Archive for the ‘Holocaust Denial’ Category

Holocaust Denial | Southern Poverty Law Center

Deniers of the Holocaust, the systematic murder of around 6 million Jews in World War II, either deny that such a genocide took place or minimize its extent. These groups (and individuals) often cloak themselves in the sober language of serious scholarship, call themselves historical revisionists instead of deniers, and accuse their critics of trying to squelch open-minded inquiries into historical truth.

The deniers claims run a gamut. Some say that most Jews were the victims of disease and other privations, or died in much the same way that other casualties of a huge and horrific war did. Some say that the gas chambers did not exist, or were only used to delouse prisoners, or could not possibly have killed as many victims as mainstream historians have asserted, and many suggest that the gas chambers were built after the war as a way extracting reparations from the Germans. The main purpose of Holocaust denial has been to rehabilitate the German Nazis image as part of a bid to make the ideology of national socialism more acceptable.

David Irving, a British writer who is the worlds best-known denier, sued an American scholar for calling him a denier but suffered a devastating defeat in 2000, when a British judge concluded that Irving had selectively edited the facts in his books as part of his pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler and anti-Jewish ideology.

View post:
Holocaust Denial | Southern Poverty Law Center

Fair Usage Law

February 3, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Iranian Groups Challenge West With Holocaust-Denial …

A cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad on the latest cover of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been denounced in Iran, where two organizations say they are challenging the Wests commitment to free speech with a cartoon contest aimed at questioning the Holocaust.

The contest follows the release of the January 14 issue of Charlie Hebdo — the first since the January 7 massacre at its Paris office that left a dozen dead — that featured a cover showing Muhammad crying while holding a sign that reads: Je Suis Charlie, a rallying cry for the magazines supporters.

The contest organizers, House of Cartoon and the Sarcheshmeh Cultural Center, say that by questioning the Holocaust, which they dont recognize as a historical fact, they aim to demonstrate that Western countries have double standards when it comes to freedom of expression.

If freedom of expression knows no boundary, the issue of the Holocaust must also be critically and freely reviewed, the Sarcheshmeh center said in its announcement of the contest last week.

Masud Shojaei Tabatabaei, the contests administrator who is also the head of House of Cartoon, was quoted by Iranian media as saying that the West is sensitive about the Holocaust.

Therefore, we decided to use it to confront them, he was quoted as saying.

Shojaei Tabatabaei added that the April 1 deadline for contestants to submit their entries was chosen intentionally.

April 1 is called the day of the big lie. The Holocaust is also a big lie [created] by the Zionists to occupy Palestine, he said.

The contests organizers are offering cash prizes ranging from $5,000 to $12,000 for the top three entries.

It is the second time that a cartoon contest focused on Holocaust denial is being organized in Iran.

See the article here:
Iranian Groups Challenge West With Holocaust-Denial …

Fair Usage Law

February 2, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Iran: Holocaust cartoon competition launched in Charlie Hebdo backlash

Reuters

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has denounced the attack in Paris, but many Muslims remain angry at the satirical depiction of the Prophet Mohammad.

Two Iranian institutions have launched a cartoon competition centred on the theme of Holocaust denial following outrage over those published by Charlie Hebdo.

Iran’s House of Cartoon and the Sarcheshmeh Cultural Complex are offering a $12,000 prize to the winner, with $8,000 and $5,000 for the two runners up.

It is the second time the competition has been held; the first was in response to Danish newspaper Jyllands-Postens publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in 2006.

“Why is it acceptable in Western countries to draw any caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, yet as soon as there are any questions or doubts raised about the Holocaust, fines and jail sentences are handed down?” Shojaei-Tabatabaii, director of the House of Cartoon, said at the time.

“It is surprising that they allow disrespect toward different religions with insulting pictures and there is no reaction to them in the West, but when people question the Holocaust, they adopt such a stance toward it.

“The freedom of speech that the Westerners talk about is nothing more than a slogan.”

17 journalists were killed by jihadists at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on 7 January in Paris in retaliation of cartoons featuring the Muslim Prophet. The murders sparked debates about the freedom of speech and the right to satirise religion.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani denounced the attack, saying: “Those who kill and carry out violent and extremist acts unjustly in the name of jihad, religion or Islam provoke Islamophobia whether they wish it or not”.

