87 YO grandma arrested for 'holocaust denial'

[Jamzmania]

Discrimination is an action. Holocaust denial is not an action.

Calling a gay person a faggot is not discrimination because it is not an action against a gay person due to their sexuality that would not otherwise have been taken. It's just a word and it falls under freedom of speech, just like Holocaust denial.

That still doesn't mean the state can find certain opinions subversive.

If they want to respect freedom of speech, they can't.

If they don't give a shit about people's rights, then sure, they can go ahead.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That still doesn't mean the state can find certain opinions subversive.

If they want to respect freedom of speech, they can't.

If they don't give a shit about people's rights, then sure, they can go ahead.

No state gives a shit about people's rights that much.

From North Korea all the way to the United States, none of those states actually give a shit about people's rights that much as to allow subversive opinions.

[Jamzmania]

If they want to respect freedom of speech, they can't.

If they don't give a shit about people's rights, then sure, they can go ahead.

No state gives a shit about people's rights that much.

From North Korea all the way to the United States, none of those states actually give a shit about people's rights that much as to allow subversive opinions.

Thankfully, the US has protections in place.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No state gives a shit about people's rights that much.

From North Korea all the way to the United States, none of those states actually give a shit about people's rights that much as to allow subversive opinions.

Thankfully, the US has protections in place.

"Protections", like?

[Jamzmania]

Thankfully, the US has protections in place.

"Protections", like?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? In addition to the various equivalent sections of the constitutions of the various states.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Protections", like?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? In addition to the various equivalent sections of the constitutions of the various states.

You do understand that subversive language towards the state (like those of Sovereign Citizens), while not directly prosecutable, is not protected speech under the First Amendment either, correct?

The First Amendment doesn't protect several classes of speech. It's not an absolute right.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Thankfully, the US has protections in place.

Didn't stop the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Espionage Act, the Red Scares, the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

Some "protection" that turned out to be.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Thankfully, the US has protections in place.

Didn't stop the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Espionage Act, the Red Scares, the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

Some "protection" that turned out to be.

And there is the ironic bit. Germany bans a patently seditious ideology from disseminating its propaganda, it's then worse than North Korea, somehow. Yet not a single pipsqueak was raised in protestation of the American laws against sedition/PATRIOT Act/House Un-American Activities Committee. Instead we get to hear how 'Murica is NO. 1 in FREE SPEECH.

[Jamzmania]

Didn't stop the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Espionage Act, the Red Scares, the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

Some "protection" that turned out to be.

And there is the ironic bit. Germany bans a patently seditious ideology from disseminating its propaganda, it's then worse than North Korea, somehow. Yet not a single pipsqueak was raised in protestation of the American laws against sedition/PATRIOT Act/House Un-American Activities Committee. Instead we get to hear how 'Murica is NO. 1 in FREE SPEECH.

Only one of those examples is even modern, and it's not even as obviously a violation of free speech as this German law. In comparison to Germany, America is certainly much better at protecting free speech.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And there is the ironic bit. Germany bans a patently seditious ideology from disseminating its propaganda, it's then worse than North Korea, somehow. Yet not a single pipsqueak was raised in protestation of the American laws against sedition/PATRIOT Act/House Un-American Activities Committee. Instead we get to hear how 'Murica is NO. 1 in FREE SPEECH.

Only one of those examples is even modern, and it's not even as obviously a violation of free speech as this German law. In comparison to Germany, America is certainly much better at protecting free speech.

America is not better at protecting free speech though.

All of those examples exist. The effect was the same as the German laws on seditious ideas.

You cannot just waive away that which you don't like as "it's not modern! Pft!".

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Only one of those examples is even modern

Irrelevant. Besides, you raised the First Amendment, an archaic piece of legislation drafted in 1791 and I raised you several examples that followed shortly afterwards.

and it's not even as obviously a violation of free speech as this German law. In comparison to Germany, America is certainly much better at protecting free speech.

The Alien and Sedition Acts do not violate free speech?

And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years

The Espionage Act does not obviously violate free speech?

Section 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

The Patriot Act does not obviously violate free speech?

