–by Sebastian Holsclaw
David Irving was recently sentenced to three years in prison for Holocaust denial. The man is a moral idiot. He is a Holocaust denier, racist and a modern Nazi sympathizer. But he ought not be in jail. I say that not because I respect his views in any way–they are intellectually and morally bankrupt. I say that not out of any personal sympathy for him–he is loathsome. I say that he ought not be in prison because speaking loathsome thoughts should not be a legal offense in a free society. The government of a free society should not police the loathsome expressions of its citizenty. Irving should be socially ostracized and intellectually ridiculed, but not subject to legal sanction.
This provides an interesting counterpoint to the recent Muslim cartoon riots. Saying offensive things is permitted in free societies, whether they be offensive to religion or offensive to historical fact. You should argue with people who say such things, or perhaps ridicule them. But you ought not ban them.
This reminds me of an interesting discussion I read a few years ago–I regret that I can’t remember exactly where. The gist was that one of the practical reasons European countries have more restrictive speech laws than the US is that their political systems allow small group extremists to wield more electoral power. Our system tends toward only allowing two successful parties at a time. This is reinforced by first-past-the-post vote counting and by the fact that the administrative branch is elected apart from the legislative body. The parliamentary system of many European democracies and the voting schemes tend to make small parties very powerful when coalition governments are required. As a result, a party which is popular in only a very few areas can have enormous power from time to time. The US system tends to filter out small extremist parties. As a result we can tolerate a somewhat larger range of outrageous speech because the speaker can rarely gain the leverage needed for real power without appealing to a broad spectrum of people. I don’t know if there is something to that, but it struck me as an interesting conjecture.
While I tend to be a diehard proponent of free speech, there’s something in not letting Neo-Nazism rekindle in Altdeutschland…
Time, place and manner, as they say. I’m not prepared to say to what extent proto-nazi or holocaust denial in Germany, Austria or Poland might be comparable to “fire in a crowded theatre” of ‘fighting words’, but I can certainly see the argument.
I am a fervent believer in the protection of minority rights as the basic prerequisite for freedom. If minority rights were universally protected there would have been no Holocaust. But David Irving and whatever following he might have is also a minority.
His pernicious ideas likely thrive in the dark moist places they belong, and wilt in the light.
I have said that because of the aniconism of certain Islamic factions, the single particular injunction against depicting Muhammed might be permissable. I would prefer it be done by civil consensus instead of law,but if illegal, punishment be symbolic just to show respect. It would be otherwise completely limited, and would not extend to the “Satanic Verses”, for instance I see a small cost and no benefit to this one concession. But ideas, even the worst, must be free.
I find three years, I find any jail time, or any punishment at all for Irving outrageous.
I really don’t have an strong opinion, but I have to ask Bob, do you not consider the possibility of civil suits a punishment or should Irving be protected from that? (I know that most of Irving’s problems stem from him suing Lipstadt, but I’m just curious how you see civil suits in this regard)
“Wiederbetätigung” lit. renewed activity is not a “speech crime”, it is a crime of action. It is the crime to *act* upon nazi beliefs or promote action. Irving is not a harmless idiot, but one of the chief ideologues of renewed nazi activity.
It pains me, that our laws do not give freedom of hatred to nazis and thus give offense to poor innocent little USians, but I shall be strong and survive.
TH, are German speakers able to use smileys?
But seriously, does the time gap (17 years?) between the act and the trial raise any concern? Or is there no statute of limitations in Austria?
japonicus, german speakers are able to use smileys. I just prefer not to, mostly.
As Irving has been continuously active as a nazi propagandist, the time interval is no concern to me. The legal status of the statute of limitation (yes, we have something like that) may be trickier, as far as I recall, the trial/investigation started in 1989. How the limitation applies or not, I do not know.
Well, obviously it does not apply, or it would have been a mistrial. But I don’t even play a lawyer on tv, so I have no idea at all.
The US system tends to filter out small extremist parties.
The US system consists primarily of a very large and powerful extremist party anmd a center-right party. It’s arguable that the reason the Republican Party has become so extremist is because there is no political balance in the system – no smaller parties providing a means of giving voters any choice between extreme-right and center-right.
Saying offensive things is permitted in free societies, whether they be offensive to religion or offensive to historical fact. You should argue with people who say such things, or perhaps ridicule them. But you ought not ban them.
As I recall, you’re a passionate defender of the global gag rule, Sebastian. So your argument rather falls to the ground there.
TH,
Again, I don’t have a strong opinion about this, so please don’t assume that I am opposed to your position and I am in no way defending Irving or what he espouses. Also, I’m assuming that you are Austrian, so I hope you don’t mind me asking your opinion. The first is how do you define being ‘continuously active’? Second, do you feel the consensus is that he is being tried for what he did in Austria or what he did outside of Austria? I’m wondering if these laws are longstanding or if they have a more recent provenance. I know that there is the problem of Austria considering itself the ‘first victim’ of Nazism as well as the controversy over the Historikerkommission in the late 90’s, not to mention the Waldheim controversy, so I’m wondering how the laws relate to that. Also, how does the decision relate to Schüssel’s decision to have a coalition with the Haider’s old Freedom party rather than more liberal/progressive groups? thnx
fwiw, the relavent law was enacted on May 8th 1945. See e.g. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/ld-14.html
Back then the need for such a law was clear. Over the last years, there have been discussion on whether we still need it, but the consensus is to be better safe than sorry in that respect.
otmar: Over the last years, there have been discussion on whether we still need it, but the consensus is to be better safe than sorry in that respect.
I tend to support that view. The freedom for all not to live in a country with openly Nazi politicians over the freedom for Nazis to speak their views openly… Sebastian may have a tough time choosing, but I don’t. Then again, Sebastian has in the past expressed the view that he doesn’t care how people elsewhere are discriminated against (example: the Republican party’s homophobia) so long as he himself is unaffected.
Thanks otmar. The html at the end got cut off, so here is the link
the nizkor org site also has a page of links about Irving here
japonicus,
I see that I’ll need to elaborate a bit. First, thanks to otmar for the law quote. Please all, do read the whole thing at Nizkor.
Let’s go through your questions:
The first is how do you define being ‘continuously active’?
Iving has not stopped in his propaganda, nor has he stopped giving speeches at neo-(and old-)nazi events.
Second, do you feel the consensus is that he is being tried for what he did in Austria or what he did outside of Austria?
Well, I don’t know about the consensus. He was tried and sentenced for speeches in Austria. As far as I can see, the investigation and trial have been clean. I don’t think the offense is the equivalent of Al Capone’s tax evasion, but of course I ‘m sure that there are people outside of Austria who will be happy about the result.
[…] not to mention the Waldheim controversy, so I’m wondering how the laws relate to that.
I don’t think there’s a big influence. There has been discussion about the minimum sentence (1 year jail), as some commenters have argued for a lower minimum to get more convictions, but all in all the law has always been on the book, has always been prosecuted, although there have been notable failures to convict too.
One interesting part in this specific trial ist the precedent it will give to another trial underway also for holocaust denial against John Gudenus, who was a Bundesrat (far less powerful form of senator) for the FPÖ at the time. Personally I hope for 1 to 2 years.
Also, how does the decision relate to Schüssel […]?
Not at all. The investigation is far older. Schüssel’s coalition is odious and the dangerous party in that coalition is Schüssel’s ÖVP — at least in my opinion, but I don’t think that current politics have played any role in that trial.
Maybe otmar can add to that.
The coalition theory seems unlikely on the face of it. In the countries whose politics I follow at all, small extremist parties *don’t* get into government and certainly don’t set the agenda. The Netherlands, for example, has in my lifetime had a succession of center-right, center-left and broad-spectrum coalitions; the only time extremists entered the government was when the party they were in, the LPF (which had no coherent ideology of its own and as a result was home to a wide range of viewpoints, some of which were extremists) became the second largest party. Elections a year later proved this to be a fluke result.
The same can be said of modern Germany; in Austria, the far-right FPÖ has been very influential, but that party too has had to gain its influence that old-fashioned way, by having many people vote for them.
“This provides an interesting counterpoint to the recent Muslim cartoon riots. Saying offensive things is permitted in free societies, whether they be offensive to religion or offensive to historical fact.”
This is a false equivalence. Both examples do involve free speech issues: however, while the cartoon riots have to do with offensive depictions (at least on the surface), the Holocaust denial case -as TH points out – has to do with keeping a murderous, totalitarian and genocidal ideology from regaining power and influence. Whether this is an appropriate limitation of free speech is an open question, apparently, but let’s be clear on the issues.
An even worse example of confusion (for the U.S.) is the claim that keeping creationism out of public school science classes is a violation of freedom of speech.
The freedom for all not to live in a country with openly Nazi politicians over the freedom for Nazis to speak their views openly… Sebastian may have a tough time choosing, but I don’t.
I’d like to call this statement out as complete and utter bullcrap in its implications, and point out that somehow, despite our unwillingness to criminalize Holocaust denial, our country has managed to survive David Duke, Tom Metzger, and whatever other scumbags one might find in the annals of the SPLC’s and ACLU’s fights against hate speech.
Jes, how would you feel about choosing between “The freedom for all not to live in a country with openly Communist politicians over the freedom for Communists to speak their views openly?” Remember, like the US tried to have during the HUAC era? And how well that worked?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Although to be fair I applaud all the Good Germans and Good Austrians throughout Europe for being Tough On Nazis. Sixty years and more than six million lives too late, but hey, credit where credit is due.
A couple of interesting things:
1) Iran is using the conviction to pimp its own World Series of Holocaust Denial (or whatever they are calling it) planned for this spring. Intersting quote from Iran’s Foreign Minister: “We do not understand why the West so desperately insists on having committed this crime and killed exactly six million Jews.” As if the real problem is that western governments simply haven’t yet realized the political advantages of holocaust denial.
2) Irving’s defense included an emphatic rejection of holocaust denial:
The prosecutor rebutted this with examples of denial speeches after 1991, but it is interesting to note that the threat of jail works like a charm sometimes.
3) It may be worth considering that the law was passed in 1945, at a time when holocaust denial was the blanket defense of the defeated German government, after an extensive program of covering up mass graves and destroying evidence in the waning days of the war. This blanket denial was only truly broken by the Nuremburg trials in the years after 1945. So at the time the law was passed, it was much closer to a law against obstruction of justice, as the denial of the holocaust, especially by public figures, was arguably abetting a conspiracy of silence and suborning perjury from the thousands of government functionaries that were being rounded up and questioned across the Anschluss.
So . . . is the law (and Irving’s conviction under it) a good idea now? Probably not. Maybe the law was defensible in the short term, in the immediate aftermath of the war, but this battle is long since won. The historical record was preserved and rescued from the deniers and the defendants and anyone who seriously indulges in holocaust denial is simply ignoring vast libraries of documentary evidence, or explaining it all away as forgery, or whatever tortured arguments of necessity can be summoned in contravention of truth. As currently exercised, this law creates martyrs to one of the stupidest causes imaginable, and gives opponents of Western democracy an opportunity to label us hypocrites.
Wow. Jail time for spreading lies. I think I like it.
[…] all the Good Germans and Good Austrians. […]
Bzzzt. Game over. Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
If Austria can outlaw that sort of speech, then we should be allowed to prosecute seditions speech as well. There’s a good article about this at Townhall.
I’m just trying to close st’s italics.
Hmm, I previewed the message and it looked fine… Oh, well, thanks for the fix.
Sorry, TH, did you find that offensive? I apologize profusely for wishing that Germany and Austria had been as twitchy about National Socialism in 1939 as they are today.
Phil: our country has managed to survive David Duke, Tom Metzger, and whatever other scumbags
Meanwhile, your country has been moving further and further to the right politically, and the party currently in power is apparently supporting as a principle the concept that whatever the President does is lawful.
I apologize profusely for wishing that Germany and Austria had been as twitchy about National Socialism in 1939 as they are today.
No need to apologize for that, Phil. I wish that the US was as twitchy about the Republican party’s slide towards fascism today as it will be in 2066. 🙂
Agree w/ Sebastian, tho Irving’s utter stupidity could use more emphasis. And to repeat my own snark:
How many years does every Austrian get for “Holocaust responsibility denial”?
Meanwhile, your country has been moving further and further to the right politically, and the party currently in power is apparently supporting as a principle the concept that whatever the President does is lawful.
And this is attributable to a lack of laws criminalizing Holocaust denial because . . . ? Oh, it isn’t — in fact, it’s irrelevant. Also, as you’re well aware of — since you make it a point to remind Charles, Sebastian, Slarti, et al. whenever possible — more than half of my country did not vote for the current regime, so what my country is and is not moving towards is a matter of some debate.
By the way, didn’t your country just make it against the law to “glorify terrorism?”
I’ll take it you concede my question concerning criminalizing speech by Communists.
See also this Crooked Timber post. Evidently, it’s okay to ban a movie that might blaspheme Jesus. Quoth the Euro court: “respect for the religious feelings of believers can move a State legitimately to restrict the publication of provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration.”
If I were a European Muslim, I’d be a bit annoyed over that. Not to the point of rioting however.
Speech should be free. Ok, ok, so make an exception for slander and libel. Ok, ok, so make an exception for denying the Holocaust in GrosserDeutschland. But speech should be free.
Sorry, but free speech must have its limits. There is no room for outright sedition, even in a free society. It doesn’t matter if you’re Al Gore or David Irving. Both should be prosecuted.
And obviously, make an exception for infringing copyrights. But speech should be free.
Phil: By the way, didn’t your country just make it against the law to “glorify terrorism?”
We did, and it was appallingly STUPID. Tony Blair has done worse things in his time as Prime Minister, but nothing quite as stupid as passing a law that would prohibit Blake’s 7 but permit Battlestar Galactica.
Sorry, but free speech must have its limits. There is no room for outright sedition, even in a free society.
Define “sedition,” please.
I’m with Sebastian. Irving is loathesome, but he should not do time for speech.
Leonidas,
“There is no room for outright sedition, even in a free society.”
I guess your free society would not be able to tolerate people like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, et al.
There’s a good article about this at Townhall
a logical impossibility.
to quote To The People:
Anyone who calls for trampling on the Bill of Rights and giving bureaucrats more power at the expense of citizens is a traitor who should go to jail. Do you see how easy it is, Ben?
Sixty years and more than six million lives too late, but hey, credit where credit is due.
I’m sure you imagined that was witty when you wrote it.
I’m generally opposed to legislation prohibiting the many varieties of fascist theatrics, but I think I’ll leave Irving to the care of the Austrian judiciary and his lawyers. I don’t need to spare him any concern. Do get back to me if he’s rendered to a secret prison somewhere, though.
I’m not real clear on what point you’re making, Phil. Are Germans today responsible for opposing the Nazi regime back in the 30’s? when it would have done the most good? A little tricky without a time machine, it seems to me.
There was a reason why Holocaust denial was made illegal in Austria in 1945: because Holocaust deniers were lying in much the same way, and for the same reason, as Bush & Co lie in the 21st century about torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
There is a reason why such lies should be opposed by every force a society can bring to bear on them: because the people who tell these lies are intentionally obscuring the route that their values are taking them. As Jeanne at Body and Soul says:
Phil quipped upthread that it was a pity Austria hadn’t been as twitchy about Nazis in 1936 as they are today, seventy years later: but I think that any country that has discovered what horrors it is capable of committing ought to stay twitchy for a lot longer than sixty years. More’s the pity the US isn’t as twitchy now about Rumsfeld’s lies as Austria is about Irving’s.
While I wonder about him doing time, I would be lying if I said there wasn’t a small amount of satisfaction when I read this (from the link st gave)
David Irving stumbled from court stunned and humiliated yesterday after receiving a three-year jail sentence for denying the Holocaust happened.
The Right-wing British historian had expected to be given a suspended term in Vienna after pleading guilty and recanting his previous claims.
He had even booked a flight back to London last night.
I suppose this disqualifies me from being a serious commentator, but Nelson Muntz’s ‘Ha ha’ comes to mind.
Meanwhile, Berlusconi allies himself with Mussolini.
lj: I suppose this disqualifies me from being a serious commentator, but Nelson Muntz’s ‘Ha ha’ comes to mind.
Oh, me too. Oh my. He’d booked a flight back to London? He thought “oh, I changed my mind since I spent years writing 30 books about how the Holocaust never happened” would get him off the hook? I am so disqualified. All I can do is giggle.
I’m not real clear on what point you’re making, Phil. Are Germans today responsible for opposing the Nazi regime back in the 30’s?
Of course not. I just get weary, from time to time, being lectured by Germans and Austrians on how to deal with Nazis and the Holocaust.
I do have to say that I think it’s wrong to imprison people for what they say, even for spreading pernicious lies. Fines, forbidding him to enter Austria, but putting him in jail seems wrong.
On the other hand, while I disapprove of jailing Irving as a matter of principle, I’m sharing the Nelson Muntz impulse. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
Of course not. I just get weary, from time to time, being lectured by Germans and Austrians on how to deal with Nazis and the Holocaust.
I’ve known dozens of Germans and Austrians, worked with some fairly closely actually, and I’ve never been lectured on “how to deal with Nazis and the Holocaust”. Mind sharing some of your experiences in this regard?
Anarch, you can start with TH’s comments in this very thread. They’re up above yours.
I’ve also had the distasteful experience of having my company’s Frankfurt-office employees, in a conversation about WWII, pull the old “Hitler fooled everyone! We didn’t know!” Twice. So, if true, perhaps these laws are in fact a good idea. I’d hate for them to be fooled twice.
Speaking as a Jew — no, Irving should not be jailed. Our best protection against nightmares like the Shoah is our civil liberties. And 60 years after the fact, there seems no need for special exceptions even in Deutschland.
Admittedly, I’m not sure my uncle the Auschwitz alumnus would agree.
Phil, I’ve tried to explain how and why we do it. Not how it should be done.
Is it worth pointing out that the US limits freedom of speech as well? Besides the famous “shouting fire in a crowded theater” example, it is also illegal to advocate assassination of elected officials, violent overthrow of the government, and (I think, in some cases) encourage illegal activity. Slander is also illegal, as are obscenity and pornography depending on “community standards”. So why are we so worried about the restrictions on speech elsewhere?
Incidently, if the German law was enacted in 1945, it was almost certainly enacted with the approval of, possibly at the insistence of, the US government.