Original post:
Iran: Holocaust cartoon competition launched in Charlie Hebdo backlash

Fair Usage Law

February 2, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Essay: The Holocaust Denial Movement | Southern Poverty …

By Heidi Beirich

Holocaust deniers argue that the genocide of Jews during World War II either did not occur or was much less horrific than historians say. But their work is much more than a simple re-interpretation of the historical evidence. Holocaust denial is a political movement that is inherently anti-Semitic, meant, for the most part, to make national socialism more palatable how many people, after all, want to support an ideology responsible for the industrialized murder of several million Jews? Many deniers cloak their hatred in academic language, seeking to give the appearance that they are honest, if skeptical, students of history. They prefer to call themselves Holocaust revisionists, a phrase hijacked from historical revisionism, a school of credible historians who offered new interpretations for the origins of World War I.

Deniers usually argue that the number of Nazi victims is far smaller than the toll calculated by historians of the era and was the result of disease far more often than of deliberate murder on the part of the Nazis. In particular, they take issue with the commonly cited number of 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust. Many deniers also assert that the ovens used by the Nazi regime in extermination camps in Poland were not capable of incinerating nearly as many bodies as the Allies said were destroyed in them. Some claim there were no gas chambers at all.

Some revisionists even extend their claims in an attempt to debunk Jews who seem sympathetic to most human beings. A case in point is the argument by certain deniers that the diary of teenager Anne Frank is a fraud because it had alterations made with a postwar ballpoint pen (they didnt mention that the marks were made later by Franks father). They have lied about the qualities of the Zyklon B gas used to kill Jews, the operation of the Einsatzgruppen (the mobile killing squads that shot more than 1 million Jews on the Eastern Front), and hundreds of other facts.

Holocaust denial began with the original Nazis, who tried to carry out their murderous program in secret and obscured it with misleading terminology in their official records. But it was after the war that the movement blossomed. European and American neo-fascists came to understand that a national socialist revival would be possible only if the accusation of a Nazi genocide of the Jews an accusation backed by mountains of evidence and testimony was undermined.

Americans were prominent in early, postwar denial circles. One of them, Austin J. App, was an English professor at the University of Scranton who had defended Germany during World War II. He claimed that Germany didnt desire to dominate Europe but rather was legitimately attempting to get raw materials. Once the war ended, App energetically denied German atrocities.

More significant was Harry Elmer Barnes, an American isolationist. In a 1962 pamphlet called Blasting the Historical Blackout, he claimed that the ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland after the war suffered a fate obviously far more hideous and prolonged than those of the Jews said to have been exterminated in great numbers by the Nazis. Four years later, Barnes produced Revisionism: A Key to Peace, a book alleging that it is alarmingly easy to demonstrate that the atrocities of the Allies in the same period were more numerous as to victims and were carried out for the most part by methods more brutal and painful than alleged extermination in gas ovens. (A prominent contemporary Holocaust denial publication, The Barnes Review, is named after Barnes.)

The most important denier in American post-war history arguably was George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party (ANP). Rockwell, who named the ANPs canine mascot gas chamber as a sign of his contempt for Jewish claims of Nazi gassings, understood early on that Nazism would never experience a renaissance anywhere if the stain of the genocide could not be expunged. An enthusiastic denier, Rockwell in 1966 told Playboy that it was self-defense for people to kill Jews. Are you implying that Hitler was justified in exterminating 6 million European Jews? Playboy interviewer Alex Haley asked. I dont believe for one minute that any 6 million Jews were exterminated, Rockwell replied. It never happened. You want me to prove it? Rockwell then offered up statistics purporting to show that there were more Jews alive after the war than before it.

Rockwells acolytes would carry on his denial campaign after his assassination by a disgruntled follower in 1967. For example, National Socialist Party of America leader Frank Collin enthusiastically embraced denial, saying, There was no Holocaust, but they deserve one and will get it.

In 1976, another American, Arthur R. Butz, wrote The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. A professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University, Butz in his book conceded that Jews were persecuted but denied they were exterminated. Any gas chambers were for delousing, and not for mass murder, he claimed. There would be others, too, including Gary Gerhard Lauck, a Nebraskan Hitler enthusiast who wrote, published and helped smuggle illegal denial literature into Germany and other European countries in the 1980s and early 1990s.

