Mark: The Nazi ideology, when carefully studied, is found to be based entirely on a series of lies which can only be sustained by wicked men determined on evil.

Nazism was of course based on fascist ideology. So is fascism to be loathed as well? What, in your view, are the core tenets of fascism? And should they all be abhored with equal fervor? If so, why? If not, why not?

“Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” –Justice Brandeis

Mark,

The adversarial nature of our legal system rests on the idea that there are always two sides to every story. Holocaust deniers now, like German Nazis in the 1930s, gain credence not merely because they have the freedom to speak, but because good people do not rigorously challenge their views and expose their lies.

Gar Wood

"There would be no debate on what to do with people who advocate slavery or cannibalism."

Umm, Mark?? What do you think Communion is? This is the Body of Christ, this is the Blood of Christ. What do you think you are doing with the body and the blood? If cannibalism is wrong (it is), what does the weekly ritual of symbolicly eating Christ tell us? What does it tell our children? (Please, won't somebody think of the children?)

Just some food for thought, no pun intended.

I agree that Holocaust deniers are idiots and should be challenged. That the Nazi ideology is evil; however you either believe in free speech or not. The idea of sending someone to jail for three years for speech is repugnant to me. Unless someone is advocating the harm of another person or persons, locking someone up because you don't agree with them is fascist and is a crib mate to Nazis.

Creationism and "Creation Science" desperately seeks to be the "other side" to the truth of evolutionary biology.

It is not.

Because of their persistence they have unfortunately gained misplaced respect in the public.

Now I am not making a comparison in any way to Nazism, but creationism is not and cannot be treated as an equal, alternative to evolution.

No one seriously argues the "other" viewpoint that the Earth is flat.

Wade

So, let's get this straight.

In the SAME paragraph, Mark claims that it is OK to jail somone simply for having SAID something while also mentioning that Natzism is evil and should not be tolerated.

Seems conflicting to me.

Saying that the Holocust didnt happen is not the same thing as murdering 6 million human beings. But jailing someone for simply saying such, is as far removed from Democracy as you can possibly get.

our constitutional liberities depend on tolerating intolerable speech, spoken or written.

this is a critical civil liberty which I served to protect.

let the free market reign over protected speech - keep the govt out.

just say "no" to rappers, Imus, Farakhan, the KKK, etc...but let them spew.

President Bush did a great thing by signing the bill against Partial Birth Abortion. And now the next step is to ban all abortions, so that Americans can say we have a good moral society.

Sometimes the issue is not so clear as the abortion issue. When Bush invaded Iraq, it was much more than the pacifists wanted, but much less than some of our military thinkers wanted.
His decision was not just a middle of the road decision, but happened to be the best decision concerning all the lives involved in the middle east, in Europe, and in the United States.

What is happening today in Iraq is a difficult battle, apparently there are evil forces involved who want to keep killing. Some of this mind set has existed in Iraq for thousands of years. The Americans tried to bring peace but there was more involved than we thought, but this is best overall action.

Bad men will always live off of the trust and rights of civil society. The only way to stop that would be to get rid of those rights.

Is this post serious? Am I misreading it or are you trying to make some point by going off the deep end? Are you actually advocating putting people in prison because they express unpopular or 'evil' ideas?

If thats the case, what happens when Hillary gets into office and starts putting 'global warming deniers' in prison?

Either you believe in freedom of speech or you dont. Locking people up for what they say (assuming its not a actual physical threat) is down right stalinist.

Every once in a while, I come across someone alleging that "hate speech" is or should not be covered by the 1st Amendment.

It might be a gay rights advocate, wishing to make disagreement with homosexual behavior a crime, as it is in Canada. It might be a Native American who files a lawsuit trying to prevent a Columbus day parade from being held. It might be an off-duty cop in Michigan who arrests a woman after overhearing her using the word "spic", even though no Hispanics were in on the woman's conversation. Or it might be one of the many college "speech codes", where offending someone could be considered "harassment". What is especially chilling is that the person hearing the speech gets to define what is "hateful", completely irrespective of the intent of the speaker.

What I also fear is that punishing holocaust deniers would be travelling down that same path. Maybe not as far, but certainly in the same direction.

Don't get me wrong. Having visited Oswiecim, with its barracks, gas chambers, barbed wire and crematoria, and seeing that chilling sign "arbeit macht frei", I consider Holocaust denial to be horrid, disgusting and incomprehensible. But (to paraphrase Lincoln) as I would not wish to be punished for my opinions and beliefs, I would also not wish to punish others for theirs.

