to be carried out. If a government started to use the same laws to restrict speech in a manner you would actually consider censorship, like suppressing certain political beliefs, an argument of 'it was okay when it happened to [i]those guys[/i], but it's not okay when it happens to [i]us[/i]' would likely not get you far in court.[/QUOTE] I'm fully aware of that, i have just been against the notion that it's likely to happen. Laws doesn't need a framework, new laws can just be made from scratch. These will be and most likely are very specific in what's illegal and as such can't be used to censor other things. New laws would have to be made for that. Which would put attention on such a effort by legislature. [QUOTE]Since we've already gone full Godwin, 'it's not censorship, it's just restricting the ability of hateful bigots to spread their message' is not that far from 'it's not censorship, it's just restricting the ability of seditious dissenters to undermine our people' or 'it's not censorship, it's just restricting the ability of Jews to spread lies and misinformation'. When you justify restricting free speech by appealing to a greater danger posed by letting a politically unpopular group spread their beliefs, [i]that's censorship[/i]. It doesn't matter that Jews were an unfairly persecuted minority while Holocaust deniers are ignorant shitheads, the justification is exactly the same. And [i]that's[/i] why people are telling you this is concerning, because you're saying that it's a valid justification in this specific instance without considering the broader context.[/QUOTE] An effort to criminalize one specific thing is not an effort or want to criminalize lots of other things. Law makers doesn't need to and are not painting with a broad brush. A limited and restrained effort against very specific instances without collapsing the entire system is possible. [QUOTE]Did you know that the American Civil Liberties Union [url=https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech]once protected the KKK[/url]? They didn't try to justify denying the KKK equal protection under free speech law, even though the rhetoric the KKK preaches is directly harmful to the goals of the ACLU. They recognized that allowing the government to restrict the expression of distasteful opinions is allowing censorship, and that precedent is far more harmful to civil liberties than anything the KKK could possibly abuse their free speech to say.[/QUOTE] If people are harmed because of hate speech allowed because of unregulated free speech, that's not a win either. [QUOTE]I'll admit, people like Trebgarta have convinced me that an all-or-nothing attitude to free speech is misguided, and protection for free speech can coexist with limitations on hate speech when both terms are clearly defined and enforced. But restrictions on hate speech in public are not at all the same as restrictions on historical beliefs in private correspondence- that goes way too far.[/QUOTE] Well, i have never argued for criminalizing the content of private correspondence. The opposite in this thread, in fact. What individuals say in private is not a matter for the state, what they say in public that causes harm is though.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51439979]Criminilazing specific things pinpoint is stupid. You dont need to make holocaust denial illegal, or even antisemitism illegal, if you criminalize hatred-inspiring speech against protected classes. Less in number, more encompassing laws are better; I am sure you would agree here.[/QUOTE] Broadening holocaust denial laws to encompass more genocides and ethnic cleansings could make actual debatable cases criminal to debate. Which would as you can imagine be very bad. For hate speech otherwise, a general law exists here in Sweden to cover that. It can be interpreted pretty widely. Which isn't very good though. [QUOTE]There is no harm as well: There should be no criminal procedure titled "holocaust denial". There should be one for inciting hatred of the Jews. But making saying Auschwitz was a labor camp, even on a magazine, illegal, is absurd. Nobody is harmed by saying holocaust didnt happen. Holocaust survivors are maybe saddened? Non-holocaust survivor Jews arent harmed, they are harmed by antisemitism instead, which is already illegal. Even Israel isnt harmed by a granma saying stuff like that, and will continue receiving discounted warships and submarines. It is a crime without a victim.[/QUOTE] Holocaust denial is often something that accompanies antisemitism and is a part of it. It's also a immoral crime like many others, goes against human decency and is just in very bad taste. We can punish people (with laws) for insulting or lying about others. A thing like this isn't much different and i feel is certainly deserving of it.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51440275]Human decency is not a legal argument.[/QUOTE] In this case, it is. In comparison with other crimes, human decency is as relevant as it can be here. [QUOTE]Insult does harm by character assasination.[/QUOTE] You mean lies, right. The only person being character assasinated is the insulter themself. [QUOTE]You dont insult the holocaust by denying it, or the Jews.[/QUOTE] You insult the memory of it and what we should learn from it. You are definitely insult the jews by denying it. I would feel insulted if someone belittled something like the holocaust happened to my people. Just look at 9/11, earlier in the thread. [QUOTE]Saying a group of people lie is not an insult, it is a claim, and it isnt refutable as History isnt reproducible. Holocaust denial is a ridicilous crime by any way you look at it.[/QUOTE] It can be taken as an insult, insults are often subjective. Holocaust denial itself is a ridiculous thing and should be illegal as it fuel hate and lies against victims of ethnic cleansing. As easy as that.

"lets show how much we reject facsisim by prosecuting people for expressing an opinion, that'll show everyone how tolerant and open minded we are". Hitlers chuckling his sides off down in hell right now.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51439275]That is buzzfeed tier misinformation. Almost completely harmless. It is unabashedly dishonest to compare such "misinformation" with political propaganda Lies. The latter does so much persistent harm to democracy in the West and the former is a part of 24-hours news cycle attention deficit, to be forgotten in 36 hours.[/QUOTE] I would argue the opposite, in that, the more subtle the propaganda/misinformation/etc., the more effective it is in harming democracy.

[QUOTE=andy85258;51440782]"lets show how much we reject facsisim by prosecuting people for expressing an opinion, that'll show everyone how tolerant and open minded we are". Hitlers chuckling his sides off down in hell right now.[/QUOTE] its not about rejecting fascism its about forcing people to remember and understand what the nazis did.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51443136]its not about rejecting fascism its about forcing people to remember and understand what the nazis did.[/QUOTE] After all, the best way to force your citizens to know how evil the Nazis were is by enforcing the same punishment for dissenting opinions as the Nazis did!

[QUOTE=Komodoh;51443179]After all, the best way to force your citizens to know how evil the Nazis were is by enforcing the same punishment for dissenting opinions as the Nazis did![/QUOTE] At this very moment the grandma is being sent to a concentration camp. In France, similar things are happening... /s

[QUOTE=RB33;51443184]At this very moment the granma is being the sent to the concentration camp. In France, similar things happening... /s[/QUOTE] Didnt you criticize other people for doing the exact same shit you just did not one or two pages ago?

[QUOTE=RB33;51443184]At this very moment the granma is being the sent to the concentration camp. In France, similar things happening... /s[/QUOTE] Reading comprehension. "for dissenting opinions." They didn't send people to the camps for that, they imprisoned them.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51443188]Didnt you criticize other people for doing the exact same shit you just did not one or two pages ago?[/QUOTE] He said it himself, i never said i wanted people to have the same punishments as the nazis did. I feel there is a difference. I'm being sarcastic, i hardly believe you people were then. [editline]29th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Komodoh;51443189]Reading comprehension. "for dissenting opinions." They didn't send people to the camps for that, they imprisoned them.[/QUOTE] Political concentration camps existed, i believe Dacau was mentioned.

[QUOTE=RB33;51443196]Political concentration camps existed, i believe Dacau was mentioned.[/QUOTE] Right, so they imprisoned them. What's your point?

[QUOTE=Komodoh;51443236]Right, so they imprisoned them. What's your point?[/QUOTE] In a concentration camp, yes. [QUOTE=Komodoh;51443189]They didn't send people to the camps for that[/QUOTE] You said this.