View post:
Essay: The Holocaust Denial Movement | Southern Poverty …

Fair Usage Law

January 31, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial Allegations – Thunderf00t, Bewildered Ape and HannibaltheVictor13 – Video



Holocaust Denial Allegations – Thunderf00t, Bewildered Ape and HannibaltheVictor13
I have a little baby – my time is valuable. It is only due to my kind supporters via Patreon (thank you so much) that I can justify keep devoting some time to make these videos. If you enjoy…

By: noelplum99

Read the original:
Holocaust Denial Allegations – Thunderf00t, Bewildered Ape and HannibaltheVictor13 – Video

Fair Usage Law

January 28, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

International Holocaust Remembrance Day 2015 – Video



International Holocaust Remembrance Day 2015
70 years has passed, yet Holocaust denial is still a worldwide, antisemitic phenomenon. Stand up against Holocaust denial. Stand up against Antisemitism.

By: ISCAorg CH

Go here to see the original:
International Holocaust Remembrance Day 2015 – Video

Fair Usage Law

January 27, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial Club – Video



Holocaust Denial Club
Time to join those who have it all figured out.

By: Jamie Rambo

Original post:
Holocaust Denial Club – Video

Fair Usage Law

January 20, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial or TRUTH – Video



Holocaust Denial or TRUTH

By: THEY CAN

Read the original post:
Holocaust Denial or TRUTH – Video

Fair Usage Law

January 19, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Volokh Conspiracy: Censorship envy

1. One reason I broadly oppose governmental restrictions on the expression of ideas even obviously bad, dangerous, and offensive ideas is the phenomenon I call censorship envy: The common reaction that, If my neighbor gets to ban speech he reviles, why shouldnt I get to do the same?

To offer one example, say Congress and the states pass a constitutional amendment allowing a ban on flag burning. It seems to me quite likely, and psychologically understandable, that this will push for greater moves to ban other speech, such as display of the Confederate flag. Such a misplaced desire for equality of repression is a powerful mental force, and its one way in which narrow speech restrictions can end up leading to broader ones.

But beyond this, even if the envy doesnt lead to broader speech restrictions, that itself is dangerous to society. Say (as is likely) that, even if an anti-flagburning amendment passes, any move to similarly ban the Confederate flag fails. Display of the Confederate flag will then likely rankle people even more, creating more offense and more division.

Right now, when people mostly blacks, I suspect are deeply offended by what they see as a symbol of racism and slavery, the legal system can powerfully tell them: Yes, you must endure this speech that you find so offensive, but others must endure offensive speech, too. Many people hate flag burning as much as you hate the Confederate flag, but the Constitution says we all have to live with being offended: We must fight the speech we hate through argument, not through suppression.

Yet what would we say when flag burning is banned but other offensive symbols are allowed? We in the majority get to suppress symbols we hate, but you in the minority dont? Our hatred of flag burning is reasonable but your hatred of the Confederate flag is unreasonable?

If you were black and saw the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery and racism and, rightly or wrongly, millions of people do would you be persuaded by these arguments? Would you feel better about America because of them?

Or conversely, say that a hate speech exception was recognized: Censorship envy would create considerable pressure to likewise create an exception for speech seen as expressing anti-American hatred. Indeed, as I noted before, former congresswomanJo Ann Emerson has already called for an anti-flag burning amendment partly on the grounds that while the First Amendment protects free speech, it offers no protection for hate speech a legal error, to be sure, but if hate speech were indeed unprotected, the congresswomans argument would likely have a great deal of public traction.

2. This is also one of the reasons (though not the only one) why I oppose European-style hate speech laws, bans on Holocaust denial, bans on praising terrorists, and the like, and why I think the recent French crackdown on speech that praises the jihadist slaughters is misguided.

One recurring argument from Muslims who want the cartoons legally suppressed is that European laws prohibit other kinds of speech offensive to other groups for instance, Holocaust denial, which is often restricted chiefly because its seen as implicitly or explicitly anti-Semitic and that Muslims should get the same treatment. In practice, those other prohibitions dont get used that often, and European speech is actually more free than the laws would suggest. Nonetheless, the laws presence does make possible the argument I describe. And I suspect it does make many Muslims feel even more aggrieved than they would be by the cartoons themselves, since they are also now aggrieved by what they see as discriminatorily enforced laws.