Didn't this sentencing of Irving occur over a year ago? I think he's been out of prison for quite awhile...

I agree with Bigfoot, on the hate speech issue. Unless someone is threatening harm, free speech should be free speech.

BTW, by replacing the word "Nazi" with "Islam" in Mark's paragraph below, you can see what the world is facing, today.

"The [Islam] ideology, when carefully studied, is found to be based entirely on a series of lies which can only be sustained by wicked men determined on evil. There was never any chance that [Muhammad's] ideology would result in anything other than war and slaughter and we can rest assured that if [Islam] or an akin ideology were to arise anywhere today, it would lead to more war and slaughter. Tolerating [Islam] isn't a matter of mere toleration of political eccentricity (such as that represented by the small monarchist parties in Russia and elsewhere in eastern Europe), but the toleration of abject evil...tolerating, as it were, a coiled snake, ready to strike as soon as it is able."

We went to war against Nazism in WWII. We are at war with Islam, today. Make no mistake about it, we are in the early stages of WWIII.

Today's GWOT headlines (ReligionOfPeace.com):

Islam's 20-Year Plan for America (Israel Hasbara Committee)
The time-frame is a bit ambitious, but who can argue that it isn't already happening? (-MARK NOONAN, read this article especially #1 and #12)

#1 says, "1. Replace America's freedom of speech with hate crime bills nation-wide."

O Brotherhood, Where Art Thou? (Weekly Standard)
Empowering "non-violent" Islamists will still lead the West toward the same fate to which the Jihadis are striving.

"Religion of Peace Delivers 7 Beheadings in the Phillipines..."
"Turkey: Slain Christians Were German, Two Apostates..."
"Ahmadinejad to World: Accept Allah Or Expect Death..."
"India: Church Worker Endured Brutal Torture Before Beheading..."

I cant accept throwing people in the hoosegow for their opinion, no matter how abhorrent, its a dead-end road. I hear the global warming whackjobs advocating stripping GW opponents of their jobs and titles simply because they wont toe the line, its the same thing.

The problem isnt in trying to quash disgusting opinions, the problem is choosing who gets to be the judge.

Two related stories demonstrate how Islamists are using these "hate speech" de-facto laws:

"Islamists Attack Canadian Journalist": Via LGF, "In a horrible incident in Mississauga, Ontario, a journalist for a Canadian-Pakistani paper was savagely beaten by two Muslim men who demanded that he “stop writing against Islam.” (article from Editor & Publisher)
******

"Ham: The New Hate Crime": You’re not going to believe this one. "Police investigate ham incident at school"

LEWISTON, Maine -- Police are investigating as a possible hate crime an incident in which a ham steak was placed in a bag on a lunch table where a group of Somali students were sitting. Such an incident would be offensive to Somalis, who are Muslims and consider pork unclean.

A Lewiston Middle School student was suspended after the incident, which happened April 11. Superintendent Leon Levesque said the incident is being treated seriously and police are investigating.The Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence is working with the school to devise a response plan.

-littlegreenfootballs.com

As stupid as the ham story sounds, it's hardly the first such story. This is both ridiculous and dangerous.

I guess I get to be a minority of one on this issue - so be it: I stick to my guns.

What I answer to the objections is a quote from Johnson: "nay, sir, if you will not take the accepted wisdom of mankind, then I have no more to say," or words to that effect...meaning, of course, that there are some things just agreed upon and there is no point arguing with someone who professes to argue that the water isn't wet. The accepted wisdom of mankind is that Nazism was entirely evil - to advocate it or attempt to justify it is not to hold a differing opinion, but to be insane or evil...and, as I said, the thing to do with either is to lock them up.

I think that this rigidity on matters of speech stems from a false premise - that the people, on the whole, have no inherent wisdom and cannot judge matters of weight. The concept that if we don't allow Hustler, then we shan't have Reader's Digest stems from this rather absurd line of thinking... we can ban Hustler, and have no affect upon any publication unlike Hustler...and if you profess to say that there are nuances and that one man's Hustler is another man's Better Homes and Gardens, then you are either a fool, or attempting to pull my leg.

So, too, with Nazism - and especially that element of modern thought, Holocaust denial. It is my view that if we were to pass laws restricting the ability of people to spread lies via print about such things that the people, in their wisdom, when confronted with a case in a jury would be able to decide if the law is reasonable and reasonably applied, or if the prosecutor is out on a witch hunt.