“I’ve also had the distasteful experience of having my company’s Frankfurt-office employees, in a conversation about WWII, pull the old “Hitler fooled everyone! We didn’t know!” Twice.”
And none of us in the US in recent years have heard anything about torture camps, the use of chemical weapons on civilians, illegal detention, shooting of wounded soldiers and civilians…We were fooled. And the soldiers who did it were just obeying orders.
I crosspost my comments from the Trackback at Brad DeLong:
“Holocaust denial is used in central Europe as a rallying point and intimidation tool of the violent radical ultra-right political sphere.
Austria and Germany have a special history, and a special ultra-right wing extremest sub-culture.
I grew up there. I have been beaten, threatened and intimidated by them.
I understand where you are arguing from, Brad, but I politely beg to differ from your conclusions.
I very well believe, that a democracy has the right to defend itself from it’s violent and sworn enemies.
There is no, and there cannot be free hate speech in central Europe. This is not some calcified, illogical intellectual who bumbled into askew reasoning “well, perhaps, not all the evidence supports the finding of an organized ‘Holocaust'”.
This is a very unsavory political agitator, a sworn enemy of democracy.
He very well belongs behind bars for the consequences of his well calculated actions, this is not about his ideas.
His words have meaning, and they have resulted in tangible effects. He has spoken on Nazi Skinhead gatherings. His views were widely published and circulated in these circles.
In my days over there, resultantly us “Punk Rockers” got attacked and heads bashed in with baseball bats. In the last decades, non-caucasian looking individuals got attacked, injured, even murdered – incited by hate-mongering, not lastly propagated by the despicable David Irving. He has caused, so very intentionally, much suffering.
He gets off way too lightly, if he was to even serve out the three years.”
It just astounds me how Americans and Britons are so willing to lecture Germans and Austrians that they don’t need their anti-Nazi speech codes. Those countries smashed themselves and their neighbors into ruin and committed unspeakable crimes – and they did it willingly, at the behest of a handful of leaders who began with nothing but words. There are still large numbers in those countries who want to do it again. If the majority remains so fearful of the possible effects of Nazi speech that they feel the need to outlaw it- who the hell are we to tell them that they are wrong?
The relevant laws over here in Germany go quite far with regard to the limitations of free speech, it’s not only an issue with regard to holocaust denial, it’s about “insulting someone’s dignity” and such. I don’t think that can be soley explained with historical experiences during the 30’s and 40’s.
I do also think it has to do with a different attitude regarding the role of the state and the courts in everyday’s life in general, compared with say, the American approach, at least that’s my impression.
As already pointed out,there are still blasphemy laws for example in some European countries, among them, if remember correctly, Denmark.
I recently discovered that the basic relevant German law (maybe some of you are familar with the term “Volksverhetzung”) dealing with Holocaust denial came to be as reaction to a wave of antisemitic incidents during the 50’s, and the wording got more specific over time, in 1994 it got specific paragraphs dealing with crimes under Nazi-rule. The basic wording before was more broad, dealing with incitement to hatred against ethnic groups etc.
Of course Holocaust-Denial is a crime in a number of countries, including Israel and France to my knowledge, but how specific these laws are with respect to this issue might be worth to check out. Maybe it falls under general “hate speech” or something like that.
WDT, Danke. I wasn’t able to put it into those words.
Phil, I won’t comment further on your witticisms. I might get offensive, and I try to avoid that.
David Irving Gets Three Years in Prison for Denying Holocaust
There has been quite a buzz over the weekend about Holocaust denier David Irvings sentence of three years in prison by an Austrian court. Heres the latest from the AP:
The British historian on Monday pleaded guilty to denying the Hol…
And none of us in the US in recent years have heard anything about torture camps, the use of chemical weapons on civilians, illegal detention, shooting of wounded soldiers and civilians…We were fooled. And the soldiers who did it were just obeying orders.
Well, actually, we have. Sooooo . . . OK, what are you really arguing here, Dianne? Help me out. That the Germans really were, by and large, “fooled” by Hitler? Because I don’t think history bears that out.
TH, if you think I’m trying to be witty, try re-reading.
And I suspect some people here would pull a quick 180 on some of their comments if we replaced Nazism with some other “-ism.” We all think HUAC was doing the right thing, right? And we all favor banning the speech of imams who preach political violence and hatred?
You are welcome, TH, I noticed your struggle to express your thoughts, as I am a native German speaker as well. Thusly, I did get the gist of it. And resultantly, I crossposted, which I commonly do not do.
One of the modus operandi of the ultra-right to mock the “weakness” of democracy. I might want to say, one of the big differences between the old and new world is, that Europe overall has an understanding that words do have meaning!
The US center-left (there is no “Left” in the US worth speaking of -none whatsoever) only in this last week started waking up to realize, that there is no compromise, bi-partisanship nor ever any satisfaction with the wingnuts, x-tian fanatics and corrupt cronies! Give ’em a finger, they take your arm!
Obsidian Wings and Brad DeLong have not read Hunter S. Thompson to the degree of understanding under what threat democracy has fallen at this point. Either you join the resistance, or there won’t be anyone left to protest when they come for you in the middle of the night.
Phil, you are a fool. Sorry, can’t comment any different on that.
Any abridgement of free speech worries me, but this is the one exception I am so far willing to make.
I respect how hard Germany and Austria have worked to atone for what they did. I don’t know any other case of any nation this willing.
If they decide to surrender this part of their own freedom of speech as part of that atonement, I respect that.
Free Speech Hypocrites
James Joyner has an interesting post on free speech, or the lack thereof, in Europe. He quotes Sebastian Holsclaw and both make the point that people should be allowed to say even stupid things. I don’t see why many of…
Christian,
Just an addendum to your post.
The basic wording before was more broad, dealing with incitement to hatred against ethnic groups etc.
“The basic wording” from the 1960 law is still there in German law. Meaning that public acts (like speeches, publishing pictures or books) trying to incite hatred and/or violence against “one part of the population” (a group defined by their religion, race, nationality) is still punishable.
The special clause against trying to deny the Nazi crimes against humanity was added in 1994 as you said.
IIRC a majority of judges in the German “Bundesverfassungsgericht” (Supreme Court) later in 1994 decided that a law designed to “punish” Holocaust denial didn´t violate the German constitution and the basic law of “freedom of expression”. Because “simply denying something that was proven beyond a doubt to have happened didn´t add anything to the public discussion”.
So you could write a book saying that according to your research the number of victims should be X instead of Y.
(Since that adds something to the debate. And IIRC such research happened concerning the total numbers of victims of the Auschwitz concentration camp for example.)
Writing a book saying that the gas chambers were simply showers and nobody died however are simply wrong. Not scientific research but simply a try to rewrite history.
And given the German history, thus not protected by “freedom of expression”.
WDT, if you’re going to comment here, please take the time to read the posting rules. What you just did is outside of the rules.
Thanks,
The management.
Phil, you are a fool. Sorry, can’t comment any different on that.
WDT, ObWi has its own speech codes ….
OK, what are you really arguing here
Phil, really, I still can’t tell what you’re arguing here, other than that you once took affront to foolish comments made by some Germans you knew. You resent being lectured by Germans and Austrians on this topic, but you seem very willing to lecture them.
I don’t favor the adoption of speech-codes or legislation against Nazi theatrics in this country; and maybe such legislation is a bad thing in Europe, too. But I’m willing to give the citizens of countries with the experience of Nazism the benefit of the doubt that such laws are desirable; at least until I’m convinced that they are an egregious injustice. I don’t regard Irving’s conviction as such an injustice.
Phil: What defense did US soldiers use when they were accused of war crimes in the Viet Nam war? That they were just following orders. The same excuse is being recycled in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I’ve heard people in the US repeatedly express suprise when new instances of abuse come out: I’ve heard people repeatedly say that they didn’t know about torture in Iraq or innocent people being held in Guantanamo, etc. Gee, don’t you remember when you heard it last week…I feel like I’m living in Oceania some days.
What I’ve never heard, even though I lived in Germany for 2 1/2 years and what my partner (who is of Jewish descent) says he’s never heard, even after living in Germany for over 5 years, is any German excusing the Holocaust on the “we didn’t know” grounds. I’ve also read history books used in German middle schools. They talk about how Hitler came to power and give the background reasons but they never deny that the central guilt belongs to the people who did nothing to stop Hitler and even helped him in his genocidal acts. I’ve never read any acknowledgement of guilt for the genocide of the Native American population, use of the atomic bomb on two cities (both essentially non-military), the massacres of civilians in Korea and Viet Nam, etc. in a US-American textbook. That’s just my experience. YMMV.
“As in, we don´t want to see headlines in the NYT or WaPo reporting about “Look, look, the new German Nazi danger”.”
But you’re going to see those, law or no law. Because the US loves the Nazi era. It makes them feel so warm and cozy to think about how at one time they could kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in a single night and still feel good about themselves in the morning because, just this once, their enemy really was evil. (Well, their government really was evil…I’ve never been able to figure out how that translated into it being ok to bomb Dresden and Hamburg, but apparently it does. Because that was the “Greatest Generation” and they could do no wrong.) Really, I think the US would like nothing more than for Germany to go facist so they could feel morally superior to it again. Instead of being lectured by Germans about how first strike wars aren’t necessarily a good thing.
Sorry, this topic is making me snarky. I’ll go away and do something useful now.
I’ve never read any acknowledgement of guilt for the genocide of the Native American population, use of the atomic bomb on two cities (both essentially non-military), the massacres of civilians in Korea and Viet Nam, etc. in a US-American textbook.
Hmm. Nothing like a round or two of “Dueling Genocides” to angry up the blood.
Detlef,
you are of course right, my wording was a bit misleading. It was just trying to say that an addition to the relevant article (§130) had been made not so long ago, making it clearer (I guess) how to deal with things like the “Ausschwitz lie”.
Also fun fact: Originally, this article dealt with the “incitement to class warfare”.
I agree with you that the abolishment of this laws wouldn’t automatically lead to increased support for Neo-Nazi parties.
But there might be the need to engage them more them directly. Think of the NPD and it’s success in local elections for example.
At some point they might indeed be able to build something of a larger voter base, and do not need to rely on “protest-votes”.
Just addressing the issues they’re supposed to gain their votes from (you know the usual, unemployment etc. though I think there’s much more to it) and not trying to give them a platform in the media and such might not be enough in the long run.
Unless someone had a gun to Irving’s head and forced him to visit a country that had evidenced a strong interest in prosecuting him unaccompanied with any ability to extradite him, I’d be inclined to file this case under “self-inflicted incarceration,” and join the chorus of those who suggest that it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. Basically, it’s a similar reaction to the one I have when hearing that someone has been sentenced to death for smuggling drugs in Malaysia–everyone should pretty well be on notice by now that getting caught smuggling drugs in Malaysia will win you an appointment with a noose. Irving deseves sympathy far less than one of those poor foolish souls, but it’s the same sort of thing.
Plus the fact that he was travelling to Austria to address a (presumably right-wing) student group. Though it would have been nicer if they could have let him speak and then arrested him as he was leaving the country.
Leonidas: It doesn’t matter if you’re Al Gore or David Irving. Both should be prosecuted.
I missed this the first time through, but on what possible grounds could David Irving be prosecuted for sedition? That’s just dumb.
Phil: I was actually thinking about other “ism” examples earlier this afternoon and I have to say that while I might not support them, I could definitely respect Russia, say, putting a ban on the propagandizing of Communism or preventing “purge-deniers” from promulgating their beliefs.
The key aspect to me is that the existence of the rights for the weak — whether the individual or a group like Jews or kulaks that lack numbers, materiel, etc. — is contingent upon the acceptance of those rights by the strong, or at least acceptance of the legitimacy of the institutions which safeguard those rights. But this majority acceptance cannot simply be taken for granted; there have been times and places where a particular idea (a meme, if you will) took root and caused the powerful to lose all respect for those institutions and those rights, and it seems prudent to at least consider whether those ideas, in those places, should be prohibited. I like to think of these ideas as being something like a memetic pathogen, ideas so terrible and transformative that their expression can fundamentally destroy the very environment which allowed them to be expressed.
Thus, for example, I have no problem defending the right to free speech of Nazis or Stalinists here in America — loathesome though I may find them — because we’ve never fallen prey to either memetic plague; but I can see real merit in preventing Nazis in Germany, or Stalinists in Russia, from propagandizing because we know that those countries have fallen victim to those ideologies in the past and could well do so in the future. [I could likewise see China criminalizing the promotion of Maoism, or Iraq the cult of Saddam, for much the same reasons.] I’m not saying I find such prohibitions persuasive, mind, just that I see merit there where I genuinely don’t in the US (or most of the Anglosphere, actually).
This is purely ad hoc and I have no particular reason to regard this is an ideological stance of mine, if you were wondering. If anything, it’s realpolitik interfering with my ideological stances… which is, to me, sort of the point: free speech may look good on paper, but in the limit — and I do mean, the limit — it’s not at all clear to me that it remains so.
long winded alert:
I’m a little surprised to see so many people here support this prosecution. I thought there was an emerging consensus in favor of hate crimes laws and opposed to hate speech laws–apparently I have once again totally overestimated how popular my own views are.
Here’s my favorite quote (dated references to “orientals” aside) on the subject of hate speech laws, from Justice Douglas’s dissent in Beauharnais v. Illinois:
The founders, one might say, lived before the Holocaust. But I think anyone who believes that hate speech laws prevent genocide is kidding themselves. They will only pass in countries that don’t need them–where there is no danger or it’s much too late.
If ideas are unpopular enough that the public supports sending people to jail for them, there’s no danger that those people are going to be voted into power. If people who hold these ideas are popular enough to present a serious threat of taking power, they’re more than popular enough to avoid jail time. Inciting hatred of Jews is banned in Germany in 2005–not 1939, 1933 or 1928. In 2006, holocaust denial is a crime in Austria, where it’s a lunatic fringe position. It’s not a crime in Iran, where the President is a holocaust denier. The Iranian government criminalizes–and tortures people for–other speech.
I mean, think about it: what kind of speech would you be most okay with criminalizing? I bet it’s a really unpopular idea. And it’s not because only unpopular ideas are repugnant and immoral–many are, but not all of them, especially these days–but if you support criminalizing widely held, immoral ideas, you support clapping a healthy % of your political opponents into prison. I hope that makes everyone here blanch. But if it’s wrong to jail people for repugnant ideas, it’s wrong to jail people for repugnant ideas.
Of course, lunatic fringes can still be dangerous. It’s not speech alone that makes them dangerous, though. It’s violence, conspiracy to violence, or incitement to violence–and I’m talking about incitement under the Brandenburg v. Ohio test, just to be clear. There are other laws to deal with that.
And (as someone who has a pathological need to feel like she’s right more than a pathological need to win) I resent thinking that this horrible person has been treated unjustly. I don’t want to be on his side even a little. As if we needed jail to deal with this pathetic, sick liar and his pathetic, sick lies.
There’s a Jefferson quote that’s relevant: “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” I think it’s actually an exagerration. I don’t think the truth can stand by itself. It needs people to stand up for it. I’m in favor of paying the BBC and NPR and PBS to stand for it, and a vigorous FCC, and all the rest.
But it does not need governments to threaten people with years in prison for denying it. That’s the last thing it needs. Government who throw people in jail for what they say or think have a pretty freaking lousy track record as defenders of truth and preventers of genocide and human rights violations.
Don’t get me wrong–I don’t think this slope is likely to be all that slippery, necessarily. The U.S. didn’t have a really robust First Amendment jurisprudence until the Warren Court, and the Republic survived. European governments have never committed to free speech as fully as us, and they’ve functioned pretty well as democracies. In some ways, some of them function a lot better. In some ways.
But why go down this road at all? Some powers, governments just plain cannot be trusted with. You can tell yourself you’re only making a tiny exception for an evil terrorist with a ticking time bomb, or a holocaust denier, or someone horrible who really deserves it. There are always calls to expand it soon enough, and now you no longer have the argument that these are things your government is simply not allowed to do to anyone. You’re left “just haggling over the price”, as the punchline goes–arguing over how much the government gets to do this, how often, to what people.
I’m a little surprised to see so many people here support this prosecution. I thought there was an emerging consensus in favor of hate crimes laws and opposed to hate speech laws–apparently I have once again totally overestimated how popular my own views are.
If the prosecution had happened in the United States, I’d have opposed it (and the First Amendment would have probably prevented it from happening in the first place). If Austria had sought to extradite Irving, I’d have opposed US cooperation with the order. However, since he went to Austria of his own free will, presumably knowing that he was sought for violations of Austrian law regarding Holocaust denial, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the guy. Particularly considering that he’s, well, a Holocaust denier. Given that I wasn’t the one who chose to prosecute the guy, I can live with having that possibly somewhat discordant set of attitudes within my brain.
Here’s a better argument than mine, from Glenn Greenwald.
Katherine: I’m a little surprised to see so many people here support this prosecution. I thought there was an emerging consensus in favor of hate crimes laws and opposed to hate speech laws–apparently I have once again totally overestimated how popular my own views are.
The ninth commandment is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Both David Irving, who claims the Holocaust never happened, and Scott McLellan, who claims he has never heard of any allegation of the US sending people to Syria, are telling a peculiarly pernicious kind of lie. You nonetheless feel that it would be wrong to send Scott McLellan – or anyone else – to jail for claiming that they knew nothing at all about sending innocent people to be tortured – even if it could be proved that in fact McLellan and others did know? At what point, in your view, do lies cease to be free speech which ought to be protected, and become, well, criminal lies? Or do they ever? Will you support President Bush’s right to lie about prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?
Austria’s and Germany’s laws against Holocaust denial are a reaction to the fact that the Holocaust was their doing. Not a guilt gesture, I think, so much as a determination not to whitewash that bit of history. Not merely to ensure historical honesty, but also as a political prophylaxis: to prevent rightwing politicos from denying or minimizing the Holocaust in order to sell race hatred as a governing philosophy.
I don’t know if German neo-fascists use denial or minimization as part of their race-baiting rhetoric, but other fascists in other countries certainly do. Holocaust denial is a big part of Arab rhetoric, and of America’s various Nazi/fascist organizations. So we can’t say no one anywhere tries to pull that crap – and it’s impossible to know if the reason no one in Austria or Germany tries to pull that crap is because there’s a law against it, and the law is enforced.
I’m not defending Irving’s sentencing; I’m just opining on why the law exists and why it’s enforced. If it happened in a US court, I’d be outraged. But it didn’t: it happened in Austria, where Austria’s laws apply. I tend to think other countries’ laws are their business, unless they’re barbaric.
Jes–yes, of course they are telling pernicious lies. Do you think I don’t know that?
What do you mean by “right to lie”? If you are asking whether I support sending White House press secretaries to jail for lying during press conferences? The answer is no. Presidents for lying during speeches? No. What sort of lies should be punishable by imprisonment? Well, there are some sorts of lies that are federal crimes–perjury, obstruction of justice, fraud, that sort of thing. There are also lies that are contempt of court.
But do I support a blanket criminal prohibition on lying, or on lies about specific topics where the dishonesty is especially reprehensible or damaging? No.
Also, McClellan’s lie during his press conference was not a crime under federal law at the time, so that would be an ex post facto law. Also unconstitutional.
Based on this and your comments during the spy thread, you seem to neither understand nor respect the First Amendment, Jes–certainly not as it’s now understood by the U.S. Supreme Court. (There was a time when the Supreme Court misused the “fire in a crowded theater” analogy as badly as you did the other weak, but that time is past. This is one area where the current liberals and conservatives on the Court tend to see eye to eye, but it was to a great extent the liberals who led the way here: Brandeis, Jackson, Douglas, Black, Brennan…)
Which is understandable, I guess. Your country doesn’t have a First Amendment. You guys seem to do surprisingly well without it, too–your press corps seems a lot better than ours to me, though perhaps the grass is greener. But my country does have one, and I’m pretty attached to it. We’re not going to see eye to eye on this one, ever.
by “other weak” I meant “other week.”
by “spy thread” I meant “cartoon thread”. Don’t ask me where that one came from. I think this is a sign I need to go watch figure skating, since my brain’s not functioning anyway.
But I think anyone who believes that hate speech laws prevent genocide is kidding themselves. They will only pass in countries that don’t need them–where there is no danger or it’s much too late.
The horrible truth is: it’s never too late. There’s always, potentially, a next time.
If ideas are unpopular enough that the public supports sending people to jail for them, there’s no danger that those people are going to be voted into power.
Yes — but the point, as noted by CaseyL, is that it’s (potentially) a prophylactic against them becoming powerful. Among other things, it can help reinforce the notion that such ideas are dangerous, morally bankrupt, and to be shunned by any right-thinking or decent individual; and that kind of societally-internalized value system can be invaluable in preventing their spread — in particular, to their attaining the kind of popularity that could prevent the prosecution. It’s a self-stablizing system, at least in theory.
I mean, think about it: what kind of speech would you be most okay with criminalizing? I bet it’s a really unpopular idea.
Phrased as a comparative, demogoguery aimed at whitewashing, revitalizing or propagandizing a political or sociopolitical ideology that had previously committed crimes against humanity — by which I really do mean mass slaughter, not just the lesser evils of, say, slavery or wars of conquest — on a mass scale in the culture in question. I’m not okay with it at all — I’ve primarily been playing Devil’s Advocate here — but I see the point of these restrictions. Anything else, not so much.
Actually, scratch “revitalizing” above and replace it with “rehabilitating”. One can revitalize an ideology by fundamentally transforming it — consider the differences between, say, the Christianity of the Renaissance, the Muscular Christianity of the British Empire, the modern American evangelical fundamentalist movement and the progressive theology of Martin Luther King Jr, each of which could be considered a “revitalization” of the various Christianities proceeding it — and I really do mean the act of keeping the ideology fundamentally the same, just giving it a fancy new haircut (so to speak).
Firstly, I apologize for my ad hominy use of the “f” word above.
Secondly, regarding “Austria’s and Germany’s laws against Holocaust denial are a reaction to the fact that the Holocaust was their doing” -no, that is not the reason why.
The reason is, over there Holocaust denial is used by the ultra-right as CODE language, to very factually incite violence or the impeding threat thereof.
Just imagine if Ice T in the ’80 would not have been forced to pull the song “Cop Killer” off the market in the US.
Imagine, that song then had become a non-stop anthem in many a neighborhoods in the US where the citizens felt, that they don’t get their fair share out of the American Dream, and that the judicial system in the US was not treating them fairly.
Imagine, if then a non-stop wave of indiscriminate Police Officer shootings would have followed, seemingly random, all over the US.
Imagine, it would have done so to the point, that the semblance of a nation under the rule of law would have crumbled in vast or even all parts of the US.
Imagine, if that all had happened in the US, and after a hard, long struggle and great losses civilization was finally reestablished – imagine that AFTER all that had happened, and somebody wanted to establish a radio station network, dedicated to broadcasting the song “Cop Killer” 24/7 @365 nationwide, would there be a majority wondering whether that should be protected speech?
Indeed, this did not happen in the US – Ice T pulled the song “Cop Killer” off the market, and it was not widely broadcast.
But Austria and Germany have been through something much more horrific than a wave of Police Officer mass murder.
And because of their specific situation and history, they cannot function as democratic states without legal means to interfere when the language of hate is used to rally, incite, and intimidate.
Words sometimes have meaning.
Nobody ever did, nor ever will be arrested for simply drunken lulling in a bar : “I don’t really believe all of that Holocaust stuff”.
Nazis are not all dumb. Sociopaths can be extremely intelligent even. It only takes the will to be ruthless and callous to open the floodgates of hell.
The US, with it’s admirable virtues and wonderful Constitution is simply in a different socio-political and historical stage.
One day, Germany and Austria will be able to allow any right wing, incendiary CODE hate speech. But that day has not come yet.
Immigrants come to the USA because of it’s freedom of speech.
Immigrants don’t come to Germany and Austria, if they don’t see themselves protected from racist Code hate speech.
“The horrible truth is: it’s never too late. There’s always, potentially, a next time.”
Darfur suggests that we don’t have to lie to allow genocide to continue. We just have to ignore.
1. It’s too late to prevent the genocide that already happen. The next one, I would say is extremely unlikely in countries passing hate speech laws.
2. Why only genocide and not slavery or sufficient amounts of torture or rape? If it’s useful to criminalize denial of and rehabilitation of ideologies that promoted some gross human rights violations why not others? Isn’t the omission of slavery and wars of conquest arguably special pleading to avoid applying this to America, England, etc.? It’s a line, but it’s not a very defensible or principled line. An arbitrary limit is better than no limit at all, but it leaves you open to charges of hypocrisy–witness the Danish carton meshugas. A lot of European countries can’t just say “free speech, full stop,” honestly. Might come in handy.
2. Define “rehabilitating” with examples. It seems as precise and helpful as “glorifying”.
3. Why is this so past-oriented? Do you believe some countries are particularly prone to genocides of particular types of people? Isn’t it equally plausible that the next mass slaughter would be the former victims killing the perpetrators, in which case this sort of law might be made into an asset? Isn’t it even more plausible that the next genocide will arrive elsewhere?
4. Have you looked into how the Kagame regime in Rwanda throws the “promoting genocidal ideology” charge around to silence its political opponents–including human rights groups? Despite this, or perhaps partly because of it, denial of the genocide is widespread in Rwanda. I realize you support these laws being used against actual deniers of genocide, not being abused by dictatorships, but restrictions on free speech are prone to abuse. Democracies that can be trusted not to be abuse them can generally be trusted not to commit genocide.
5. From my point of view, you trade in a good safety valve–free speech–for a far more doubtful one. And what does all this accomplish that, say, a decent elementary school curriculum for public schools and regulations on how a subject was taught in private schools getting state funding does not? Or trials of the actual perpetrators of these crimes? Or a truth comission? I guess these things are not mutually exclusive, but it’s not as if there aren’t other ways.
I mean, whatever, it’s not my country–I’ve got plenty to worry about the future of democracy in America without getting into Austria. But I just cannot get behind the European/Canadian consensus on free speech, or the general constitutional approach in many of those countries that there are no rights that can’t be balanced away.
Just so everyone knows what “Brandenburg” is–I’m referring to the seminal incitement case in the US, Brandenburg v. Ohio, involved the KKK, in 1969.
Here’s the key holding of Brandenburg–very short:
Katherine, and I don’t disagree with Brandenburg.
After all, the last public lynchings in the south were in the mid ’60, the KKK was on the decline at the time of the finding.
But, there is active racial violence and hatred, even murder in Austria and Germany today.
If the KKK would have been on the up and up in 1969, Brandenburg might have been found different too.
Not that it should have.
Nonetheless, I am just saying that the context of Brandenburg is not thusly transferable to Austria right now.
American Political Values
Good enough to link again.
I think the Greenwald article supports my thesis or position that it is not the law itself that protects us, but the broad political consensus as to common values. The Constitution itself is not even the meta-law. “Respect for the law” is in a way an attack on the foundations of the law, a weakening of freedom’s supports.
I’m not too excited about telling Austrians what they should do in regards to this. I do worry (and this shouldn’t be taken as an attack on anyone here) that the prosecution of Irving may lead Austrians to think that Nazism is under control (or worse, that the problem is foreigners bringing these ideas in) rather than viewing it as a constant challenge. I stress that I don’t think this is a problem for one country, as I think every country has its skeletons. I’d also point out that my point is undercut by the reference TH makes to John Gudenus. This article says that the prosecution was stopped, but the wikipedia suggests it was restarted.
Also, Katherine, I’d ask you the same question that I’d ask Bob: are civil penalties included in punishment or would you allow them because it is not the state that is going after someone but an individual (again, I realize that Irving went into bankruptcy not because he was sued, but because he sued)
I see there was a number of comments after I composed mine and went off. apologies if it comes off a bit non-sequiturlich (suffix for our German speaking friends here)
The Greenwald link is good, but I still disagree for a number of more emotional reasons. The first is that after Iraq, I am a hell of a lot more respecting of national borders. Full stop. I think TH’s first point about Americans telling Austrians how to run their country is spot on in that regard, regardless what one’s personal opinions are.
The second is that if Irving doesn’t want to get thrown in jail, he shouldn’t have gone back into Austria. And if he does get caught, he doesn’t go walking in the court clutching his book _Hitler’s Law_ and declaiming that Austrian law ‘is a ass’. I say again ‘ha ha’.
The last is that it is precisely the elision of US values to “Western” values that gets the US in so much trouble in the first place. Greenwald, to his credit, is very careful (note that Greenwald titles his piece _Are there American political values that transcend ideology?_) I agree that this may be a lot more fundamental than social welfare or flex-time or any of these other things that we find they do differently there, but complaints about it violating Western values seem to take us down the road of thinking that we can impose our will on other nations. I can understand making it a bedrock principle, and I can go along with it here, but when it becomes implied criticism for some European consensus, I have to disagree. Respectfully of course ;^)
Dear Liberal Japonicus.
Firstly, Greenwald is a genius, I admire his views and eloquence greatly.
Secondly, Austria is in no danger to think that Nazism is “under control” – quite contrary, it is its clear and immanent danger that causes these restriction of freedom of speech. I have tried to make clear that it is not only speech issues that we are dealing with in this case – it’s a very blurry line, to where speech ends and violence starts, IMHO. I see David Irving and his cause in the very darkest shades of grey, if indeed he is still in a grey zone.
I have lived in Austria, Germany, the US and now in Canada. I have views and insights into the ultra-right wing, it’s tactics and aims.
I can say little about how Rwanda is using freedom of speech issues to repress or endorse whatever causes. I do know that many hundred thousands died there because of inaction and disinterest.
“would you allow them because it is not the state that is going after someone but an individual”
Exactly. My instant response is that I recognize no limits to the right to sue; I could try to sue you for your comment.
I am very ignorant as to civil law; I presume I would have to show damages before a judge or magistrate even started a proceeding. And there is a danger of the rich and powerful(or majorities) using the civil courts to suppress and intimidate.
But judges can be elected and subject to a variety of pressures and juries can surprise and I would rather take my chances for justice there.
I decided I was hopelessly ignorant and thoughtless in my 12:44 comment and need to go look up “Civil Law” at Wikipedia or something.
1. It’s too late to prevent the genocide that already happen. The next one, I would say is extremely unlikely in countries passing hate speech laws.
Agreed.
2. Why only genocide and not slavery or sufficient amounts of torture or rape?
Why not?
As I said previously, this is ad hoc and that’s where I’m drawing the line. I’m drawing it with such precision partly because I think the virtues of a clear line outweigh the demerits of its arbitrariness; and partly because that’s where it feels “right” to me, for reasons far too nebulous to warrant putting on the page.
Isn’t the omission of slavery and wars of conquest arguably special pleading to avoid applying this to America, England, etc.?
No — it’s because almost every (major?) nation dabbled in one or the other at some point in time, often both, so such a restriction becomes essentially worthless in application. The restriction on “wars of conquest”, in particular, would render most of European history… rather strange. You could certainly draw the line elsewhere, of course, so YMMV.
2. Define “rehabilitating” with examples. It seems as precise and helpful as “glorifying”.
I can’t offhand since I don’t have the relevant references, but the genre of things I’m looking at: the resurgence/reemergence of Stalinists in the 1990s, Neo-Nazi rallies invoking e.g. Speer or Himmler, that sort of thing.
And incidentally: the descriptors aren’t meant to be either “precise” or “helpful” in a legalistic sense. [Any more than “cruel and unusual” or “general Welfare” are precise or helpful.] They are, like a lot of things I’ve read in this regard, intended to be descriptive of the kinds of behaviors to be proscribed, subject to the interpretations of those applying them; but mainly, they’re not particularly precise of helpful because I’m making this up as I go along. See above re Devil’s Advocate.
3. Why is this so past-oriented? Do you believe some countries are particularly prone to genocides of particular types of people?
I believe that once a country — really, a culture, but I’m letting the country stand in as a proxy for same — has gone down that path once, there will be those who will want to return to the glory days of old. Unlike new, emergent ideologies, which are an unknown — and therefore, IMO, should be given the benefit of the doubt qua speech, although not qua activities — these ideologies are known, with known destructive effects, and I think it’s not unreasonable to seek to curtail them.
[Don’t get me wrong, I’d like for there to be a magic test that will discern these Destructive Ideologies(tm) from regular, everyday hateful bigotry or whatever, but absent that…]
Isn’t it equally plausible that the next mass slaughter would be the former victims killing the perpetrators, in which case this sort of law might be made into an asset? Isn’t it even more plausible that the next genocide will arrive elsewhere?
Possibly, and yes. Que sera.
4. Have you looked into how the Kagame regime in Rwanda throws the “promoting genocidal ideology” charge around to silence its political opponents–including human rights groups?
Not recently, but I’m familiar with the concept, yes.
Despite this, or perhaps partly because of it, denial of the genocide is widespread in Rwanda. I realize you support these laws being used against actual deniers of genocide, not being abused by dictatorships, but restrictions on free speech are prone to abuse.
Well, yes.
Democracies that can be trusted not to be abuse them can generally be trusted not to commit genocide.
The number of states that have committed genocide (in the sense I’m referring to) is pretty damn small; of them, only one could properly be described as a democracy (Weimar, in the sense that Nazi Germany was something of a parasitic overgrowth of the democratic apparatus there) and only a few more might qualify loosely (pre-Menshevik Russia and Chiang Kai-Shek’s China are the only ones that come to mind). So I’m not sure that your statement has any particular force here, since so few states ever commit genocide.
5. From my point of view, you trade in a good safety valve–free speech–for a far more doubtful one.
Safety valve? I thought you were defending this as a right, not as a pressure control.
To that end, I agree that unlimited free speech is generally a better safety valve than the carefully curtailed version of free speech I’m talking about — hence my ambivalence, hence the Devil’s Advocate, etc. — but again, I’m not convinced that unlimited free speech is itself a good thing in the limit. Maybe you can draw a clear line between speech and incitement that somehow allows the former without the latter ever becoming legitimized by a sufficiently powerful group; what I am fairly sure about is that there are certain ideologies which, in their promulgation, so radically transform the environment as to destroy the laws we have to prevent their further spread. The cure may well be worse than the disease, I don’t know — in fact, I tend to think it might be in general — but it’s something I’ve thought a fair bit about and I’m not convinced that there’s an easy answer either way.
I mean, whatever, it’s not my country…
Nor mine. So we both have the luxury of idealism… which is somewhat my point.
well, I’m not even a little bit convinced. What can I say. Devil’s advocate arguments where you have to keep going “I’m just playing devil’s advocate” don’t actually work that well. It’s a quite arbitrary line, and yes you can draw it there, but the point is that once you move the line there, it’s hard to have a leg to stand on when you tell people not to move it further.
I really despise, for reasons you could guess, the idea that basic human and civil rights are a “luxury.” And the idea that Europe today is comparable to the Weimar era is comical. These laws are multiplying as the need for them declines.
Katherine, whenever I find myself on the other side of an argument from you, I always want to take a very long hard look at where I am and think about what I’m arguing for. Being on a different side makes me as uncomfortable as disagreeing with Jeanne D’Arc (which I have done, though only, as I recall, over the importance of algebra).
I’m impressed (and a little bit intimidated) by Katherine’s full throated defense of free speech. But I hope she won’t mind if I explore this just a bit further. The first question do the ‘basic human and civil rights’ constitute an indivisible block? I think that we can rank them and when we look at the Irving case, we can see that it is possible to argue for some of the kind of laws that Austria has in place. I’m not asking you to accept that, I’m just asking you if you could accept that someone could argue from that position in good faith.
The second is that when we look at the history not of free speech, but the notion of sedition, we can see that the US has not had such a long time to argue that free speech is the end all be all. I’m not defending the 1940 Smith Act and how it was used to prosecute communist party leaders, but given that Germany and Austria suffered from something much worse than was ever experienced in the US, your position seems a bit aggressive.
“I think that we can rank them and when we look at the Irving case, we can see that it is possible to argue for some of the kind of laws that Austria has in place.”
Of course all rights end up weighing against each other in tough cases. Which right do you think is weighing against the right to free speech here?
I wholeheartedly endorse everything Katherine has said on this thread. I, too, am pretty taken aback at the defense such speech restrictions are finding here. Of course I respect sovereignty, as far as that goes, but there’s quite a bit of distance between respecting sovereignty and refraining from criticizing the policies of other nations.
I can’t really add anything to Katherine’s argument; it is far more developed than anything I would ever come up with. But there is one other point I think is important to make:
I am disturbed by the special status afforded Nazism in this, and other, discussions. It certainly ranks high among the most intensely murderous ideologies of the 20th century, and perhaps of all time, but we are kidding ourselves if we think it is unique, and I feel like we are continually walling it off in a special compartment, where Nazism is “Pure Evil” and everything else is more complicated and nuanced. But, as Katherine says, and as we have clearly seen over the decades since the defeat of Nazi Germany, the next genocide will almost certainly come from somewhere else entirely, and will do so under an entirely different name. I worry that making the Nazi ideology literally unspeakable from a legal standpoint affords undue legitimacy to other potentially murderous ideas. Part of the what makes freedom of speech critical, in my view, is that when you define one idea as officially unacceptable, you are more or less implicitly tolerating everything else. Or, at the very least, you are simply defining a radar ceiling below which folks need to fly to get their eliminationist rhetoric out without facing public sanction.
I would also add, given our history with the American Indians, that a law against rehabilitating genocide in the U.S. might effectively ban a good chunk of American literature, art, and cinema. But that all depends on what you consider genocide vs. ethnic cleansing, I guess.
Which right do you think is weighing against the right to free speech here?
I tried to avoid suggesting that I was weighing one right against another, just that you can rank rights, so when Katherine says ‘basic human and civil rights’, I wonder if that is a basic unitary set (which, if we could get some worldwide consensus, would be a good thing) or, in an absence of a consensus, that some nations/societies have the ability to consider some of those rights, at least in cases like this, as bending to other principles. I believe that you have argued on several occasions that the set of rights granted to American citizens is larger than the set of rights granted to non-citizens. That being the case, what do you feel are the ‘basic human and civil rights’?
“That being the case, what do you feel are the ‘basic human and civil rights’?”
That is a large question. Whatever the set, it includes free speech. The US limitations on free speech tend to be tied to things like not getting trampled to death as people immediately try to exit a crowded theater.
When a right is limited, it is usually limited by the need to respect another highly important right.
Which highly important right, or concern if you will, is implicated here? What is so important about it that it ought to limit speech??
Whether the US ever suffered something as bad as what happened in Nazi Germany depends on your POV and how you rate crimes against humanity against each other. Such rating scales aren’t worthwhile, IMO. I think if you outlaw Holocaust denial in Austria, than you should outlaw the kinds of propaganda the KKK might put out about slavery, or at least you should if you thought the danger of a KKK takeover were comparable to the danger of a Nazi takeover in Austria. (Something I know little about.)
I’m not completely sure where I stand here, except that I don’t like arbitrary lines being drawn.
I missed Gromit’s post. I was trying to say what he said.
Well, I was trying to say what Gromit said about not singling out Nazism. I lean towards Katherine’s position, but am not completely sure.
Sebastian:
“Which highly important right, or concern if you will, is implicated here? What is so important about it that it ought to limit speech??”
Under German law, that would probably be “human dignity”. It’s at least part of the argument that’s being made in such cases.
I can’t find an English link to the relevant law I spoke before, but
see the German constition, article 1.
here: also:
Also of interest might be Article 18 (Forfeiture of basic rights).
Take this with a grain of salt, though. It’s a topic I’d like to get much more knowledgeable myself. And I have no idea if the arguments are similar in Austria’s case.
When a right is limited, it is usually limited by the need to respect another highly important right.
I don’t think that is always the case. Rights can be limited because of a wide range of considerations. As I suggested, it used to be thought that threatening to overthrow the government should be limited, up until 1964 it the US. Eugene Debs didn’t get 10 years in prison for yelling fire in a theatre.
Which highly important right, or concern if you will, is implicated here? What is so important about it that it ought to limit speech??
Apparently, the societal consensus in Austria is that the desire to either avoid a resurgence of Nazism an/or a desire to absolve itself of guilt (in so far as a country is guilty) overrides permitting people to deny the Holocaust or espouse or glorify Nazism. This is why I brought up the notion of sedition. The nizkor link given above shows that it is linked to a much deeper restriction than simply a limitation of speech. It says:
It states that no act entailing a revival of National Socialist activity can be considered legal. There is no doubt that Para 3 should be applied by every official authority within its area of influence, regardless of whether its implementation is specified in the laws governing the activities of that authority explicitly or implicitly.
Paragraph Three is to be considered a “universal clause” applicable everywhere and by everyone, not just by one specific agency of Austria’s executive and law-enforcement organizations. The uncompromising rejection of National Socialism is a cornerstone of the Republic.
Every act of the State has to abide, without exception, to this ban. No official act may indicate the State’s complicity in a revival of National Socialist activity.[57]
The law in the original 1945 version is here, and it notes that it was last revised in 1992, but that link doesn’t work. The link also notes that the activities of the Werwolf organization were on the minds of those drafting the law, (regardless of the truth of such a threat). That the law has been reduced over time suggests that the appropriate direction is being taken, but Austrians rather than Americans should decide how and at what rate. And they shouldn’t do so just because someone like David Irving tries to challenge the law.
As I said, I wouldn’t be comfortable with it in the US, but I don’t see me saying that Austria, given its history, shouldn’t do it because of some notion of basic human rights.
I also think there is a qualitative difference when the law is used to suppress the speech of a David Irving and when a host of alternative routes are used to suppress free speech, as has recently happened in Japanovertly as well as more subtly. The danger from a claim that free speech is sacrosanct is that a host of other ways of restricting speech can be employed rather than having a discussion of the ideas behind such speech.
Gromit: I would also add, given our history with the American Indians, that a law against rehabilitating genocide in the U.S. might effectively ban a good chunk of American literature, art, and cinema.
And a lot of anthropological/historical texts which are, effectively, Holocaust denial: the pretence that the millions of Native Americans killed by the European settlers never actually existed in the first place, or died “accidentally”. This consensus decision to deny the world’s longest Holocaust has, in fact, turned into the official version of history – the American equivalent of the Israeli lie that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land”.
I’m still thinking about Katherine’s points. I’ll probably write it up for my journal: it’ll go quite nicely with the other posts I’ve been making about free speech and so on.
A couple of rather confused points. Confused because I’m not really sure what side I’m arguing, if any. But here goes anyway:
1. One reason I’m uncomfortable with the hate speech law is that I think banning an idea gives it a certain attraction and legitimacy. Might Irving acquire a certain legitimacy as a “free speech martyr” by being convicted that he wouldn’t otherwise have? Is the government acknowledging the power of his ideas by banning them? I’d feel more comfortable with it all if the government stayed out of it and Irving et al were answered with more free speech: make sure everyone knows the truth so that the neo-Nazis are laughed at or greeted with disgust, but not believed any more than the flat earthers are generally believed. But perhaps I’m looking at this in a very US-American sort of way. Do any of the Germans posting here worry about this sort of thing? Am I being a cultural ignoramous here?
2. As I’ve said before, despite the First Amendment, despite all the ACLU’s work, there are considerable restrictions on free speech/freedom of expression in the US. For example, it is illegal to urge someone to desert from the military. It is illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government or the assassination of any public official. Some forms of pornography are illegal if “community standards” are violated. Are the hate speech laws in Germany and Austria different from these laws in the US? If so, what makes them so?
There’s also a law against “disparagement of the dead (§189)” in Germany, and from what I’ve gathered it also applies to Holocaust cases.
Also, on “ratings of crimes against humanity”: the holocaust is indeed regarded as a very unique crime, even in comparsion with other genocides, I think it’s fair to say that’s a consensus at least among German historians for a number of reasons.
I’m not sure if this is a fitting example, but maybe the Julius Streicher case in Nuremberg should also be noted. From what I remember, he was hanged primilary for his role in incitement and propaganda, not that much because of active physical partipaction in the holocaust. I might be wrong, but the name comes to my mind in these discussions when I’m thinking about the larger issues, not just denial.
Is it illegal in Germany to disparage Joseph Goebbels? He’s dead.
The reason I bring up the “uniqueness” objection is that it can tend to lead us to treat the Holocaust and the practices of the Nazis generally as the line that should not be crossed. I think this is a terrible mistake, which can lead us to apply the brakes far too late and to countenance atrocities which might not rise to the level of herding folks into gas chambers by the thousands or starving them by the millions, but which ought to be stopped nonetheless.
Or, put another way, to those apologists for torture, summary execution, or ethnic/racial/religious persecution, it offers an out, in that they can say “this is nowhere near what the Nazis did”, even when those are things the Nazis did prior to herding people into camps and killing them en masse.
It’s unlikely that this law is interpreted in a way that makes it illegal to say bad things about dead Nazis. I’d be surprised if anyone went to the courts because of that anyway..certain mechanisms work of course without any need for laws, that’s not different here at all.
Although I’m otherwise largely refraining from the to and fro on ObWi for the time being, since tis thread is about “free speech and other stuff,” emphasis “other stuff,” and since there’s no open thread, and since someone is away, just for no reason whatever do I point out the following to anyone it might be of interest to. I couldn’t possibly say why it might be of said interest:
[whistles, walks off]
I’ve said what I had to say about Irving here and here and here, for the record here.
I’d vote and lobby emphatically against adopting Austrian and German and similar laws about Nazi speech and Holocaust-denying speech here in the U.S.
In Austria, I’m content to let them make their own laws. And to those unfamiliar with the full details of Austria’s Nazi past, enthusiastic Nazism, the history of how the U.S. covered up and let slide said history during the late Forties and Fifties and onwards, never engaging in any serious de-Nazification, for the sake of keeping Austria neutral in the Cold War, so that Austria — although surely largely purged of serious anti-Semitism now — was still enthusiastically sending SS man Kurt Waldheim out as their proud representative just a few short years ago, well, they might want to read up on all that, and on the current threads of neo-Nazis in Austria and Germany (not that many countries don’t have some fringe neo-Nazis; on the other hand, it’s not as if all the original Nazis are yet dead in Austria and Germany, either, and certainly the older adults were all raised in a time when the issue was entirely shoved under the rug; only those raised since the Eighties and Nineties have had a truly better educated upbringing as regards the Shoah).
So I’m content to let them speak to their own conditions on such matters for the next few decades, at the very least.
But, otherwise, like I said in my posts. Put a gun to my head, and I’d say that probably Irving shouldn’t be imprisoned; I certainly wouldn’t want any such laws here. But I’m not going to crusade to tell Austria how it should handle its own laws on this. Different countries have different histories, contexts, and environments. Universal principles are one thing; universal details of how to enact them are an entirely different thing, and I don’t advocate for The One True Way to enact reasonably free speech, particularly since no country, including the U.S., has Absolutely Free Speech.
Nor will I lose sleep over David Irving. I already wrote my post, and I’d rather lose sleep over the current genocide than over an apologist for another. Other people are free to have their own priorities.
well, I’m not even a little bit convinced.
I’m not even a little bit surprised 🙂
Devil’s advocate arguments where you have to keep going “I’m just playing devil’s advocate” don’t actually work that well.
Given that you seem to be demanding a full-fledged exegesis of the problem when I’ve admitted that a) I think it’s murky at best, b) I don’t really hold the position firmly myself when c) I certainly haven’t clarified or refined the position to a level where I can defend it with any facility and d) don’t have the time to be wasting on this anyway — and that’s all leaving aside any particular implications you’re throwing at me — it seemed appropriate to remind you that I did not, in fact, have a 200+ page thesis from which to extract a perfect argument here.
It’s a quite arbitrary line, and yes you can draw it there, but the point is that once you move the line there, it’s hard to have a leg to stand on when you tell people not to move it further.
True, but that doesn’t actually address the question of whether the line could, or should, be moved away from the extremal position in the first place. Or at least, the slippery slope argument to me seems distinct from the other arguments you’ve been making.
I really despise, for reasons you could guess, the idea that basic human and civil rights are a “luxury.”
I was unclear; the luxury to which I was referring was in treating this issue as something which doesn’t concern us directly, since it’s not happening in our country. I completely agree that basic rights should never be considered a “luxury” in any regard.
And the idea that Europe today is comparable to the Weimar era is comical.
I don’t think they’re the same, no. I doubt they’re particularly comparable either, although there might be some interesting parallels between post-Communist Eastern Europe and, say, pre-Streseman Weimar. Whether they’re different enough is another question.
Austria and Germany had their cultural and political heart ripped out.
Many died, many went into exile never to return.
The Nazis stayed behind, view of them were punished, view of them had died in the war (funny that, eh).
Because of the needs of the Allies for an armed frontline state in the Cold War, Germany and Austria were not allowed to purge themselves of the evil in their midst.
Think of Holocaust Denial free speech restriction as Affirmative Action for freedom and democracy.
Germany needed 200 years to recover culturally and politically from the 30 year war. How long will it take afro-americans to overcome hundreds of years of institutionalized slavery politically and culturally in the USA?
Again, the restriction of free speech in the case of Nazi Propaganda is not wielded lightly and wantonly in Germany and Austria. It is a means of last defense against clear and present danger of sworn enemies to the state and democracy.
All countries have their own laws to restrict freedom of speech. Untill Bush’s visit “free speech zones” were unknown over here :^).
Why is freedom of speech important? We all agree that it is, but WHY is it so important? Do we have the same definitions, do we perceive it’s importance the same way? We all think that personal freedom is important, but in my country that includes more freedom to choose your own death than in yours, in the US that includes more freedom to sell bits of your body than in mine. There are plenty of examples where our countries perceive these freedoms differently, yet I think on the whole we agree that we live in pretty free societies.
Is freedom of speech important because everybody should be able to express him(her)self? As a part of personal freedom? Yet most of the US has laws against foul language and against nudity – none of which endangers someone else. So there are limits there too, and they are set in a ‘comfort zone’, inhibitians to make others feel more at ease.
For me freedom of speech is important because critisism should always be heard, people should be informed as broadly and properly as can be. Information should not be withheld unless it is really nessecary for security reasons.
That is why I feel that freedom of speech is not just about being able to say what you want, but also about “chilling effects”, press freedom, accesibility of info, privacy protection, etc. These things are intertwined.
People upthread argue that dumb statements will be countered in a sort of “information free market” environment. But look at how many Americans still believe the mis-information about Iraq that was spread the past years. The “market mechanism” doesn’t work if those other items fail. If your press does not function as well as it should, if the a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effects”>chilling effects have a hugh impact, if powerfull parties manipulate the public opinion.
I thought this piece about the conviction of Irving captured the holocaust denial well. It is not necessary for every country, but it might be a good thing for Austria.
“Austria and Germany had their cultural and political heart ripped out.
“Many died, many went into exile never to return.”
There’s a display in a museum in Mannheim that lists Nobel Prize winners who left Germany in the 1930s. Quite a few of them and that’s just the Nobel Prize winners. Many other scientists and academics left as well. And Germany went from being THE place to do science to a place with little active research. It has recovered considerably since then, but it hasn’t taken its old place ever. This may sound like a trivial problem compared to the loss of 12 million lives, but it is part of the loss of culture. The Nazis nearly committed cultural genocide against their own culture, as well as the genocide against Jewish and gypsy cultures (and, of course, people) that they intended.
“The Nazis stayed behind, view of them were punished, view of them had died in the war (funny that, eh).”
Should “view” be “few” (wenig)? The sentence doesn’t quite make sense to me as written (could be my problem, not the sentences, of course.)
view = few
oppsy daisy, time for coffee 🙂
“…in the US that includes more freedom to sell bits of your body than in mine….”
Since I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said, dutchmarbel, I’m curious what you have in mind here. All that comes to my mind is selling human eggs, which is allowed (and which are very arguably not “bits of your body,” but bits “from your body,” just as phlegm is, or sperm from a man). So what do you have in mind?
LJ, the changes from 1992 are these:
Das Verfassungsgesetz vom 8. Mai 1945, StGBl. Nr. 13, über das
Verbot der NSDAP (Verbotsgesetz) in der Fassung der
Verfassungsgesetze StGBl. Nr. 127/1945 und BGBl. Nr. 16/1946, der
Bundesverfassungsgesetze BGBl. Nr. 177/1946, 25/1947 und 82/1957
sowie der Bundesgesetze BGBl. Nr. 285/1955, 74/1968 und 422/1974 wird
wie folgt geändert:
1. In den §§ 3a, 3e Abs. 1 und 3f werden jeweils vor den Worten
,,lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe” die Worte ,,Freiheitsstrafe von zehn
bis zu zwanzig Jahren, bei besonderer Gefährlichkeit des Täters oder
der Betätigung auch mit” eingefügt.
2. In den §§ 3b und 3d treten jeweils an die Stelle der Worte
,,Freiheitsstrafe von zehn bis zu zwanzig Jahren” die Worte
,,Freiheitsstrafe von fünf bis zu zehn Jahren, bei besonderer
Gefährlichkeit des Täters oder der Betätigung bis zu zwanzig
Jahren,”.
3. Der bisherige § 3g Abs. 1 erhält die Bezeichnung ,,§ 3g”; in
diesem treten an die Stelle der Worte ,,Freiheitsstrafe von 5 bis 10
Jahren” die Worte ,,Freiheitsstrafe von einem bis zu zehn Jahren”.
4. Nach dem neuen § 3g wird folgender § 3b eingefügt:
,,§ 3h. Nach § 3g wird auch bestraft, wer in einem Druckwerk, im
Rundfunk oder in einem anderen Medium oder wer sonst öffentlich auf
eine Weise, daß es vielen Menschen zugänglich wird, den
nationalsozialistischen Völkermord oder andere nationalsozialistische
Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit leugnet, gröblich verharmlost,
gutheißt oder zu rechtfertigen sucht.”
5. Der bisherige § 3g Abs. 2 erhält die Bezeichnung ,,§ 3i”; in
diesem treten an die Stelle der Worte ,,Freiheitsstrafe von 5 bis 10
Jahren” die Worte ,,Freiheitsstrafe von einem bis zu zehn Jahren”.
6. Nach dem neuen § 3i wird folgender § 3j angefügt:
,,§ 3j. Die Hauptverhandlung und Urteilsfällung wegen der in den
§§ 3a bis 3i bezeichneten Verbrechen obliegt dem
Geschworenengericht.”
The Austria’s treatment of its history has come up here in the discussion, some clarifications:
It’s true that after the war Austria took refuge to the “first victim” principle and tried to forget about its citizen’s role during the nazi aera. De-nazification never was as stringent here as in Germany (and even there cold-war realities killed the ambitious plans). The priorities were rebuiling the country, getting the economy up and regain freedom.
The attitude has shifted quite a lot during the last 20 years. There were a few reasons for that, one of the most significant being the Waldheim affair. Although the “we don’t let foreigners tell us who to vote for”-effect led to his election, the scandal did led to a discussion about our history and some quite intensive introspection.
It did take its time, but finally there was enough distance to the events; the tainted people (a lot of which were quite helpful in rebuilding Austria) were on their way to retrirement, and the new generation was ready to ask hard questions about their parent’s and grandparent’s actions.
So yes, Austria back in the 50’s and up to the 80’s was guilty of denying its complicity, but this *has* changed quite significantly over the years.
The conviction of Irving is definitly not a political ploy. The law is quite conistently used on high profile targets.
Irving played a game of chicken and lost. If you want to compare that to the Danish cartoons, the aequivalent would be a book-signing tour by the cartoonist to Tehran while wearing t-shirts with the cartoons.
(btw, if someone wants to research Austrian law: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at is the place to go.)
Gary: there is probabely a much better way to phrase it, though as an IVF participant I can assure you that eggs are much more a bit of my body than sperm is for men 🙂
We are not allowed any financial profit from donating eggs, sperm, blood, donororgans, bonemarrow, wombusage, etc. Nor can we make profit in adoption intermediating for instance (too close to selling kids).
I don’t know about donor organs, I think you cannot trade in those in the States no matter what Turkish action films say :). But I thought the other trades were legal in the States.
“…though as an IVF participant I can assure you that eggs are much more a bit of my body than sperm is for men :)”
Yes, fair enough, and good point. Certainly I didn’t mean to imply that removing an egg was remotely as painless and easy as sneezing or, um, the other thing, and I regret having unintentionally in any way having implied otherwise.
“We are not allowed any financial profit from donating eggs, sperm, blood, donororgans, bonemarrow, wombusage, etc.”
I have no great knowledge in this area, but I do know that one can receive a (usually very small) compensation fee for selling blood, although the vast majority of blood is from upaid donors. Selling organs is most definitely illegal (although some argue that given how low the donor rate is — though not nearly as low as it is in some other countries — that allowing sales would greatly increase the number of organs available, and that certainly seems at least a debatable point, with both pros and cons pretty obvious, I think).
It’s, as I understand it, illegal to sell human eggs in the U.S., as well. However, this is effectively gotten around by compensating donors in other ways while technically not “paying them” directly for the eggs. The principle of not selling eggs is maintained, but the practice seems not not be grossly different, though it’s not a subject I know more about than some casual reading over the years. But the women who do donate eggs can, I gather, get quite compensated for their non-sale, due to the pain and trouble and expense involved (which is why there are so few eggs available, which is why the demand is so high, unlike that for sperm).
According to this, it seems to be perfectly legal to sell sperm, but 95% of the volunteers are turned down. (It’s possible that the legal wording is also one of compensation, not sale, but I don’t know, and amn’t really interested enough to find out, particularly since it might turn out to be state-regulated, rather than federally, and thus there might be 50+ sets of laws; but I really don’t know.) It seems there’s no particular shortage of available donated sperm, and thus little market for it. 🙂 However, for those who do manage, it says at that link (whose reliability I have no idea of):
The jokes are just so obvious I can manage to refrain from making any, having supplied the straight lines to others. 🙂
And for any men in California who get notions:
Selling bone marrow is also illegal, and is considered, I gather, no different in that way from any other organ. Here’s a link explaining some of the reasoning behind this.
But it seems that there’s no actual significant difference between the U.S. and the Netherlands in what can be sold as regards body-matter.
There is a significant small legal difference only in that small compensation can be paid to blood donors, and only a fraction of donated blood comes through that route, and then there’s the compensation that can be paid to egg donors. As regards what’s for sale, it seems that the conditions are identical, although I’m no expert, and could certainly be missing something relevant or ignorant of some relevant aspect of this issue.
Too bad our resident bioethics expert is traveling, as she obviously knows about ten thousand times more than I do about this subject.
Thanks for clarifying.
Gary, things like this would be illegal in the Netherlands. From a NY info pamphlet:
I mainly know the egg/sperm/adoption issues because our own infertility struggles (through comparing options and programs). I completed a list of things mentioned in OUR laws, not a list of things one could sell in the US :). Sperm banks are an issue because we have a shortage (in the interest of the kids donors are not allowed to stay anonimous – which had a negative effect on the number of donors).
When I have given blood (thrice a year for female blood donors), I get coffee and a biscuit 🙂 . Most US donors too IIRC, which makes more sense for me, but offering anything financial is illegal here.
Anyway, it was a minor point, intended only to illustrate that views about ownership of your body differs. I mainly thought off it because recently a collegue of Hilzoy, Donna Dickenson, received the “Spinoza lens” (scholarly award). My newspaper ran a long interview with her about who owns what, body as property, genetic patents, stemcells, etc.
I’m off to bed now, it is almost one at night here 🙂
For your edification:
Fistful of Euros on Austria.
And a lot of anthropological/historical texts which are, effectively, Holocaust denial: the pretence that the millions of Native Americans killed by the European settlers never actually existed in the first place, or died “accidentally”.
While I agree with the passion behind this, the fact is that arguments over the pre contact native american population should not be put into the same category as Holocaust denial. The main agent of destruction was disease, which ran far ahead of the white settlers. A list of the diseases to which there was no natural resistance include measles, malaria, smallpox, yellow fever, cholera, typhoid, and bubonic plague. For example, when smallpox struck the Mandan tribe, only 31 from a population of 1600 survived. When explorers were able to explore the Mississippi corridor, they discovered evidence of elaborate burial mounds but no extant buildings, because the structures used were all organic material. Linking Holocaust denial to the questions of Native American population in the New World is something that you should reconsider.
Oh and otmar,
Danke sehr :^)
“The main agent of destruction was disease,”
True, but diseases can be used as germ warfare. As small pox was at least once by the British. And along with disease, forced relocation, cultural imperialism, and out and out massacres contributed their parts to the destruction of the vast majority of the original inhabitants of the area now known as the US. I’ve been told, though I’ve never been able to either verify or disprove this statement, that in the 19th century Congress spent time debating the “final solution to the Indian problem.” As I said, I’m not sure that this is true. But I wouldn’t be at all suprised.
But Dianne, Jes referred to texts that discuss Native American history, not to settlers. And the ethos of Social Darwinism had them believe that this was the natural course of events. Here is a link that points to the experience of Plains Indians and fur traders.
LJ: Did you read far enough down in your link to get to this quote: “All of the Muslim terrorists combined are not as much a threat to the American way of life, as the “do-gooder”, hate-spewing, damn-America liberals, like Ward Churchill , and his defenders. These “enlightened” liberals are the ones that will destroy the fabric of American life that most of us cherish…not dirt-squatting Muslim terrorists.” I got that far and dismissed everything in the article as hopelessly unreliable. Unfair of me, perhaps, but there it is.
If the ethos of Social Darwinism or its predecessors can excuse the behavior of the British settlers towards the Amerind, why can’t it also excuse the behavior of the Nazis towards the Jews, Gypsies, etc? Eugenics and social Darwinism were accepted scientific theories of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Nazi Germany was by no means the only country with policies based on eugenics. The US had a number as well. For example, Iowa had a state eugenics board which sterilized (actually, castrated) the “unfit” at least up until the 1950s.
Maybe I don’t understand your point. I agree that the Nazis managed a much bigger, nastier genocide than the British/US-American government did. The Nazi genocide also had the additional nastiness of being a betrayal. Prior to the Nazi era, Germany was a relatively liberal, tolerant place as far as race was concerned. German Jews were wealthy and well respected in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They considered Germany a nice, civilized place, unlike the dangerous eastern countries with their pograms and oppression. All of which must have made the Nazi era even more of a shock and horror than the more obvious reasons made it already.
I got to the part about Ward Churchill, and I was going to make a flippant comment about it, but I decided not to. I definitely don’t want to get into a Ward Churchill discussion, and I can understand that people get bees in their bonnet about other people (not that this ever happens around here, right?) and go off the deep end.
However, in this case, the people who depended on the Plains Indians (the fur traders) are accused of being the knowing agents of their destruction. Logically, it doesn’t make much sense. There were genocidal tendencies, masked as appeals to the inevitability of progress and I would be happy to provide more information. But to state that “a lot of anthropological/historical texts … are, effectively, Holocaust denial” (and I feel a bit uncomfortable about eliding the ‘which’, but if I am misreading something here, I would gratefully accept a correction) is precisely the danger that Katherine and Sebastian are worried about with the criminalization of certain ideas. British officers in 1700’s passing on smallpox blankets are not the same as fur traders in the 1800’s watching smallpox ravage Mandan villages and they are not the same as historians who write textbooks about the population numbers in the New World. And these groups are not the same as German technocrats who utilized both bureaucracy and technology to make efficient the process of killing Jews. To posit an equivalence is wrong, imo.
“As I said, I’m not sure that this is true.”
It’s definitely the responsible thing to repeat it, then.
After all, it could be true, and that’s what matters.
“Prior to the Nazi era, Germany was a relatively liberal, tolerant place as far as race was concerned. German Jews were wealthy and well respected in the 19th and early 20th centuries.”
And not a race.
“German Jews were wealthy….”
Also a fascinating assertion. I wish some of my great-grandparents had been informed.
You might possibly wish to consider slightly more carefully what you are saying, or repeating.
Katherine: I don’t get the American absolutism about free speech. As Dianne has noted, lots of laws put limits on freedom of expression. The connecting thread for these limits seems to be this: don’t allow speech that is too likely to result in too much harm.
The question whether some expression is too likely to cause too much harm is contextual. E.g., maybe Holocaust denial isn’t likely to do much damage in North America, but is much more likely to do so in Austria. So ban Holocaust denial in Austria but not in North America. What’s wrong with that?
Re. Weimar and hate speech: in a Canadian Supreme Court decision re. our hate speech law (R. v Keegstra), the Chief Justice (Dickson) described a possible objection to hate speech laws arising from Weimar. He said, “It is often noted … that Germany in the 1920s and 1930s possessed and used hate propaganda laws similar to those existing in Canada ….” Not that I believe in the infallibility of Canadian judges, but there must have been some hate speech laws in Weimar Germany.
Here, read and ponder.
This American free speech anti-nazi needs your help:
Orcinus
Oh, I see…it was all just talk about theoretical absolute values….
y’all never actually meant to do anything about the rise on the ultra-right, it just sounded good to talk about high ideals barren of context? Well, here is context! What are you going to do about it?
( I probably overstepped the rules®ulations of this blog again. My Apologies)
Otherpaul, no, sadly there was no “hatespeech” laws in Weimar.
To the very day, the ultra-right laughs about them “Wimpy Weimar Democrats”.
And, when you see how a small minority of lunatics were allowed to change the tenor of lawmaking and even placing Supreme Court Judges into a right wing majority – already with consequences as you see in recent changes in South Dakota – I start wondering: Will these high faluting intellectual ideals protect me, right here, right now, if the long black leather coats come to pick me up at night and fog? If I was put on a “No Fly” list? If I was send to be tortured and killed? If I was a woman and lose ownership of my body?
High faluting Weimar Democrats, I say! And I don’t mean that in a nice way!
And yes, Gary Faber, you are very right about pointing out that bigotry. Jews, as anybody else (in the Prussian State, not everywhere in the German States pre 2nd Reich) had religious freedom since Frederic the Great, and were allowed to financially prosper. That didn’t make all heebs rich – what an awful stereotype to say differently! And, thusly, Germans of Jewish belief defined themselves as exactly that – Germans! As they should have. It is the failure of the Weimar Republic, the attempt to be open to sides evenly, that left this beautiful ideal of a Democracy an amebic, unrefined organism without mechanisms to stay off those, that are ruthless and sociopathic enough to take advantage of openness to corrupt and take over a perceived “weak political system”.
Anyway, you don’t want to hear warning bells around here anyway, so I better shut up.
liberalj: , Jes referred to texts that discuss Native American history, not to settlers.
Yes. And the texts that discuss the history of North America are – in my experience of them – generally in a settled state of comfortable denial that far exceeds David Irving’s about the Holocaust of North America, to the extent that I believe it is received opinion that there were only ever a couple of million people living in North America when the white settlers got there… and The Road to El Dorado got into mainstream cinemas without anyone mainstream pointing out that this was about as offensive a concept as making a shiny happy cartoon film called The Road to Auschwitz, presented as a fantasy fairy tale.
“…but there must have been some hate speech laws in Weimar Germany.”
So:
“…and The Road to El Dorado got into mainstream cinemas without anyone mainstream pointing out that this was about as offensive a concept as making a shiny happy cartoon film called The Road to Auschwitz, presented as a fantasy fairy tale.”
One shouldn’t neglect the offensiveness of Aladdin to Arabs, Pocahontas to Northeastern Native Americans, Hercules to Greek gods, Mulan to Chinese people, Tarzan to Africans, The Emperor’s New Groove to vaguely South American people and to llamas and possibly to rappers, Atlantis: The Lost Empire to Atlanteans, Lilo And Stitch to Hawaiians, Brother Bear back to Native Americans again, and Home On The Range, well, one needs even say, needs one?
Not to mention the offensiveness of The Rescuers Down Under to Australians, The Little Mermaid to mermaids, The Lion King, back to Africans and all sorts of animals, The Black Cauldron to wizards, The Hunchback Of Notre Dame to spinally-challenged people, Robin Hood to British descendents of Normans, The Jungle Book, well, Africans again, 101 Dalmatians to dog-haters, Cinderella to step-mothers and re-made families, and… well, the list of offensive Disney movies simply goes on and on. Have they ever made a non-offensive movie?
I, myself, am greatly offended by what The Love Bug implied about Volkswagon owners, That Darn Cat about cat-“owners,” and The Shaggy Dog about people who dislike Dean Jones (or Tim Allen).
Jes, I don’t want to barrage you with questions, but what texts have you read and how recent are they? If you are going to lump Disney animations together with texts by historians, well, that says more about you than the texts.
liberal japonius: If you are going to lump Disney animations together with texts by historians, well, that says more about you than the texts.
*pedant alert* The Road To El Dorado was Dreamworks, not Disney. *end pedant alert*
Received opinion can be measured from both how fiction is framed and how history is told. If you never realized this before, perhaps you should think again: I’m sure you can come up with your own examples.
liberal japonius: If you are going to lump Disney animations together with texts by historians, well, that says more about you than the texts.
*pedant alert* The Road To El Dorado was Dreamworks, not Disney. *end pedant alert*
Received opinion can be measured from both how fiction is framed and how history is told. If you never realized this before, perhaps you should think again: I’m sure you can come up with your own examples.
“Received opinion can be measured from both how fiction is framed and how history is told. If you never realized this before, perhaps you should think again: I’m sure you can come up with your own examples.”
Nice to see that Jesurgislac isn’t only cryptically non-responsive to me.
Jes, if you were simply talking about received wisdom, you have a point, but using “a lot of anthropological/historical texts” almost totally obscures it, as does suggesting that I don’t realize what received wisdom is.
With Kevin Costner’s success with Dances with Wolves in 1990, received wisdom, while still focussed on the myth of the noble savage, has changed a bit. (However, the racism against native Americans can be noted as surfacing with the spinning of the Abramoff scandal, as noted by Wampum blog) Tomorrow when I go into the office, I can pass on a few titles that have a much more balanced view of native American history if you are interested.
lj: as does suggesting that I don’t realize what received wisdom is.
It did appear from the point you were trying to make in your comment of February 23, 2006 at 05:09 AM that you didn’t understand what received opinion is, and how it affects both the lightest fiction and the most serious historical texts. But it’s also possible (and I see that Sebastian is weighing in) that I simply wasn’t explaining what I meant very clearly. I think I should see if I can explain myself at more length in my journal, though it likely won’t be till the weekend now.
“…and The Road to El Dorado got into mainstream cinemas without anyone mainstream pointing out that this was about as offensive a concept as making a shiny happy cartoon film called The Road to Auschwitz, presented as a fantasy fairy tale.”
And one practically never sees football teams with names like the Munchen Jews or the Berlin Romani. Funny, that.
Serious question: why is it somehow making light of the Holocaust to point out that other genocides occured? Do you think I think that it is somehow think that Jeffrey Amherst’s actions made Hitler’s OK? Or is it a fear that pointing out that genocide is not such an unusual human behavior will encourage it? (I’m really not being snarky, just trying to think through the implications. Sorry if it’s offensive to anyone.)
“German technocrats who utilized both bureaucracy and technology to make efficient the process of killing Jews. To posit an equivalence is wrong, imo.”
I’ve always thought that the worst sins of the Nazi era occured at the Wannsee Conference, even though no one died there. But how is saying “The Nazis managed a bigger and nastier genocide than the British or US-Americans did” positing equivalence? IMO debating which genocide of a number of genocides was worse is a little like debating whether its worse to be drowned or burned at the stake…can’t they both be so bad that “never again” applies to both?
WDT: And, when you see how a small minority of lunatics were allowed to change the tenor of lawmaking and even placing Supreme Court Judges into a right wing majority – already with consequences as you see in recent changes in South Dakota – I start wondering: Will these high faluting intellectual ideals protect me, right here, right now, if the long black leather coats come to pick me up at night and fog? If I was put on a “No Fly” list? If I was send to be tortured and killed? If I was a woman and lose ownership of my body?
They certainly won’t protect you if you succeed in legitimizing the criminalization of opposing viewpoints. The majority’s willingness to adhere to those “high faluting intellectual ideals” are the ONLY thing that will protect you should you find yourself in the ideological minority. Nazism itself thrived on the scapegoating of unpopular minorities.
That didn’t make all heebs rich – what an awful stereotype to say differently!
This isn’t what Dianne said, and it’s a cheap shot to try to twist her comment this way.
To clarify a point discussed by Gary and dutchmarbel upthread, in regards to this: I have no great knowledge in this area, but I do know that one can receive a (usually very small) compensation fee for selling blood, although the vast majority of blood is from upaid donors
It is illegal in the US for financial compensation to be exchanged for the donation of blood, blood plasma or platelets intended for transfusion into humans. Private blood banks and other facilities may pay for blood intended for research. The American Red Cross does not pay for blood, plasma, or platelet donations under any circumstances, whether for research or for transfusion.
Gary, I don’t see the problem in Dianne passing on a claim that she’s heard, but isn’t sure is true, since she pointed out she doesn’t know it’s true.
Jes, I understood what you were saying. I’m somewhere in the middle in the debate you’re having with lj, but don’t have time to jump in.
Dianne,
I think we are arguing past each other. You said
But how is saying “The Nazis managed a bigger and nastier genocide than the British or US-Americans did” positing equivalence?
I don’t mean to be picky, but no one said that. What was said (by jes) was this
a lot of anthropological/historical texts which are, effectively, Holocaust denial:
Now, it seems to hinge on the fact that I read ‘texts’ as scholarly documents that represent the current historical consensus and jes takes texts to include everything produced by a culture, including The Road to El Dorado. That, in itself, is a big enough difference to gum up the works, but because the tendency of an internet debate is to try and force the other opponent into making some indefensible statement and then accuse them of bigotry or idiocy or both, and we hope to avoid that here, perhaps I could have rephrased my point, especially my 5:09 which jes objects to. But (and please take this as advice rather than criticism) it doesn’t really help to clarify the discussion when someone makes restatements of other people’s arguments that are unsourced, especially when they are going into the discussion with two different definitions of a basic term.
I think it was my comment that sparked this “American History as Holocaust Denial” subthread, but I just want to note that I wasn’t trying to draw a direct comparison between the two phenomena. I was just pointing out that pernicious myths that tend to whitewash the brutal ugliness of the past aren’t a uniquely European phenomenon. I resent the implication that, being an American (and a native of the South, at that), I just can’t possibly understand what it means to have to cope with a heritage of very ugly ethnic conflict.
“Gary, I don’t see the problem in Dianne passing on a claim that she’s heard, but isn’t sure is true, since she pointed out she doesn’t know it’s true.”
I heard that John McCain was an informant for the North Vietnamese when he was a POW, and that three Americans died because of lies he told his captors. I don’t know if it’s true, though.
I’ve been told that Jews were behind the blowing up of the Shrine in Samara. I’m not sure if it’s true. But I also read that German Jews were all rich, and that’s why the other Germans resented them. I’m not entirely sure about this, but it certainly wouldn’t be surprising, would it?
Have you heard that Howard Dean said that Bush is planning to open concentration camps for people who protest the war next year? I’ve heard it from six different people, though I haven’t checked if it’s true, so keep that in mind.
Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, though I haven’t seen proof, myself.
I’ve read over twenty different articles that had evidence that Hillary had Vince Foster killed, and covered up the murder. I haven’t double-checked on whether that’s right, though.
Did you know that Noam Chomsky took money from the KGB? Maybe it’s not true, but I wouldn’t be surprised. You know what leftists are like.
I’ve read that people can make the most dumbass comments on blog comments, and I hear that soon the FCC is going to start regulating them. It’s possible that I got it wrong, though.
Everyone says that discourse like this is just fine, and no one could possibly object to it. I don’t see what sort of problem there could be with it.
“It is illegal in the US for financial compensation to be exchanged for the donation of blood, blood plasma or platelets intended for transfusion into humans….”
Yeah, I had meant to edit out “selling,” but it slipped by me; sorry; thanks for emphasizing the point.
In re-reading, I see that I missed that Dianne had said what she quoted. Apologies for missing that, I stuck it in the search and it didn’t turn up, though I might have been stuck in the comment box and when I looked, I failed to click outside the box. Needless to say, I was responding, as I said, to the question of “anthropological/historical texts”.
Also, Gary, I think that 1 or 2 examples would have sufficed rather than the 8 you listed. The more energy you put into a volume of water, the faster it will reach the boiling point. Unfortunately, unlike a liquid, the boiling point of a blog thread does not necessarily represent highest temperature that can be reached in that state.
Right, she simply asserted that “German Jews were wealthy and well respected in the 19th and early 20th centuries.”
And has commented twice since, and not modified this assertion.
So it’s quite correct to note that she didn’t say “heebs,” she said “Jews,” that she didn’t refer to all Jews, but simply to all German Jews, and she didn’t say they were all “rich,” but that they were all “wealthy,” and, wait, yes, that is a stereotype, and a vicious one that is at the absolute heart of anti-Semitism, and which innumerable Jews have been murdered hearing.
No reason to twist it into anything to be offended by. The distinction between “rich” and “wealthy” is quite important.
My guess is that next will come the distinction that “German Jews” doesn’t mean all German Jews.
Look, I’m perfectly inclined to believe that Dianne was simply being careless about something she should know better than to be careless about, and was simply being completely thoughtless when she blithely wrote that stereotype. I absolutely am inclined to believe that. And when she says that that’s all it was, a simple bit of thoughtless carelessness, I’ll accept that immediately, all other things being the same, and move on.
But it’s not “twisting” what she said to note that it was a vicious stereotype, and precisely one of the claims of the Nazis and of anti-Semites everywhere, no matter that it was likely purely accidental and purely out of carelessness. Some of us are sensitive about such passing remarks for a good reason. (It would only be unreasonable if someone didn’t drop the issue after she corrected herself and gave no sign it was anything more than casual sloppiness.)
Gary, do you mean to imply that Dianne is saying something she has reason to believe is not true? Because that is the inference I’m drawing from your analogies.
“Also, Gary, I think that 1 or 2 examples would have sufficed rather than the 8 you listed.”
Yes, I think one example would and should have sufficed, as well.
Unfortunately, reality intevened to demonstrate it did not.
I actually think no examples should be necessary to demonstrate that spreading vile rumors is an evil thing to do.
Gary Farber: So it’s quite correct to note that she didn’t say “heebs,” she said “Jews,” that she didn’t refer to all Jews, but simply to all German Jews, and she didn’t say they were all “rich,” but that they were all “wealthy,” and, wait, yes, that is a stereotype, and a vicious one that is at the absolute heart of anti-Semitism, and which innumerable Jews have been murdered hearing.
Kindly point to the word “all”, or a synonym of “all”, in Dianne’s statement. Either that, or get your capacity for charitable interpretation into the repair shop, pronto. If you have one, that is.
“Gary, do you mean to imply that Dianne is saying something she has reason to believe is not true?”
What, about German Jews, or about “that in the 19th century Congress spent time debating the “final solution to the Indian problem”?
I don’t know to which you are referring (and I can think of several similarly responsible remarks Dianne has made here in other threads), but regardless, I’m not a mind-reader, and don’t pretend to be, unless I say I’m wearing my mind-reading cap.
My default assumption, all other things being the same, is that people aren’t intentionally being untruthful, though.
On the other hand, it’s not my default assumption that everyone has a firm grasp of what is responsible to put in writing that is read around the world, and googlable for the ages, and what is not.
Writing something that is going to show up on a search engine search, and that even before that is being read by goodness knows how many people, in how many countries, is not the same thing as saying it in a casual chat in one’s bedroom. or apartment, or during a long drive, with a good friend.
I’ve checked that, and I know it to be true.
“My guess is that next will come the distinction that “German Jews” doesn’t mean all German Jews.”
We have a winner.
Oh, what the hell: in a likely utterly futile attempt to minimize the number of times the “how do plurals work in English?” merry-go-round goes around again, the following:
In English, an unmodified plural stands as an absolute. To not so stand, it must be modified. That’s how English grammar works.
“People are stupid.”
This means “all people are stupid.”
If you wish to say something more limited, the noun must have a modifier: “blue-eyed people are stupid”; “tall people are stupid”; “American people are stupid.”
Absent the modifier, “people are stupid” does not mean “some people are stupid”; it means “all people are stupid.”
We could repeat this exercise with an infinite number of plural nouns, adding and subtracting modifiers to test this general case, but feel free to try it at home on your own.
Gary Farber: On the other hand, it’s not my default assumption that everyone has a firm grasp of what is responsible to put in writing that is read around the world, and googlable for the ages, and what is not.
I would say this goes double for charges of bigotry based on an intentionally uncharitable reading of a comment.
Look, you could simply have asked Dianne if she meant to imply that ALL German Jews were wealthy, or only meant that some were wealthy, or that they, in the aggregate, prospered. But you didn’t. Instead you pretended to assume she meant otherwise. Then WDT outright accused her of anti-Semitism. Sometimes I just don’t think you realize how snide your comments can come off. I can empathize, since I have this problem on occasion, too, but pretending that you were really giving her the benefit of the doubt here is just plain disingenuous. Not a trace of that made it into your comment.
February 22, 2006 at 10:54 PM: “You might possibly wish to consider slightly more carefully what you are saying, or repeating.”
“…but pretending that you were really giving her the benefit of the doubt here is just plain disingenuous.”
I am not happy when people assert that I am or have been dishonest. I invite you to withdraw your mind-reading (and false) assertion, please.
Gary, I know you well enough to have predicted how you’d respond–with overblown rhetorical comparisons designed to make my comment seem as stupid and braindead as possible, but decided it wasn’t worthwhile to respond in advance to something you hadn’t said yet. It’s tiresome anticipating every sort of deliberately uncharitable misreading a person can make of one’s words and dismantling them ahead of time. There are two points here–
1. Did Dianne believe what she was passing on was likely to be true? Yes, probably she did, so that wouldn’t be comparable to you passing on vicious remarks you knew were false. It also wouldn’t be comparable to a lunatic of some sort passing on rumors he believes in, unless you think it is sheer lunacy to think that US congressmen in the 19th Century might have favored genocide.
2. Does Dianne have good reason to believe what she thinks is true? I don’t know. It’s not entirely out of the range of possibility that some Congressmen favored genocide. What would be really helpful in this situation would be actual evidence. So if you happen to know that what Dianne said was false, then I would welcome your intervention to set the record straight, though I’d probably deplore any snarkiness that accompanied it. Snark by itself-well, you can get that by the truckload online. I’ve gotten to the point where I’m sick of it most days. I know enough about American history to know that some Americans, including prominent ones, did express Nazi-like sentiments regarding Native Americans. Whether it was said in Congress I don’t know. It’s something that we’re all free to try and find out on our own if we want–Dianne made it perfectly clear she doesn’t know if it’s true, but in my case it’s made me curious. But I don’t have time to do any research right now–I’m only writing this much because of your post.
In later posts you’ve brought in Dianne’s wealthy German comment. Read in context, it was clear she had no antisemitic intent. I thought your initial correction was just right in tone and substance, but now things are heating up nicely into a full-fledged flamewar, where it becomes obligatory to not only correct people, but assume the absolute worst of them. Time to abandon this thread.
I’ll close by saying I’ve become one of your fans, Gary, but the snark/information ratio of your comments is sometimes higher than it needs to be. And nobody comes off well in a flamewar, IMO.
Phil: tnxs for clarifying. I looked it up (no mistrust, just cite-addicted 🙂 ) and “Paid blood donors can only donate plasma, and this plasma is then used by pharmaceutical companies to make drugs.”
Was it different in the past? I seem to remember that people could make a small amount in the States from giving blood. But as stated, my only real comparison knowledge is from the infertility related subjects.
Anyway, I just wanted to show that there are area’s where we are ‘more calvinist’ than the US, and area’s where we are ‘less calvinist’, but that on the whole we work in comparable systems. This discussion is enlighting, but it distracts from the bigger point I tried to make I’m afraid.
Off to basketball now.
Gary Farber: In English, an unmodified plural stands as an absolute. To not so stand, it must be modified. That’s how English grammar works.
Not always. If I say “Republicans are implicated in the Jack Abramoff scandal”, I’m not committing libel against Sebastian or Charles. In Dianne’s case she was trying, best I can tell, to say that German Jews thrived both economically and socially as a community, not that all German Jews were wealthy and well-respected. And I get the sense from your later comments on this thread that you realize that was likely her meaning.
I’ll grant you that people should tread very carefully when talking about matters of race or ethnicity. I just think that that consideration needs to be a two-way street, as much as possible, and, frankly, I don’t blame her for just ignoring the barbs and moving on. I wish I had that level of self-control.
“You might possibly wish to consider slightly more carefully what you are saying, or repeating.”
I took “repeating” to imply anti-Semitic propaganda, thus I thought this was more along the lines of “watch what you say” than “please clarify your meaning”. Was I incorrect in this regard?
I am not happy when people assert that I am or have been dishonest. I invite you to withdraw your mind-reading (and false) assertion, please.
I had composed a snide reply to this, but, having read Donald’s more temperate comment above, I’ve thought better of it. I’m sorry for imputing dishonesty to you, Gary. I still see inconsistency between what you said and what you wrote, but I’ll practice what I preach, and assume you were only trying to guide Dianne toward what she really meant. I only hope that you, too, will take to heart what Donald says, because I agree that you contribute a lot to these discussions, more than most, and conflicts such as this only distract from that net positive.
Um, if I may interject…I see what GF is mad about now. What I meant was that German Jews were relatively well off, tolerated, and integrated into “mainstream” society compared to Jews in Eastern Europe. Not compared to Germans in general or people in the…can you call it first world in this context…in general, but compared to Jewish people in other parts of Europe. If I said or implied that I thought that Jewish people in Germany were wealthier than average for the country or that (even if they were) that somehow meant that they “deserved” the Holocaust I apologize. That’s not what I meant.
My initial source for saying what I did was, in fact, a German Jew: a descendent of a family that stayed in Germany through WWII, hidden by some friends who weren’t so keen on the whole ethnic cleansing thing. He made the argument that Israel, a homeland, was necessary for the survival of the Jewish people because they could never trust a society where they weren’t a majority–and gave Germany as an example. (The argument being that if even a “nice”, tolerant country like pre-Nazi Germany can go insane like that, who can you trust to protect the rights of an unpopular minority?)
If you want an actual, on line source, see here, for example
Or alternately, Wikapedia A quote from that article: “Jews experienced a period of legal equality from 1848 until the rise of Nazi Germany, playing a key role in German arts and sciences, and becoming deeply integrated into German society. In the opinion of the historian Fritz Stern by the end of 19th century, what had emerged was a “Jewish-German symbiosis” where German Jews had merged elements of German and Jewish culture into a unique new one. Approximately 100,000 German Jews fought with the German army in World War I and enjoyed full equality in the Weimar Republic, many receiving high political positions like Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor.”
Jewish culture in pre-Nazi Germany was rich, complex, and beautiful. And if it’s anti-Semetic to say so then this must be some use of the term “anti-Semetic” that I didn’t previously know about.
DJ: “Did Dianne believe what she was passing on was likely to be true? Yes, probably she did, so that wouldn’t be comparable to you passing on vicious remarks you knew were false.”
No, it wouldn’t. It would be comparable to other people passing on highly inflammatory views they didn’t know to be true or untrue, but they were inclined to believe without bothering to check if they were actually true or untrue. Which is what the examples I gave were intended to be cases of.
“It’s not entirely out of the range of possibility that some Congressmen favored genocide.”
Oh, I think it’s clear that some did.
That is, however, not remotely close to saying:
Note that she used quotation marks. Quotation marks are used to indicate a precise quotation. They are not used to indicate a paraphrase, or a vague resemblence, or a vaguely similar meanings. They are quotation marks. Either Congress specifically held at least one debate using those words, or it did not. There is no available alternative meaning, although it’s entirely possible that Diane was, again, simply being irresponsibly sloppy in her wording, and didn’t understand what she was doing when she put those words in quotation marks.
I’m always inclined to believe people are writing sloppily, and don’t understand very well how to write, over assuming they are consciously and with malice aforethought, carefully meaning what they write, when they show consistent signs of careless writing.
But it’s up to people to make clear, after the fact, when that is the case, if they want that case to be taken as correct. If they choose to let their statements stand, that’s their choice, too.
Diane is perfectly free to come modify or withdraw her statements, of course, and I shall happily then accept that. I much prefer to think well of people than to not. I prefer to exist in a universe where I think well of people, rather than direly of them. If I’m in an environment where I find too many people I think direly of, I’ll leave, after all. So I much prefer that Diane now come and say “oops, I was writing sloppily; I didn’t mean that at all!; sorry!”
“I know enough about American history to know that some Americans, including prominent ones, did express Nazi-like sentiments regarding Native Americans.”
Very much so. And people should be highly aware of that, and if they’re not, they should be reminded, when it’s relevant. I completely agree with that.
“Read in context, it was clear she had no antisemitic intent.”
And I know no reason to assume otherwise. As I’ve said. Again, I welcome her correcting and clarifying her remarks. She’s, as I said, posted twice since I invited her to do so, and she posted twice, over a twelve-hour period, without so modifiying her remarks, but I can still believe that that’s just lack of attention. I await whatever she’ll say when she comes back to address it, should she choose to address it.
One other thing: my source for the “final solution to the Indian problem” quote was a historian at U of Chicago whose area of study was (presumably still is but I’ve long since lost contact with him) 19th century US-American history, particularly the history of the frontier. He’s spent time reading the archives of 19th century Congressional debate and said that the phrase appeared there. If I were talking to him today I’d probably ask for more details, such as whether this was a well accepted comment or a random looney spouting off, when exactly it was said, could he give me a reference, etc. But at the time I was a naive 19 year old and didn’t think to do so. So until I have a few months to read congressional records or find a reliable secondary source, I won’t be able to say for certain that it’s true or not. But I find it entirely believable that it might be. There were unquestionably acts of genocide committed by the whites against the Amerind in the 18th and 19th century and acts of cultural genocide well into the 20th century. Whether anyone ever had a systemic plan to wipe out every last individual and whether that plan was ever proposed as law…that one can debate about. But to pretend that the US government has and always had good intentions towards the Amerind population is…factually inaccurate. I won’t go further than that.
Gromit: “I had composed a snide reply to this, but, having read Donald’s more temperate comment above, I’ve thought better of it. I’m sorry for imputing dishonesty to you, Gary.”
Okay. Accepted. Done.
Diane:
Okay. Good. My only remaining point is that you are still, however, over-generalizing (and I’m sure this is just a matter of using language carefully, not a matter of anti-Semitism at all, let me be clear), when you say that “German Jews were relatively well off […] compared to Jewish people in other parts of Europe.”
If you said “most,” I’d let it it slide. But there were also still plenty of poor rural German Jews who lived no better than similar Jews in Poland or Russia or elsewhere in Eastern Europe, and there were plenty of poor urban German Jews who etc. It would be an error to overlook this fact and to assume that all German Jews were middle-class, or that there weren’t lowest-lower-class German Jews living in similarly crap circumstances to Jews in neightboring countries. That’s all.
Thank you for clarifying. I’m sorry the discussion was prolonged by other people prolonging what could have been a simple exchange, but that’s the norm for open many-to-many communications media, of course.
“He made the argument that Israel, a homeland, was necessary for the survival of the Jewish people because they could never trust a society where they weren’t a majority–and gave Germany as an example.”
Yes. This is not an obscure argument.
This, however, was a completely unnecessary thing to say, and entirely unhelpful, since no one claimed you were being anti-Semitic. (Though it helps to be able to spell “anti-Semitic.”)
No one here accused you of being anti-Semitic. Or racist. Or sexist. Or of having an ugly big toe. Or of any other things you weren’t accused of being. So it’s gratuituous to add a defense against an accusation not made.
And to say “Jewish culture in pre-Nazi Germany was rich, complex, and beautiful. And if it’s anti-Semetic to say so…” is a wonderful case of declaring yourself a martyr for engaging in an hallucination. Better to avoid that sort of thing.
“But to pretend that the US government has and always had good intentions towards the Amerind population is…factually inaccurate. I won’t go further than that.”
Again, responding to things no one has said is extremely unhelpful, save in feeling unjustifiably persecuted.
If someone here in this thread has engaged in such a “pretense,” give the link and quote the words.
Otherwise, you might wish to withdraw your assertion that someone here has made such a “pretense.” And you might possibly wish to avoid continuing to mis-state what people have written, perhaps. Or not.
“If you said “most,” I’d let it it slide. But there were also still plenty of poor rural German Jews who lived no better than similar Jews in Poland or Russia or elsewhere in Eastern Europe, and there were plenty of poor urban German Jews who etc.”
I tend to think of populations in terms of their average rather than their range–hence, I meant that on average 19th/early 20th century German Jews were relatively well off compared to Eastern Eurpean Jews. I might say in the same way that whites in the US are relatively well off compared to Latinos, yet know that my essentially white grandfather grew up dirt poor and my Latina/Mestiza grandmother grew up relatively wealthy. But your point is a good one. Please retrospectively add “most” to the statement.
“This is not an obscure argument.”
Who said it was?
Gary Farber: Thank you for clarifying. I’m sorry the discussion was prolonged by other people prolonging what could have been a simple exchange, but that’s the norm for open many-to-many communications media, of course.
Gary, I initially took exception to WDT’s much more offensive comment, not yours, and it was you who took up the baton from that point, so I’m not sure what you are getting at here. And once someone attributes an ethnic slur to another commenter, as WDT did, I think the exchange has become anything but “simple”.
Gary, to Dianne: This, however, was a completely unnecessary thing to say, and entirely unhelpful, since no one claimed you were being anti-Semitic.
See WDT’s comment, here:
I’d say that’s an accusation of anti-Semitism, right there.
Gromit: Thank you. I was looking for the source of the “heebs” comment to make exactly the point you are making.
“But it’s not “twisting” what she said to note that it was a vicious stereotype, and precisely one of the claims of the Nazis and of anti-Semites everywhere”
And this isn’t an accusation of anti-Semitism? Looks like it to me.
This post clearly implies that Amerinds have experienced no unusual level of prejudice and have no reason to complain of stereotyping and/or whitewashing of their history than, say, llamas or mermaids.
Gromit,
“I’d say that’s an accusation of anti-Semitism, right there.”
Prove your accusation, or apologize!
I did not accuse Diane of anti-semitism! How dare you say different!
Okay, let’s all take a deep breath.
“If I said or implied that I thought that Jewish people in Germany were wealthier than average for the country”
Dumb question, but weren’t the German Jews on average financially better off than other Germans? Much as American Jews, so I would guess, are better off financially than American Gentiles?
And everybody needs to keep in mind that “X are Y” is used to mean “On average, X are Y” or “For each x in X, x is Y”, or “A high percentage of Y are X”, however much prescriptivists of one sort or another prefer a particular example. If you think statement A would be clearer as statement B, it’s pretty likely that a calm request will get you a clarification.
And everybody needs to keep in mind that any subject touching on genocide needs to be handled with extra care.
Anyone not feeling lectured at – work on your posture, or floss more.
“Dumb question, but weren’t the German Jews on average financially better off than other Germans?”
There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers and here’s one: I don’t know. I assumed that because Jews were an oppressed minority (even if less oppressed in 19th century Germany than in 19th century Russia or Poland, on average) that they would be on average financially worse off. But now that you bring it up, I don’t actually know.
“Anyone not feeling lectured at – work on your posture, or floss more”
Ahem. (Goes off to floss.)
I suggest not soon looking for professional employment in working with words. I’m sure you have other strengths.
“I suggest not soon looking for professional employment in working with words.”
Amusingly, I happen to know that the person in question is the editor of a well-regarded small press, and is an acclaimed author under the pen name of Pierre Menard.
Wow, are we having fun yet? I’m in my office, so here are the titles promised.
First a caveat, when you get involved with studying native American languages, you concentrate on a particular cultural area/ language family, so my view of Native American population discussions is at a bit of a remove.
While the main works in the 70’s giving a native American perspective were by Vine DeLoria Jr. (and remember that the late 60’s to mid 70’s were a time of powerful radicalization which included AIM seizing Alcatraz (1969), and two incidents at Pine Ridge (73 and 75)), these strongly expressed views were taken by researchers so that the 80’s was a time when more realistic ideas about populations beginning to come forward. Russell Thornton’s book _American Indian Holocaust and Survival_ came out in 1987, and, as I mentioned, you begin to see tha reflected in popular culture with the more sympathetic portrait in Dances with Wolves (1990). No thought really arises ab ovo, so one has to realize that discussions of the morbidity of diseases and the realization of the possibility of the decimation (not a good word because that only suggests 1 out of 10) of cultures by introduced diseases. Books like the 1976 Plagues and Peoples by William McNeill and the 1986 book by Crosby, Ecological Imperialism, sets the stage for Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel.
These discussions led to Stannard’s 1992 book American Holocaust: the Conquest of the New World, which many historians thought was too extreme in its indictment of the European conquest and the discussion led to James Wilson’s 1998 The Earth shall Weep, the 1999 Pulitzer prize for history nominee, Paula Marks, In a Barren Land: American Indian Dispossession and Survival and Richter’s Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America (2002 finalist).
Since we are talking about received wisdom, I think that these works show a shift in the thinking about native Americans, though I certainly acknowledge that the shift is not as much as anyone should be happy with.
Costner used his influence and money to develop the 500 Nations mini series (1995), which is also a very sympathetic portrait of the problems Native Americans have faced. The book accompanying the series is also excellent.
I hope someone finds those books interesting and is encouraged to read up about it.
WDT: Prove your accusation, or apologize!
I did not accuse Diane of anti-semitism! How dare you say different!
Are you saying that “bigotry” and “awful stereotypes” directed at jews are not, in your view, anti-Semitism? Or that your word “heebs” is not evocative of the same? Or are you saying you did not understand that Gary’s original criticism, which you commended and elaborated on, was directed specifically at Dianne? Knowing which part you dispute will help me to know how to address your complaint.
“To quote myself:
“…That didn’t make all heebs rich – what an awful stereotype to say differently! And, thusly, Germans of Jewish belief defined themselves as exactly that – Germans!…”
Where do I mention Diane?
But to quote Diane: “…German Jews were wealthy and well respected in the 19th and early 20th centuries….”
“German Jews were wealthy..” is an absolute construction, meaning “All German Jews were wealthy”, and is a gawdaweful thing to say, because indeed, it is an old and horrible stereotype.
That is a fact.
Now, the same as Mr. Faber, I quite naturally have assumed that this is not what Diane truly was trying to say here.
Had I thought so, I would constructed my sentence in the 2nd person, and not impersonally have stated that the sentence as such represents a stereotype.
I very well would have said: ” Gosh, dear Diane, that is awfully anti-semitic of you to say so!”
However, I did not!
As to my use of the word “heeb” – well, both my ex wives were heebs, a lot of my friends are, and there is a Jewish cultural magazine published in NYC by that very name.
You should hear what my gay/lesbian/transgendered friends use in terminology. You’d be shocked, no doubt.
What you will never hear me say though:”All gays are great interior decorators” or “all jews are wealthy”.
Because I do not stereotype.
If you still have difficulties with my use of semantics, please post precise questions, and I’d feel honoured to answer them to the best of my abilities.
If you could extend this kindness back to me by refraining to imply meaning into my comments that frankly is unsupported by common definition of the English language, that would be very nice.
And thank you, Liberal Japinicus for your great, in depth research.
One more thing to add: for those that are afraid that a “Martyr” could be created in David Irving – Baader/Meinhoff kinda fizzed out after Stammheim, and that is as martyr as it gets.
The same will happen to the ultra-rights. The one thing, the only thing that bullies have a problem with is somebody their own damn size actually standing up to them.
Appeasement does not work with them, not at all!
I am sure that others that have actually encountered and engaged them, like Orcinus for example, do agree.
I am not at all convinced, that most of the theories in this thread are formulated by people that actually know the subject matter and the individuals involved in the ultra-right wing sphere in any up close and personal way. Like, dude, totally not convinced at all.
On the latter I am sure that Eugene Berthold Friedrich Brecht would concurr.
Definition of “absolute construction” for anyone confused.
So “Kenyans are good distance runners” is exactly equivalent to “All Kenyans are good distance runners”? Is this supposed to be a descriptivist truth?
“is an acclaimed author under the pen name of Pierre Menard.”
Gracias, Rilkefan, pero yo no soy Borges.
“I am not at all convinced, that most of the theories in this thread are formulated by people that actually know the subject matter and the individuals involved in the ultra-right wing sphere in any up close and personal way.”
I was the one, or at least one of the ones, who brought up the potential “martyrdom” problem. I must admit that, as far as I know, I don’t know a single Nazi or even NDPer or Republikaner (the German party, not the US one) personally. I’m also not sure that I know German/Austrian culture well enough to decipher whether Irving’s being tossed in prison for what he said would make his ideas more or less attractive to the average Austrian or German, whoever he or she may be. I’d worry about it in the US though. I was hoping that someone like you or TH could give me some insight into the culture and tell me whether you thought this concern was realistic or not. (I take it that you think that it is not?)
WDT: Where do I mention Diane?
But to quote Diane: “…German Jews were wealthy and well respected in the 19th and early 20th centuries….”
I really don’t follow. Were you describing Dianne’s comment as “bigotry” or were you not? And if not, what were you describing as bigoted?
If you still have difficulties with my use of semantics, please post precise questions, and I’d feel honoured to answer them to the best of my abilities.
That’s just what I did here. And, respectfully, I’m finding your reply to those questions muddled and self-contradictory.
If you could extend this kindness back to me by refraining to imply meaning into my comments that frankly is unsupported by common definition of the English language, that would be very nice.
I’ll certainly do my best to comply. On what definition do we disagree, in your view?
Rilkefan:
“So ‘Kenyans are good distance runners’ is exactly equivalent to ‘All Kenyans are good distance runners’? Is this supposed to be a descriptivist truth?”
Exactly! Please tell that to the face of Senator Obama Barack, (D) Ill, and follow up with a demand to distance himself from comments that Harry Belafonte may or may not have made at some point or another. Just to see if you still feel so secure about your assertion.
Without a qualifier it means exactly that! All Kenyans!
And “German Jews were wealthy” remains a bad stereotype.
“Many German Jews were, in difference to medieval times, allowed to accumulate wealth and were widely treated as equal citizens”, that would not be a stereotype.
More later, gotta run..
Without a qualifier it means exactly that! All Kenyans!
No, without a quantifier it’s ambiguous on its face, so one must resort to contextual (and/or extra-contextual) clues to determine the correct interpretation. Personally I think the correct interpretation of Dianne’s original comment was pretty obvious (and obviously not what Gary feared and WDT assumed). But when conversing with strangers in a public, often-contentious forum such as this, it’s a pretty good idea always to use an explicit quantifier.
I channel James T. Kirk: People who think unmodified nouns are “ambiguous” are stupid, and ignorant of English grammar, and are not apt to find work as copyeditors.
See: obviously I meant “some people.” Not you, dear reader. Nothing to be offended by in the above sentence, because it refers only to “some people.” Some say.
Or not. Take your pick.
Except that the correct answer is unambiguous and non-subjective; it’s helpful to understand the structure of noun phrases; when a noun phrase has no determiner, premodifier, or postmodier, it stands on its own, and encompasses everything in its class; a statement about “people” is not, in fact, a statement about “some people.”
All of these are true and comprehensible statements, yet none of them implies an absolute. All civilians weren’t killed in the firebombing of Tokyo, only some. All Hondas are not reliable, but on average they are quite good cars. Dianne’s assertion was ambiguous at worst.
Gromit, obviously yours is larger and you can spray further.
So, what is your point anyway?
Seemingly you are extremely effective around your belly, but what exactly is the purpose of your exercise and what is the target of your agenda?
There is clearly some obstacles you grudge about with the English language, and you repeatedly affirmed that you are unconcerned about whatever beaver gets stuck in your combine-harvester of righteousness.
So, again: what exactly is your point?
To abolish English and replace it with Gromitish?
To wank your non-sensicle arguments against the near-likeminded because you lack the bollocks to confront the real enemy?
You make me feel lost.
Please, enlighten me!
Here is a very clear question, and I need an answer, because I really don’t know if I am here dealing with a drunk and incoherent, but well meaning individual, or with a vicious troll.
Would you, or would you not say “Kenyans are good distance runners” in Senator Obama Baracks face on a public cocktail party with you prime object of sexual desire present?
Well, would you?
Yes or no – that simple, Gromit, would you say that, or not, and remember that posting on the net is public for all eternity!
What’s it gonna be?
If you, Gromit, see a logical jump in the steps posted above, by all means explain yourself.
As a matter of fact, no matter what kinda person you’ll turn out to be after thorough investigation, you are quite certainly not a major player in all the evil that assuredly goes around these days.
It’d be nice though, were you coming on board with the team that fights evil. Please, join!
Diane,
indeed, in a cost-benefit ratio in Austria, i’d say to lock David Irving up for a ver, very long time!
He ain’t no Hitler writing “Mein Kampf” in jail!
If Baader Meinhoff could not rock the boat in Stammheim, this 3rd rate nitwit won’t either.
Bullies hate only one thing: somebody standing up to them!
Nothing that the pseudo-neo-nazis laugh more about, than the (perceived) weak and spineless “democrats”, unable to stand up for their own most basic fundaments!
Enough of Vichy Democrats!
No more belly button viewing and innate haggling with near-likeminded!
No, them right-wingers don’t need a ‘ralleying point’ – they have rallied already! If it has not affected your household already, you are not paying attention!
With all due respect I say that, Diane, because I do admire the discourse with you.
Thank you for that.
I’m not sure if I’m pouring water or gas on this, but I would observe that making this hinge on interpretations of noun phrases is really problematic from both sides, especially given that the interpretation of bare nouns is something that is not settled in the linguistic literature. Sentences like
Whales are mammals.
Cigarettes cause cancer.
Visitors need to register at the front office.
are absolute, suggesting that it is context that produces the interpretation. As such, perhaps both sides are pushing a bit too hard to argue that their interpretation is the only one possible. Just my two pfenning.
WDT: There is clearly some obstacles you grudge about with the English language, and you repeatedly affirmed that you are unconcerned about whatever beaver gets stuck in your combine-harvester of righteousness.
Is this some kind of performance art? I don’t know of a way to say this without sounding rude, but should you really be lecturing anyone about the proper use of the English language? At the very least Gary for the most part holds himself to the ridiculously high standards he demands of others.
Would you, or would you not say “Kenyans are good distance runners” in Senator Obama Baracks face on a public cocktail party with you prime object of sexual desire present?
Well, would you?
Yes or no – that simple, Gromit, would you say that, or not, and remember that posting on the net is public for all eternity!
What’s it gonna be?
I notice you still haven’t answered my simple questions. I wouldn’t even mention this, except you expressed a willingness to answer simple, direct queries.
I will answer your question, though. I probably wouldn’t offer Senator Obama my opinion of the athletic prowess of Kenyans for a number of reasons, not least of which being that I know and care nothing about the subject, and to do so would be to squander a rare opportunity. However, a bit of googling shows me that Kenyans have won every olympic steeplechase except those they have boycotted since 1964.
Oops, does the sentence I just wrote imply that all Kenyans have won olympic medals?
liberal japonicus: As such, perhaps both sides are pushing a bit too hard to argue that their interpretation is the only one possible.
I don’t mean to argue that my interpretation of Dianne’s comment is the only one possible. I’m trying to say that Gary’s interpretation is not the only one possible, and that context would tend to support my interpretation. And you are right, context is key, but note that interpretation of the three sentences you offer rely to some extent on assumed prior knowledge of the subjects.
So “Whales are mammals” is absolute so long as the reader has some notion that “whale” would necessarily be wholly encompassed by the class “mammal”. On the other hand, “cigarettes cause cancer” would most truthfully refer to statistical tendencies, since smoking one cigarette won’t necessarily cause cancer. Absent knowledge of the way carcinogens work, I’d call this ambiguous. Given the prerequisite knowledge, it is quite clear, though still not, strictly speaking, an absolute (is that a redundancy?).
I hope that makes sense.
would most truthfully refer to statistical tendencies, since smoking one cigarette won’t necessarily cause cancer
The subject of statistical tendencies is one that has appeared at various times here, but it’s one of those things that keeps popping up and derailing discussions, especially given the dynamics of internet discussions. If you knew I were a Redskin fan and heard me say ‘Cowboy fans are losers’, it would be really hard for me to try and wiggle out of it by saying that I didn’t mean all Cowboy fans and if I say cigarettes cause cancer as a reason not to smoke, it would not be a argument against it to smoke one cigarette and claim that because you didn’t get cancer after a certain length of time, the claim is false.
Again, the urge is to try and checkmate your opponent by creating a situation where you can lay into them, which views these discussions like a chess game. I’ve seen far to many boards crash and burn because people who would probably agree 90% of the time (if not more), get obessed with ‘winning’. Again, perhaps I should just ignore this, but that is what all this appears to me. To paraphrase Victor Hugo, there are no absolutes, including this one. :^)
liberal japonicus: …it would not be a argument against it to smoke one cigarette and claim that because you didn’t get cancer after a certain length of time, the claim is false.
That’s why the statement is not an absolute in the sense that Gary and WDT are suggesting it must necessarily be. This is not to say that the statement is false only that the absolute interpretation that “every cigarette will cause cancer” is false. This is comparable to concluding that Dianne’s original phrasing must necessarily mean that Gary’s German Jewish ancestors were wealthy and well-respected when she could have easily have been talking about averages or comparative measures (as it turns out she was).
Again, the urge is to try and checkmate your opponent by creating a situation where you can lay into them, which views these discussions like a chess game. I’ve seen far to many boards crash and burn because people who would probably agree 90% of the time (if not more), get obessed with ‘winning’.
I understand and appreciate your concern, and will try to keep it in mind going forward.
erm, anybody here ever heard of “speech act theory”?
LJ: Looks like it was water you poured onto the discussion.
At risk of adding oil again, I wanted to bring up the Amerind genocides again. First, thanks for the references. I’ll look them up as soon as is practical for me. I agree that there is a lot of good research going on in academia that belies the “manifest destiny, great and glorious history of the (white) Americans” myth. However, there’s still a lot more acceptance of some very nasty behavior in the country’s history than I’d like. I think it’s time to take Amherst’s name off of the town and university currently named after him. There are no towns in Germany named after Hitler or even Hindenberg. Why do we continue to honor one of the early practitioners of bioterrorism? It’s also time to get Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill. Replace him with Jesse Jackson. Or Martin Luther King. Or George Bush, for all I care, but get rid of him. Rename a few sports teams. Sorry, but the Washington Redskins really doesn’t sound any better than the Munchen Jews to me. And along with the symbolic gestures, perhaps we could do a little towards abating the poverty of the surviving Amerind? Yes, Gary, I know that there are rich individuals and even rich tribes, but they are the exception. The majority of Amerind are impoverished, which (along with hundreds of years of oppression) has resulted in major social, psychological, and physical problems. I respect the fact that Germany acknowledges and has apologized both symbolically and practically for the Holocaust. Yes, I realize that they did that because they were forced to when they lost, but they followed through even when the coercion lessened. It’s past time for the US to acknowledge and apologize for its past crimes.
I refrain from fanning any more flames.
Thank you, Dianne, thank you Liberal Japonicus, and thank you Gary Faber.
“…thank you Gary Faber.”
You’re welcome. But since you keep repeating this, please note that my name is “Farber,” not “Faber.” Thanks.
“Sorry, but the Washington Redskins really doesn’t sound any better than the Munchen Jews to me.”
Me, neither, as it happens.
If anyone would like to read about Lord Jeffrey Amherst and his notions towards Indians, try here.
“It’s also time to get Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill. Replace him with Jesse Jackson.”
I have a great and abiding despisal for Andrew Jackson, as I’ve written many times, including here. Here is a typical view of Jackson from me.
However, the second sentence of yours I quote is astoundingly politically tone-deaf. Yes, I know what you followed it with; I’m just saying. Even King is unlikely to get on a bill, given that he has a national holiday now. I’d suggest sticking to either another President or another Founding Father as a suggestion for a replacement (you could try Abigail Adams for a Mother, but I think that would be not be clear-cut sailing, either; John Adams, maybe, but then we immediately run into his Great Stain, the Alien and Sedition Acts). Now, if you want to be a bit radical, there’s Tom Paine….
I suggested Jesse Jackson just for the conservation of Jackson effect. I don’t think he much deserves it. Michael or Janet Jackson would be just as good as far as I’m concerned. King I think might have a shot and really be a reasonable choice, he makes at least as much sense as Sacajawea (spelling?) on the dollar coin. Abigail Adams, eh, what did she do? She was the wife of one president and the mother of another, but did she, personally, do all that much historically? I kind of like the idea of Paine on a bill, for the puns if no other reason.
How about James K. Polk as the new face on the $20 bill? He was a Democrat (so there won’t be any complaints about grabbiness on the part of Republicans), and was probably the best of the one-term Presidents (having voluntarily chosen not to run again, and who added more territory to the United States than any other President). Of course, the very mention of his name tends to cause foaming at the mouth among those who quiver in well-conditioned outrage at the mention of “manifest destiny”, but that’s just a bonus. ]:-)
I’d much prefer Teddy Roosevelt to Polk. Is TR on some larger denomination I’ve never seen?
But I think it’s silly to have to limit oneself to founders and presidents. The Sacajawea dollar annoys me because we have no idea what she looked like, but in general, looking to more sources’d be a good thing.
Sorry, Garry, Farber it is indeed.
Well noted, won’t happen again 🙂
“But I think it’s silly to have to limit oneself to founders and presidents. The Sacajawea dollar annoys me because we have no idea what she looked like, but in general, looking to more sources’d be a good thing.”
In that case, I’d like Bill Murray, please.
If we want gender balance, would it be too sectarian to nominate Dorothy Day? How about Emma Goldman? No political controversy there.
“I’d much prefer Teddy Roosevelt to Polk.”
TR is one of my great fascinations, by the way, and there’s certainly a vast amount to admire about him. But if we want to move away from racist believers in manifest destiny and militarism, it’s possible he might not quite be the ideal choice, shall we say.
I’d much prefer Teddy Roosevelt to Polk. Is TR on some larger denomination I’ve never seen?
For the record:
Washington– $1
Jefferson– $2
Lincoln– $5
Hamilton– $10
Jackson– $20
Grant– $50
Franklin– $100
McKinley– $500
Cleveland– $1,000
Madison– $5,000
Salmon P. Chase– $10,000
Wilson– $100,000
The $100,000 bill was never in general circulation, and none of the bills over $100 are being printed any more, though some remain in circulation.
Of course, you can obtain one-million-dollar bills from the right source.
The million dollar bill thing is actually rather close to home. It happened in my prefecture. As mitigating factors, I would suggest that these are elderly living in the countryside. The scammer was a 54 year old building materials company owner, an industry that has been really slammed due to the bubble. Unfortunately, money deposited in regular accounts here in Japan has a miniscule interest rate (at least twice, the central bank has a 0% interest rate). Also, Kumamoto, the prefecture I live in, has over 25% elderly (over 65) and a lot of those people have amassed considerable savings (thrift is or was a strong Japanese trait) and are now quite confused about what to do. I know that there is no mocking in Gary’s link, but anyone who reads it should be aware of the social and economic conditions behind it.
“I know that there is no mocking in Gary’s link, but anyone who reads it should be aware of the social and economic conditions behind it.”
I had read a considerably more elaborate story on the con some days ago, but didn’t run across it on a quick googling when I went to find a reference link; it’s usually a shame when people are conned and it’s not a matter of their own greed, of course. Here is a slightly longer version, though still not the one I originally saw.
On the subject of free speech, I don’t know what to make of this:
The story also shows up on WorldNetDaily, there attributed to “reports in the Islamic press and elsewhere”, and it’s a week old, yet this is the first I’ve seen of it. Did I somehow miss it?
Anyway, it looks bogus to me. The quotes themselves appear all over the place, but the bit about convicting the publishers is suspiciously absent in a lot of places where that would be the focus of the story. What gives?
“On the subject of free speech, I don’t know what to make of this:”
First off, that link is either broken, or maybe it’s just not in service at this minute. Second of all, if you’re not familiar with the “Daily Times” of Pakistan, why would you give whatever they say a moment’s thought? Do you think every paper around the world is a reliable reporter of fact? Or, rather, that there aren’t tens of thousands of papers around the world that don’t constantly make sh*t up? If not, why even ask?
Oh, and I’d say “don’t even mention ‘WorldNetDaily,’ except that I haven’t had a good laugh yet this evening.
The links seem to work for me. Not sure what the problem is.
I wouldn’t even have mentioned the story, except that the current right-wing talking point is that Clinton is busy trying to surrender our right of free speech to the Muslim horde. I thought I had a handle on Clinton’s public comments on the cartoon ruckus, but when I did a quick search (Clinton Pakistan cartoon) this bizarre story came up as the top hit. I realize WND isn’t credible by any stretch, but, if I understand Google’s sorting algorithm, this means a lot of folks are linking to this story (or that it’s been Google-bombed). Yet I haven’t heard anything about it in the week or so it’s been out there, even on sites frequented by on-message righties.
Am I to take it you hadn’t seen it either, Gary?
Gary, the Japanese papers didn’t have much detail, but they are local and may not want to go into too much detail. (The major Japanese newspapers have regional editions) If you do come across the more detailed version, could you give me a shout? Thx
“The links seem to work for me.”
Links? I only addressed one. The Worldnetdaily one works fine (sadly).
The other: “Firefox can’t find the server at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk.”
But that’s okay, I’m sure they’re making sh*t up; I don’t need to see it to know that Bill Clinton wasn’t calling for “countries concerned to convict the publishers.” I flat don’t believe it.
“Am I to take it you hadn’t seen it either, Gary?”
I’m not sure I can honestly say; I mentally filter out endless nutbar stories and forget about them, unless there’s a hue and cry about them. In this case, well, all I can say is that anyone who takes WorldnetDaily seriously is an idiot or a confirmed blind ideologue. Which is to say that Malkin and her fans are probably posting even now.
Technorati shows only 14 links to the WND link. Nobody I’ve ever heard of.
The Pakistani version gets this:
Technorati does tend to take a few hours to pick up links, and is somewhat flakey, in my experience, besides, but given that the links have been around for days, no, hardly anyone seems to be paying any attention to it.
Mind, the first four blogs (as sorted by “authority”) that do link to the WND story are blogrolled by a couple of hundred or a few hundred blogs. But this just shows what we already know: there are a lot of nutbar blogs out there (and, yeah, we can find endless examples on all “sides”). And those links are all six days old. So the story hasn’t had any legs, which we already pretty much knew from lack of seeing anyone we’ve heard of pick it up.
I find it unlikely in the extreme that Clinton would urge prosecution of the publishers of the cartoons under any circumstances. He might pander to a particular audience by accusing the publishers of having inappropriate motives, including outright religious bigotry, but if he advocated that European nations throw people in jail for exercising free speech, Hillary would have his guts for garters for giving their political enemies such a nice big club to batter them with.
Mind you, he’s capable of all kinds of behavior I consider despicable–but this particular scenario isn’t plausible.
Well this google search seems to get at what Gromit is pointing to (works in preview for me)
I would like to see the entire transcript (including the framing question and the guest list) before I jump in. I’m sure that won’t stop some folks, but just saying.
Central Europe takes the whole Nazi episode very seriously. A political party in Germany that starts using certain rhetoric can be disbanded and its leaders imprisoned. The attitude is one of “Free speach is free speach, but we are NEVER going back there”. That said, while I appreciate his free speach rights and don’t think he should be in prison, I have a REAL hard time getting worked up about this guy and have less than no desire to make his case for him. Guess that’s why organizations like the ACLU are necessary.
“Well this google search seems to get at what Gromit is pointing to (works in preview for me)”
Hmm? Gromit isn’t talking about Clinton condemning the cartoons — there’s no controversy about that, everyone knows that happened. Gromit was asking about the version that claimed that Bill Clinton “urged countries concerned to convict the publishers.”
Which your basic search doesn’t “get to” at all.
All Clinton did was say the same thing as the Bush Administration. (Ditto Chirac.) None has called for arresting or convicting the cartoonists, of course.
Actually, Gary, from reading your post, I got the impression that all that was in question was Clinton urging EU countries to convict, and I was trying to figure out where the locus of the story was formed. Since you said that you hadn’t heard of it or had mentally filtered it out, I just thought that the google search might tickle commentators’ memories. I’m also scratching my head at why “get to” is in quotation marks, given that I didn’t say that. What phrasal verb would you recommend to say ‘I think this is the story that Gromit is talking about’?
Maybe it’s just that “Pakistan” tripped me up in my Google search? The reason I included it is that one of the diarists who is going apesh*t over the cartoon issue at tacitus.org mentioned Clinton’s visit to Pakistan specifically, but neglected to actually link to the story.
And I would think that if Malkin was linking this story (I don’t have the stomach to actually try to find out) it would be all over the place.
Everything I’m seeing in the links seems to be derived on some level from that one article with no direct quotes from the Pakistani paper, and which does not mention “conviction” again after the opening summary paragraph. I’m going to assume that the writer intentionally or unintentionally misconstrued what Bubba said. Now, if the allegation was that he had gratuitously apologized for the Crusades on behalf of all Christendom, I’d believe it without needing much in the way of backup–unapologetic repeat offenders don’t deserve much in the way of benefit of the doubt, after all.
“I’m also scratching my head at why ‘get to’ is in quotation marks, given that I didn’t say that.”
Typo for “get at.”
Gromit: “And I would think that if Malkin was linking this story (I don’t have the stomach to actually try to find out)”
Well, she isn’t, as I noted with my mention of what Technorati says. If a similar question arises in future, checking Technorati is the obvious first place to look, I would think.
OK, but why put “get at” in quotation marks? I’m not sure why you chose to put that in quotation marks. Could you explain?
Via Sullivan, here’s the transcript of Clinton’s remarks. No calls to convict that I could spot.
“OK, but why put ‘get at’ in quotation marks? I’m not sure why you chose to put that in quotation marks. Could you explain?
Sure. Because I was quoting you, and it’s what you said. When quoting someone, one uses quote marks. What else?
kenB, thanks, that answers my question. That’s what I get for not reading Andrew Sullivan, I suppose.
Sorry, I guess cause it’s a slow day, I’m wondering about this. Why ‘get at’? Did you have a different meaning than what you think I had in mind? I’m assuming that you are not randomly quoting two word segments of what I write, so I hate to repeat, but I’m baffled by this. I think that you’ve read me enough here to know that I try to be a good linker and since the story was out of left field for me, I thought it would be helpful to put a link to a search. Perhaps I should have asked Gromit for a rundown of the kerfluffle, but I was addressing what he said and how I really wanted to see a transcript. Thanks.
btw, (and this is not directed at you, Gary, but just an unrelated addenda to this comment) we haven’t heard from Slart lately. Everything ok?
And I see that I skipped over kenb’s link to the transcript. Thanks for that.
“Sorry, I guess cause it’s a slow day, I’m wondering about this. Why ‘get at’?”
I thought “Because I was quoting you, and it’s what you said” was pretty clear. Was there some part that was not?
Why do people always try to read something additional into things? If there was something more, I’d say so, you know.
I’ll try to explain very slowly. I was replying to you. Therefore I quoted what you said. Therefore I put what you said in quote marks.
That’s all. Why would there be more to it? That’s all there is to it. Period. End of story. Nothing. More. To. It.
I wouldn’t reply to you without quoting you. I wouldn’t paraphrase to no point when I can quote the relevant two words. To quote something, one puts it in between quotation marks. The end. -30- I can’t think of another way to put this that isn’t simple repetition. I don’t understand what the puzzle is.
I can’t think of another way to put this that isn’t simple repetition. I don’t understand what the puzzle is.
Well, I appreciate the time you took to type this, but I wasn’t addressing you in my comment (I agree that one should quote someone just to keep things straight), so you seem to think that ‘get at’ (or ‘get to’) (and again, I really don’t understand what that is) is a key phrase. You obviously thought that I was addressing you, so I assume that you must have thought that ‘get at’ had some meaning, and I am telling you that I am unaware of even addressing you, so I can’t understand the point. Again, sorry to be so obtuse about that, and I apologize if you feel that I am reading something additional into what you said, but I’m wondering if you think that ‘get to/at’ has something there that I don’t see.
“…so you seem to think that ‘get at’ (or ‘get to’) (and again, I really don’t understand what that is) is a key phrase. You obviously thought that I was addressing you….”
No. I don’t. I don’t think you were addressing me. I didn’t say I thought you were addressing me. I didn’t indicate I thought you were addressing me. I didn’t hint that I thought you were addressing me. I have no idea why you think I thought you were addressing me. I have no idea why you think that something that isn’t true is obvious.
Please. Stop. Trying. To. Read. My. Mind.
You suck at it.
“Get at” is. Not. A. Key. Phrase.
It. Doesn’t. Mean. To. Me. Anything. More. Than. That. It’s. What. You. Wrote.
Why. I. Wouldn’t. Specifically. Quote. You. I. Don’t. Know.
Why. You. Insist. There. Must. Be. A. Hidden. Meaning. I. Can’t. Imagine.
You wrote: “Well this google search seems to get at what Gromit is pointing to (works in preview for me)”
Sic, punctuation just as. I quoted you because I was replying to. Because. I. Was. Replying. To. You. If I can quote, why would I paraphrase? If I changed the wording of the above, I might distort the meaning; any changing of wording risks changes the meaning at least slightly. So rather than paraphrase, I quote. Quoting preserves your words. Quoting eliminates the risk that I would be mind-reading, and mis-stating what you meant. I wouldn’t want to rewrite you to no point.
Gee. I. Wonder. Why. Anyone. Would. Want. To. Avoid. That.
Why on earth would I want to rewrite you, when I can just quote you?
I swear I’m an effing alien on this planet, and I have no effing idea how other people communicate, when a linguist can’t understand why someone would quote what he said in replying to him, simply because it’s the writer’s SOP to not engage in rewriting someone else to no end or point. Jeebus. Effing. Expletivus.
I “seem to mean” what I wrote. I wrote what I meant. I meant what I wrote. NOTHING MORE.
I’m really not going to say this for another hundred times. I swear, next time you refuse to believe that I meant what I said at 11:42 p.m. last night — “Because I was quoting you, and it’s what you said.” — I’m going to confess that what I really meant was that giant lizards created you as their demon child, and you are actually a large banana, and that’s why I wrote the incredibly hard to understand and believe explanation that “When quoting someone, one uses quote marks,” because obviously I couldn’t mean just that, obviously I must be lying, and concealing a Deeper Meaning.
And then I wouldn’t have to write endless messages repeating “no; I put it in quote marks because I was quoting you; I was quoting you because I was replying to you; when replying to someone, one quotes them rather than reword them to change their meaning.”
Of course, I chose “banana” because it’s the Secret Symbol of my Banana Cult, as given unto my people by the Giant Lizards, who are responsible for Hidden Meanings behind all my words. Happy?
I’m so glad I avoided a misunderstanding by not rewriting you. Why, I might have had to spend a lot of time on about as simple an exchange as one can have. I might have to exchange multiple messages to make sure we understood each other.
I am a goddamn alien.
I am a goddamn alien
Vulcan or Klingon? Still trying to figure that part out 🙂
“I am a goddamn alien.”
If there were a Hating on Gary Farber site, the first order of business would be to take up a collection to send Gary back to his home planet.
(I kid, of course)
I think I’ve said this in other ways on more than one occasion, and to date it hasn’t worked. I’d advise you to give it up, if I were in the business of offering unsolicited advise. And if I were, I’d also advise you to lose the one-word sentences. Best used in moderation, those.