Consider, just as one example among many, Norwegian Penal Code 135 & 135a:

More:
Volokh Conspiracy: Censorship envy

Fair Usage Law

January 16, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial | Southern Poverty Law Center

Deniers of the Holocaust, the systematic murder of around 6 million Jews in World War II, either deny that such a genocide took place or minimize its extent. These groups (and individuals) often cloak themselves in the sober language of serious scholarship, call themselves historical revisionists instead of deniers, and accuse their critics of trying to squelch open-minded inquiries into historical truth. The deniers claims run a gamut. Some say that most Jews were the victims of disease and other privations, or died in much the same way that other casualties of a huge and horrific war did. Some say that the gas chambers did not exist, or were only used to delouse prisoners, or could not possibly have killed as many victims as mainstream historians have asserted, and many suggest that the gas chambers were built after the war as a way extracting reparations from the Germans. The main purpose of Holocaust denial has been to rehabilitate the German Nazis image as part of a bid to make the ideology of national socialism more acceptable. David Irving, a British writer who is the worlds best-known denier, sued an American scholar for calling him a denier but suffered a devastating defeat in 2000, when a British judge concluded that Irving had selectively edited the facts in his books as part of his pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler and anti-Jewish ideology.

Fair Usage Law

February 3, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Iranian Groups Challenge West With Holocaust-Denial …

A cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad on the latest cover of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been denounced in Iran, where two organizations say they are challenging the Wests commitment to free speech with a cartoon contest aimed at questioning the Holocaust. The contest follows the release of the January 14 issue of Charlie Hebdo — the first since the January 7 massacre at its Paris office that left a dozen dead — that featured a cover showing Muhammad crying while holding a sign that reads: Je Suis Charlie, a rallying cry for the magazines supporters. The contest organizers, House of Cartoon and the Sarcheshmeh Cultural Center, say that by questioning the Holocaust, which they dont recognize as a historical fact, they aim to demonstrate that Western countries have double standards when it comes to freedom of expression. If freedom of expression knows no boundary, the issue of the Holocaust must also be critically and freely reviewed, the Sarcheshmeh center said in its announcement of the contest last week. Masud Shojaei Tabatabaei, the contests administrator who is also the head of House of Cartoon, was quoted by Iranian media as saying that the West is sensitive about the Holocaust. Therefore, we decided to use it to confront them, he was quoted as saying. Shojaei Tabatabaei added that the April 1 deadline for contestants to submit their entries was chosen intentionally. April 1 is called the day of the big lie. The Holocaust is also a big lie [created] by the Zionists to occupy Palestine, he said. The contests organizers are offering cash prizes ranging from $5,000 to $12,000 for the top three entries. It is the second time that a cartoon contest focused on Holocaust denial is being organized in Iran.

Fair Usage Law

February 2, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Iran: Holocaust cartoon competition launched in Charlie Hebdo backlash

Reuters Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has denounced the attack in Paris, but many Muslims remain angry at the satirical depiction of the Prophet Mohammad. Two Iranian institutions have launched a cartoon competition centred on the theme of Holocaust denial following outrage over those published by Charlie Hebdo. Iran’s House of Cartoon and the Sarcheshmeh Cultural Complex are offering a $12,000 prize to the winner, with $8,000 and $5,000 for the two runners up. It is the second time the competition has been held; the first was in response to Danish newspaper Jyllands-Postens publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in 2006. “Why is it acceptable in Western countries to draw any caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, yet as soon as there are any questions or doubts raised about the Holocaust, fines and jail sentences are handed down?” Shojaei-Tabatabaii, director of the House of Cartoon, said at the time. “It is surprising that they allow disrespect toward different religions with insulting pictures and there is no reaction to them in the West, but when people question the Holocaust, they adopt such a stance toward it. “The freedom of speech that the Westerners talk about is nothing more than a slogan.” 17 journalists were killed by jihadists at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on 7 January in Paris in retaliation of cartoons featuring the Muslim Prophet. The murders sparked debates about the freedom of speech and the right to satirise religion. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani denounced the attack, saying: “Those who kill and carry out violent and extremist acts unjustly in the name of jihad, religion or Islam provoke Islamophobia whether they wish it or not”.

Fair Usage Law

February 2, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Essay: The Holocaust Denial Movement | Southern Poverty …

By Heidi Beirich Holocaust deniers argue that the genocide of Jews during World War II either did not occur or was much less horrific than historians say. But their work is much more than a simple re-interpretation of the historical evidence. Holocaust denial is a political movement that is inherently anti-Semitic, meant, for the most part, to make national socialism more palatable how many people, after all, want to support an ideology responsible for the industrialized murder of several million Jews? Many deniers cloak their hatred in academic language, seeking to give the appearance that they are honest, if skeptical, students of history. They prefer to call themselves Holocaust revisionists, a phrase hijacked from historical revisionism, a school of credible historians who offered new interpretations for the origins of World War I. Deniers usually argue that the number of Nazi victims is far smaller than the toll calculated by historians of the era and was the result of disease far more often than of deliberate murder on the part of the Nazis. In particular, they take issue with the commonly cited number of 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust. Many deniers also assert that the ovens used by the Nazi regime in extermination camps in Poland were not capable of incinerating nearly as many bodies as the Allies said were destroyed in them. Some claim there were no gas chambers at all. Some revisionists even extend their claims in an attempt to debunk Jews who seem sympathetic to most human beings. A case in point is the argument by certain deniers that the diary of teenager Anne Frank is a fraud because it had alterations made with a postwar ballpoint pen (they didnt mention that the marks were made later by Franks father). They have lied about the qualities of the Zyklon B gas used to kill Jews, the operation of the Einsatzgruppen (the mobile killing squads that shot more than 1 million Jews on the Eastern Front), and hundreds of other facts. Holocaust denial began with the original Nazis, who tried to carry out their murderous program in secret and obscured it with misleading terminology in their official records. But it was after the war that the movement blossomed. European and American neo-fascists came to understand that a national socialist revival would be possible only if the accusation of a Nazi genocide of the Jews an accusation backed by mountains of evidence and testimony was undermined. Americans were prominent in early, postwar denial circles. One of them, Austin J. App, was an English professor at the University of Scranton who had defended Germany during World War II. He claimed that Germany didnt desire to dominate Europe but rather was legitimately attempting to get raw materials. Once the war ended, App energetically denied German atrocities. More significant was Harry Elmer Barnes, an American isolationist. In a 1962 pamphlet called Blasting the Historical Blackout, he claimed that the ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland after the war suffered a fate obviously far more hideous and prolonged than those of the Jews said to have been exterminated in great numbers by the Nazis. Four years later, Barnes produced Revisionism: A Key to Peace, a book alleging that it is alarmingly easy to demonstrate that the atrocities of the Allies in the same period were more numerous as to victims and were carried out for the most part by methods more brutal and painful than alleged extermination in gas ovens. (A prominent contemporary Holocaust denial publication, The Barnes Review, is named after Barnes.) The most important denier in American post-war history arguably was George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party (ANP). Rockwell, who named the ANPs canine mascot gas chamber as a sign of his contempt for Jewish claims of Nazi gassings, understood early on that Nazism would never experience a renaissance anywhere if the stain of the genocide could not be expunged. An enthusiastic denier, Rockwell in 1966 told Playboy that it was self-defense for people to kill Jews. Are you implying that Hitler was justified in exterminating 6 million European Jews? Playboy interviewer Alex Haley asked. I dont believe for one minute that any 6 million Jews were exterminated, Rockwell replied. It never happened. You want me to prove it? Rockwell then offered up statistics purporting to show that there were more Jews alive after the war than before it. Rockwells acolytes would carry on his denial campaign after his assassination by a disgruntled follower in 1967. For example, National Socialist Party of America leader Frank Collin enthusiastically embraced denial, saying, There was no Holocaust, but they deserve one and will get it. In 1976, another American, Arthur R. Butz, wrote The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. A professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University, Butz in his book conceded that Jews were persecuted but denied they were exterminated. Any gas chambers were for delousing, and not for mass murder, he claimed. There would be others, too, including Gary Gerhard Lauck, a Nebraskan Hitler enthusiast who wrote, published and helped smuggle illegal denial literature into Germany and other European countries in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Fair Usage Law

January 31, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial Allegations – Thunderf00t, Bewildered Ape and HannibaltheVictor13 – Video




Holocaust Denial Allegations – Thunderf00t, Bewildered Ape and HannibaltheVictor13 I have a little baby – my time is valuable. It is only due to my kind supporters via Patreon (thank you so much) that I can justify keep devoting some time to make these videos. If you enjoy… By: noelplum99

Fair Usage Law

January 28, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

International Holocaust Remembrance Day 2015 – Video




International Holocaust Remembrance Day 2015 70 years has passed, yet Holocaust denial is still a worldwide, antisemitic phenomenon. Stand up against Holocaust denial. Stand up against Antisemitism. By: ISCAorg CH

Fair Usage Law

January 27, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial Club – Video




Holocaust Denial Club Time to join those who have it all figured out. By: Jamie Rambo

Fair Usage Law

January 20, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial or TRUTH – Video




Holocaust Denial or TRUTH By: THEY CAN

Fair Usage Law

January 19, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed

Volokh Conspiracy: Censorship envy

1. One reason I broadly oppose governmental restrictions on the expression of ideas even obviously bad, dangerous, and offensive ideas is the phenomenon I call censorship envy: The common reaction that, If my neighbor gets to ban speech he reviles, why shouldnt I get to do the same? To offer one example, say Congress and the states pass a constitutional amendment allowing a ban on flag burning. It seems to me quite likely, and psychologically understandable, that this will push for greater moves to ban other speech, such as display of the Confederate flag. Such a misplaced desire for equality of repression is a powerful mental force, and its one way in which narrow speech restrictions can end up leading to broader ones. But beyond this, even if the envy doesnt lead to broader speech restrictions, that itself is dangerous to society. Say (as is likely) that, even if an anti-flagburning amendment passes, any move to similarly ban the Confederate flag fails. Display of the Confederate flag will then likely rankle people even more, creating more offense and more division. Right now, when people mostly blacks, I suspect are deeply offended by what they see as a symbol of racism and slavery, the legal system can powerfully tell them: Yes, you must endure this speech that you find so offensive, but others must endure offensive speech, too. Many people hate flag burning as much as you hate the Confederate flag, but the Constitution says we all have to live with being offended: We must fight the speech we hate through argument, not through suppression. Yet what would we say when flag burning is banned but other offensive symbols are allowed? We in the majority get to suppress symbols we hate, but you in the minority dont? Our hatred of flag burning is reasonable but your hatred of the Confederate flag is unreasonable? If you were black and saw the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery and racism and, rightly or wrongly, millions of people do would you be persuaded by these arguments? Would you feel better about America because of them? Or conversely, say that a hate speech exception was recognized: Censorship envy would create considerable pressure to likewise create an exception for speech seen as expressing anti-American hatred. Indeed, as I noted before, former congresswomanJo Ann Emerson has already called for an anti-flag burning amendment partly on the grounds that while the First Amendment protects free speech, it offers no protection for hate speech a legal error, to be sure, but if hate speech were indeed unprotected, the congresswomans argument would likely have a great deal of public traction. 2. This is also one of the reasons (though not the only one) why I oppose European-style hate speech laws, bans on Holocaust denial, bans on praising terrorists, and the like, and why I think the recent French crackdown on speech that praises the jihadist slaughters is misguided. One recurring argument from Muslims who want the cartoons legally suppressed is that European laws prohibit other kinds of speech offensive to other groups for instance, Holocaust denial, which is often restricted chiefly because its seen as implicitly or explicitly anti-Semitic and that Muslims should get the same treatment. In practice, those other prohibitions dont get used that often, and European speech is actually more free than the laws would suggest. Nonetheless, the laws presence does make possible the argument I describe. And I suspect it does make many Muslims feel even more aggrieved than they would be by the cartoons themselves, since they are also now aggrieved by what they see as discriminatorily enforced laws. Consider, just as one example among many, Norwegian Penal Code 135 & 135a:

Fair Usage Law

January 16, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Denial  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."