In a democratic republic, you either trust the people or you don't. I trust the people.

MG: Is this post serious? Am I misreading it or are you trying to make some point by going off the deep end? Are you actually advocating putting people in prison because they express unpopular or 'evil' ideas?

Perhaps we should all step back and allow the poster of this thread to explain what he meant. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Frankly though, it sounds like another example of thought surfing to me. But I'm not sure.

Apparently we have two (not mutually exclusive) foci of contention here: (1) free speech issues, and (2) what is meant by "Naziism", and how distinguishable it is from other forms of fascism practiced at the time.

Personally, I'm more interested in the second than the first, because I think the importance of the second subsumes the first -- in so.. many.. ways, both practical and theoretical. And thus, if you wait to rely on incursions on the first (i.e., free speech) in isolation without realizing the potential for incursion of the second (i.e., fascism) to have an affect on the first, it may be too late. After all, fascism in general, and Naziism in particular, did not engulf Germany all at once. It was an insipid process; one that (IMO) is very much worth studying in great detail. In GREAT detail. And (likewise IMO), it is not only necessary to understand that process in detail, but to understand how it may be implemented in the future in some other variation. More specifically, pre-WWII Germany had all the "classical" elements going for them to establish a democratic government. But it didn't happen. Why not? That's an exceedingly important question -- albeit among many exceedingly important quetions. For example, Russia now has most of the same elements going for them to establish a democratic government, but if anything they are moving further away than approaching that point. Why is that? In contrast Mongolia, which on the basis of any simple analysis, should be very far from achieving democracy, has made monumental strides in that direction. How do you explain that?

The fact is that we suddenly have many crucibles in many parts of the world which can give us a better understanding of the factors involved in answering these questions. We ignore them at our peril -- and peril to the rest of the world. The warning that "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" is not a literal warning, it is a warning that IF we don't learn from the lessons of the past, extrapolated to the present, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes made. That's a far more difficult lesson to learn, but not an impossible one. It is difficult because the present isn't the same as the past in every detail. It never is or can be. Thus, you have to concern yourself with the qualities of each situation in its time rather than the specifics. And if you grasp those nuances accurately, the task is not impossible. And if you don't, it is.

I take that conclusion, as qualified as it is, to be an emergent truth. But, with all honesty, I cannot guarantee it. The best I can advise is that the confluence of evidence will guide. We now have a growing experience with both successes and failures in our attempts to promote emerging democracies now. Some fail, some don't. To assume that it's easy is as dumb as to assume that it's impossible. The devil is in the details. But I guess it's easy to ignore the details in either case so as to concentrate on the ridiculous. Perhaps that's what blogs are about, huh?

Perhaps I spoke too soon. Then again, perhaps not... Mark never explained how closely he conflated Nazi ideology with other forms of fascist ideology, as they exist either then or now. And I think that's important. Very important. I think we need to examine it all in detail.

Ricorun,

You must have been writing as I was writing...so, as you can see, I am in deadly ernest on this. I think that most of what you are concerned with is answered in my previous comment, but I'd like to say that we can only learn history - and learn the lessons of it - when the basic facts are not in dispute.

There is no dispute among sane, good people about the facts of the Holocaust...there are, of course, some poor fools out there (especially in Islam) who have been lied to from start to finish, but we shouldn't compound the problem by allowing people who know better to aid in the lie. Think about this - David Duke was a guest of the President of Iran at his Holocaust denial conference...here was an American who, in the minds of Iranians, was reasonable and well informed, agreeing with the mullahs that the Holocaust didn't happen...this was tremendously evil of Duke, and we could have avoided this evil if Duke was properly sitting in an American jail, reprobate in his society because he voluntarily cut himself off from all decent intercourse.

Islam-not "radical Islam", not "fundamentalist Islam", just plain ole garden variety Islam-teaches the GENOCIDE of Jews. Here's proof, straight out of Islam's al-Bukhari and Moslem ahadith:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Until we confront Islam's genocidal teachings, we won't be able to protect Jews from the next holocaust and we won't win this war.

ooh. we gonna lock up creationists too?

shortz,

And just how would Creationism be evil?

Mark: There is no dispute among sane, good people about the facts of the Holocaust...