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

‘‘SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

‘‘(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intel- ligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
‘‘(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall—
‘‘(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor
order); and
‘‘(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely
upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
‘‘(b) Each application under this section—
‘‘(1) shall be made to—
‘‘(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a);
or

‘‘(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly des- ignated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

‘‘(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against inter- national terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
‘‘(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the applica- tion meets the requirements of this section.
‘‘(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
‘‘(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
‘‘(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

There's more but I am typing all this on my phone so here's a more reader-friendly distillation

[Jamzmania]

Only one of those examples is even modern

Irrelevant. Besides, you raised the First Amendment, an archaic piece of legislation drafted in 1791 and I raised you several examples that followed shortly afterwards.

and it's not even as obviously a violation of free speech as this German law. In comparison to Germany, America is certainly much better at protecting free speech.

The Alien and Sedition Acts do not violate free speech?

And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years

Obviously and thank God it's no longer law.

The Espionage Act does not obviously violate free speech?

Section 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

No because it covers 1. spies and 2. actions intended to do harm to the United States. It does not cover opinions or political views.

The Patriot Act does not obviously violate free speech?

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

‘‘SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

‘‘(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intel- ligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
‘‘(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall—
‘‘(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor
order); and
‘‘(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely
upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
‘‘(b) Each application under this section—
‘‘(1) shall be made to—
‘‘(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a);
or

‘‘(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly des- ignated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

‘‘(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against inter- national terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
‘‘(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the applica- tion meets the requirements of this section.
‘‘(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
‘‘(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
‘‘(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

There's more but I am typing all this on my phone so here's a more reader-friendly distillation

No, but the section quoted could be argued to be a violation of privacy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Irrelevant. Besides, you raised the First Amendment, an archaic piece of legislation drafted in 1791 and I raised you several examples that followed shortly afterwards.


The Alien and Sedition Acts do not violate free speech?

Obviously and thank God it's no longer law.

The Espionage Act does not obviously violate free speech?

No because it covers 1. spies and 2. actions intended to do harm to the United States. It does not cover opinions or political views.

The Patriot Act does not obviously violate free speech?



There's more but I am typing all this on my phone so here's a more reader-friendly distillation

No, but the section quoted could be argued to be a violation of privacy.

What do you think "attempt" means, exactly?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

This isn't part of the right to free speech. Said right is defined by the government. In Germany, holocaust denial isn't free speech.

Free speech is a fundamental human right that comes from something far greater than a government. For those subscribed to organized religion, it's from God Himself. For Atheists, it comes from the natural order and nature of man. The government does not get to define free speech. If it does, free speech is not in effect.

The government has no authority to shut down someone else's speech unless that person's speech consists of death/rape/terror threats, actual criminal activity, explicitly declared intent to commit criminal activity, broadcasting of military secrets and some civilian secrets (like espionage), and porn (unprotected because of its useless, vulgar, exploitative, abusive, and degrading nature).

As to dissent, nothing- NOTHING -should be allowed to clamp down on dissent against the govenrment.

[Jamzmania]

Obviously and thank God it's no longer law.


No because it covers 1. spies and 2. actions intended to do harm to the United States. It does not cover opinions or political views.


No, but the section quoted could be argued to be a violation of privacy.

What do you think "attempt" means, exactly?

What is the point of your question?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What do you think "attempt" means, exactly?

What is the point of your question?

That "attempt" isn't just an action, it can also mean trying to persuade people that you are right, which is an "opinion" as you put it.

There's no protection for seditious speech at all in the United States. They can't necessarily get you in court for having seditious opinions, that doesn't mean said opinion is protected. At all.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This isn't part of the right to free speech. Said right is defined by the government. In Germany, holocaust denial isn't free speech.

Free speech is a fundamental human right that comes from something far greater than a government. For those subscribed to organized religion, it's from God Himself. For Atheists, it comes from the natural order and nature of man. The government does not get to define free speech. If it does, free speech is not in effect.

The government has no authority to shut down someone else's speech unless that person's speech consists of death/rape/terror threats, actual criminal activity, explicitly declared intent to commit criminal activity, broadcasting of military secrets and some civilian secrets (like espionage), and porn (unprotected because of its useless, vulgar, exploitative, abusive, and degrading nature).

As to dissent, nothing- NOTHING -should be allowed to clamp down on dissent against the govenrment.

This contradicts itself.

What you are saying is that free speech is transcendental, but then you go back to defining free speech as it is defined by a state. If free speech was transcendental you would have argued that none of those speeches you have said the government can regulate can be censored by the government and that the government is wrong in censoring these forms of speech.