I take from that that you think "Jew-hating" is central to the Nazi ideology. In a certain respect I concur. But at the same time I would argue that "Jew-hating", or any other form of racial or cultural scape-goating was more of a diversion (however effective, and which is, perhaps, a lesson in itself) to the central tenets of Naziism, or fascism in general. And IMO, if you really were a student of history you'd understand that. Otherwise Mussolini, Franco, and to a lesser extent, others, would make no sense.

Mark, I'm curious as to what other types of speech should be outlawed. Surely you consider abortion as "evil" as Holocaust denial. Should we lock up anyone who expresses pro-choice sentiments? How about pornographers? Atheists? Muslims?

You and I have different views on most subjects, but I always assumed one subject we would agree upon would be strong support of freedom of speech, no matter how repugnant. I guess I was wrong.

First Amendment. There's a reason it was the first one they wrote.

I think Holocaust denyers are idiots. My uncle was with the 101st when they found the camps. But here's the the thing, if we deny these idiots the right to SAY these things.... then how will we be able to identify them as idiots?

Freedom of Speech. I believe in THAT.

Kahn,

That would be to say that we should allow bank robbery in order to demonstrate that robbing banks is a bad thing. There are some things we know with certainty - things about which there can be no debate in any way, shape or form. We know that fire burns, we know that water is wet, we know that murder is wrong...we know that Nazism is evil, and that it murdered 6 million Jews in the Holocaust for no other reason than they were Jews. To cast doubt upon this is the work of a madman, or a demon.

Now, Ricorun, you keep leaving out communism, as if facsism and Nazism were worse...they are all horrific, anti-human ideologies...but, much lies have been said about communism and it has legions of defenders in western culture and so, God forgive us, it is not universally known as entirely evil. We must strike at what evil we can and if, of the three, I can only strike at Nazism, then strike I will.

Wyckyd,

Try to defend Nazism and see how fast you are banned from Blogs for Bush...I'm always willing to entertain argument about subjects upon which reasonable people can disagree, even if some disagreements are rather unreasonable...but there is a limit, and that is what everyone is missing here.

Should we allow here on Blogs for Bush the opinions of those who hold that terrorism is a good thing, that Mossad carried out 9/11, that Zionism equals racism? You know the answer to that - just as you know the answer to someone who is saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that Hitler's ideology had some justification.

Rico, did you by any chance mean to say that the spread of Naziism in German was an INSIDIOUS process? ("It was an insipid process..") I see that your fingers sometimes try to guess what you mind is going to want to say, as mine do on occasion.

I think the problem is not what Holocaust deniers say as much as the context in which they say it, the end they hope to achieve by saying it, and the impact of the words on the freedom and security of others. On one hand it is a matter of free speech, and I saw some compelling arguments made here. But on the other it is the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room.

If the denial of the Holocaust is part and parcel of an overall theme of Jews lying, of people being persecuted either by the Jews or to protect or advance Jews, then it is far more malignant than merely expressing a repugnant opinion. So we should look at how the denial is phrased and used. If it is in fact part of a calling to arms of people against Jews, then it is far more significant than just delusional babble.

So, as Mark says, "There are, however, some ideas which have arisen in human history which have proven themselves to be inherently evil, and thus must not be allowed." In this context, denial of the Holocaust seems to be a part of that which is "inherently evil.." ... the determination that some humans are more human than others.

Almiranta: Rico, did you by any chance mean to say that the spread of Naziism in German was an INSIDIOUS process?

Ya, that was the word I meant, lol! Sorry.

Noonan "trusts the people" so much he won't let adults say stupid things and bear the consequences of public shame. He "trusts the people" so much he has to censor what information they hear because they might not make the right decision.

"Trust."

More big-government, nanny-state conservativism.

Conservatives can't handle dissent, discussion, or questioning of any kind. Thanks for reconfirming my faith.

Kevin,

There is nothing wrong with stupid statements...there are all those DNC press releases, after all.

But there is something wrong with evil...you know, like someone putting out a newsletter advocating child molestation...some things really are beyond the pale, and it is high time we started saying "thus far, and no further" on our road to perdition.

Mark - I understand your point. But it is a darn slippery slope.

Reasonable control of speech is defined by who? Your argument is the same argument the left is making about the global warming debate. It has to be free speech. Its not the same as bank robbery, and thats a poor analogy... robbing banks isn't a Constitutionally protected activity.

I've seen this same "reasonable" control thing translated to total denial of firearms in the 2nd Amendment debate.

This right is too important to regulate. We must not give up our right to free speech, no matter how seductive the argument. We may not be the people defining acceptable speech the next time it hits us.