However, you have not, therefore your entire premise that the right to free speech is transcendental is invalid from the get go given you yourself admit that there's no such thing as free speech (or, in fact, such a thing as a "transcendental right of free speech") in practice given the state IS defining what free speech is in your concessions of what the government may regulate.

Therefore one can dismiss your opinion safely given you don't even know what you're trying to argue about.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

No because it covers 1. spies and 2. actions intended to do harm to the United States. It does not cover opinions or political views.

Irrelevant, it censors the right of people to publish whatever reports they want. Why can't they? Are you not for free speech?

No, but the section quoted could be argued to be a violation of privacy.

Subsection (2)(D) is a virtual gag order that prevents people from letting others know that the FBI's been snooping around? Is that not a restriction of the freedom to speak as one pleases?

How about I raise you Sections 805 and 505 then. Tell me then how the Patriot Act doesn't violate freedom of speech eh?

Free speech is a fundamental human right that comes from something far greater than a government. For those subscribed to organized religion, it's from God Himself.

Source.

For Atheists, it comes from the natural order and nature of man.

Nonsense on stilts. Also, source.

The government does not get to define free speech. If it does, free speech is not in effect.

Err actually the government does have that right. Or have you conveniently ignored every single piece of evidence and legislation that I've brought up?

The government has no authority to shut down someone else's speech unless that person's speech consists of death/rape/terror threats, actual criminal activity, explicitly declared intent to commit criminal activity, broadcasting of military secrets and some civilian secrets (like espionage), and porn (unprotected because of its useless, vulgar, exploitative, abusive, and degrading nature).

Rubbish, why should people not be allowed to watch porn? Why should you care about their viewing habits? Does that not make you the same as the censors of free speech and publication?

As to dissent, nothing- NOTHING -should be allowed to clamp down on dissent against the govenrment.

And yet many of the actions you list above may be constituted as legitimate dissent by those who practice them, like the SDS and the Black Panthers. Irony abounds.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Nonsense on stilts. Also, source.

Here - let's perform an experiment - in your own home, with nobody listening, utter a threat of violence or a treasonous statement - then observe when literally nothing happens. Censorship is entirely a fabrication of artificial authority and not anything besides it. It is incorrect to say that freedom of speech is artificial, if it were, there would be consequences for heinous speech beyond that levied by man.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Here - let's perform an experiment - in your own home, with nobody listening, utter a threat of violence or a treasonous statement - then observe when literally nothing happens. Censorship is entirely a fabrication of artificial authority and not anything besides it.

That example makes no sense. If I say something that contravenes law, and it has not been picked up by the government, then that can only mean that the government has not been made aware of the violation, or it is aware and it chooses not to prosecute me. That doesn't say anything about censorship being a "fabrication".

Censorship is a tool of the State, a perfectly legitimate authority, so I don't see what's the point of that comment.

And still no source to support that claim that freedom of speech is the "natural order and nature of men"?

It is incorrect to say that freedom of speech is artificial,

Why? "Freedom" of speech is free so far as governments and entities permit it to be.

if it were, there would be consequences for heinous speech beyond that levied by man.

Heinous speech such as?

[CyberSomalia]

The government has no authority to shut down someone else's speech unless that person's speech consists of death/rape/terror threats, actual criminal activity, explicitly declared intent to commit criminal activity, broadcasting of military secrets and some civilian secrets (like espionage), and porn (unprotected because of its useless, vulgar, exploitative, abusive, and degrading nature).

As to dissent, nothing- NOTHING -should be allowed to clamp down on dissent against the govenrment.

Well, I am happy you are not our president.

#WhistleBlowingForPresident2016

[Sarkerland]

Jesus Christ man, what do they have to say about one third of the Holocaust fully debunked?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj94b8DFwPg

[CyberSomalia]

Jesus Christ man, what do they have to say about one third of the Holocaust fully debunked?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj94b8DFwPg

Six trillion goy! It's six trillion!

[Sarkerland]

Jesus Christ man, what do they have to say about one third of the Holocaust fully debunked?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj94b8DFwPg

Six trillion goy! It's six trillion!

>tfw the goyim know

[Sarkerland]

Title is clickbait. Holocaust Denial has been a crime in Germany for decades and that isn't likely to change any time soon.

[/thread]

You have to go back