Kahn,

And I understand the universal dismay this post has caused - rare unity has been forged between right and left here. But I think I'm on firm ground.

Underlying my views is the understanding that our view of "free speech" is something (a) never envisioned by the Founders and (b) inconsistent with the basic rules of civil society. Our free speech views, so-called, are the result of relentless propaganda by the ACLU and, of course, a series of Supreme Court rulings which suddenly found that the Founders intended that perverts must have easy access to pornography or none of us are truly free.

Free speech is actually something mostly related to political speech - the ability of people to criticise the government without let or hindrance. The Founders weren't intending to protect the spreading of lies, nor were they trying to ensure that everyone can get their fill of dirty pictures - no: they were intending that a people would be able to robustly raise their voice against government policy without any worry that they'd be punished for speaking out (as an aside, a lot of religious liberty cases are being decided on the basis of free speech - this, in my view, is an error: a proper reading of the First Amendment demonstrates that religious activity, of any sort, was not to be interefered with by the government..."no prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Not just religious speech (ie, my ability to proclaim my faith in Our Lord), but anything I do that is, broadly speaking, within the precepts of my religion (ie, my ability to build a church in any properly zoned location no matter how much the government and/or people don't want me to)).

To take this vital need for me to be able to say the government is wrong and turn it into a right to spread lies or distribute pornography is to hijack a precious liberty into the service of disreputable desires.

"BTW, by replacing the word "Nazi" with "Islam" in Mark's paragraph below, you can see what the world is facing, today.

"The [Islam] ideology, when carefully studied, is found to be based entirely on a series of lies which can only be sustained by wicked men determined on evil. There was never any chance that [Muhammad's] ideology would result in anything other than war and slaughter and we can rest assured that if [Islam] or an akin ideology were to arise anywhere today, it would lead to more war and slaughter. Tolerating [Islam] isn't a matter of mere toleration of political eccentricity (such as that represented by the small monarchist parties in Russia and elsewhere in eastern Europe), but the toleration of abject evil...tolerating, as it were, a coiled snake, ready to strike as soon as it is able."
"

Posted by Freedom1

Equating Muslims to Nazis seems a little extreme to me, not to mention racist. There are a few bad Muslims who have actually misinterpreted Muhammad's writings (the Koran, like most religious books, advocates peace and understanding) who do deserve to be condemned (I would disagree on calling them Nazis, though). However, the vast majority of Muslims are NOT extremists, and deserve the same consideration as any other sane person.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your quote, and if you did not intend to be racist.

ThELefTYFoOL

Mark, I am no Nazi defender. And I have no problem with you banning people who do so on BfB--it's your site, ban away. But locking someone in jail for expressing an unpopular view is much different, and in my opinion, unacceptable. That's all.

The_Lefty_Fool says:

"Equating Muslims to Nazis seems a little extreme to me, not to mention racist." Posted by: the_lefty_fool

What race are Muslims??? Islam is a RELIGION NOT a race. "Fool" is right. Do some research before you accuse someone of racism.

"...Muhammad's writings (the Koran, like most religious books, advocates peace and understanding)..."Posted by: the_lefty_fool

That's garbage. Muhammad-who was a pedophile, rapist, thief, mass murderer, torturer, conqueror, and liar-created a false religion called Islam which commands that ALL able-bodied Muslims wage violent jihad to take over the entire world. Muhammad was a world-class Jew hater and mass murderer of Jews. Islam teaches the GENOCIDE of JEWS! Read my post above (at 10:41 PM).

Verses of Jew hatred and commandments to murder Jews from the Qur'an:

Qur'an Sura (9:29) - Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur'an Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Qur'an 2:61 "Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with Allah's wrath."

Qur'an 4:44 "Have you not considered those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They traffic in error and desire that you should go astray. But Allah has full knowledge of your enemies. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, saying, ‘We hear and we disobey' with a twist of their tongues they slander Faith.... Allah has cursed them for disbelief."

Qur'an 5:59 "Say: ‘People of the Book! Do you disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that has come to us and that which came before?' Say: ‘Shall I point out to you something much worse than this by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom He transformed into apes and swine."

Qur'an 2:64 "But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you."

Qur'an 33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before."

Qur'an 4:55 "Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!"

These Jew-hating/murdering Qur'an verses go on and on and on and on.... See: http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Jews.Islam

See also: The Qur'an teaches Violence:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm