It seems to me like it does exist, it does not mean that there are no consequences for saying whatever you like.

 

A question I need to ask is, should it exist?

 

It seems at first that yes it should, that seems the obvious answer, but to me, just thinking about it, I'm not convinced.

 

A true form of freedom of speech across the world would mean that racism could exist, sexism too. At football games, racist chants could be yelled throughout a match, same thing with people on the street.

 

If Freedom of Speech was actually enforced, people would be free to be racist and insult people on the street without punishment.

 

So I say, hell no should it exist, everyone needs to be moderated.

 

 

--------------

Check out the following article;

 

Denying the holocaust?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.

 

He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.

 

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court in the Austrian capital.

 

Irving appeared stunned by the sentence, and told reporters: "I'm very shocked and I'm going to appeal."

 

An unidentified onlooker told him: "Stay strong!"

 

Irving's lawyer said he considered the verdict "a little too stringent".

 

"I would say it's a bit of a message trial," said Elmar Kresbach.

 

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust welcomed the verdict. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website.

 

But the author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.

 

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.

 

Fears that the court case would provoke right-wing demonstrations and counter-protests did not materialise, the BBC's Ben Brown at the court in Vienna said.

 

Irving, 67, arrived in the court room handcuffed, wearing a blue suit, and carrying a copy of Hitler's War, one of many books he has written on the Nazis, and which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

 

Irving was arrested in Austria in November, on a warrant dating back to 1989, when he gave a speech and interview denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

 

He was stopped by police on a motorway in southern Austria, where he was visiting to give a lecture to a far-right student fraternity. He has been held in custody since then.

 

'I've changed'

 

During the one-day trial, he was questioned by the prosecutor and chief judge, and answered questions in fluent German.

 

He admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. He said this is what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.

 

"I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court.

 

"The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."

 

In the past, he had claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little, if anything, about the Holocaust, and that the gas chambers were a hoax.

 

The judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist".

 

On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.

 

"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."

 

Asked how many Jews were killed by Nazis, he replied: "I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."

 

Of his guilty plea, he told reporters: "I have no choice."

 

He said it was "ridiculous" that he was being tried for expressing an opinion.

 

"Of course it's a question of freedom of speech... I think within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book," he said.

 

COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL

Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

France

Germany

Israel

Lithuania

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Switzerland

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

------------

Im in no way defending the guys words, but it seems insane that you can get arrested for speaking.

I think actually it SHOULD exist......and every coountry PRETENDS it exists.....but very often it just doesn't...

I think counries act a step further.....they already deal with speech like with acting----

he was arrested for "spreading of Nazism" i think

 

it's not a question of freedom of speech in this way

well, my dog yells cuss words at every person and big truck that walks by. I guess it exists in our neighborhood

freedom of speech will never exsist because their will always be someone that wont agree to the statement. Often those in higher power will crush any statement they dont like by belittling and degrading the context of the statement or by attacking the credability of the person that made it.

he was arrested for "spreading of Nazism" i think

 

it's not a question of freedom of speech in this way

 

Should people have the freedom to be racist, or sexist?

 

Should we even have freedom of speech? True forms of it?

 

I'm editing the topic post, read it in 5 minutes, I wanna approach different issues I originally intended to.

Should people have the freedom to be racist, or sexist?

 

Should we even have freedom of speech? True forms of it?

 

I'm editing the topic post, read it in 5 minutes, I wanna approach different issues I originally intended to.

yea, some things which are clearly wrong like... racism should never be allowed........... it's just plain stupid some things are OBVIOUSLY wrong like that and I don't think they should be legal (like a KKK protest)

I think actually it SHOULD exist.....

 

Following my editing to the original topic post and my post since, do you really still think it should exist?

 

I dont think everyone understands the power of the ideal, Freedom of Speech, or its consequences.

yea' date=' some things which are clearly wrong like... racism should never be allowed........... it's just plain stupid some things are OBVIOUSLY wrong like that and I don't think they should be legal (like a KKK protest)[/quote']

 

This is a problem somehow....

 

I mean there are still racist parties.....and the government is not allowed to forbid them....so you can't forbid racism!

"Does Freedom of Speech Exist? "

 

NO IT DOESN'T.

 

SAY ANOTHER WORD ABOUT IT AND I PUT A BULLET IN YOUR BRAIN. :freak:

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:laugh3:

 

bad joke... bad joke...

Following my editing to the original topic post and my post since, do you really still think it should exist?

 

I dont think everyone understands the power of the ideal, Freedom of Speech, or its consequences.

 

 

I'll answer this later.....

I'm too tired to read those small letters:nice:

it's only a myth IMO, it doesn't really exist. they will always find something to blame you and ,back to thread, = to arrest you.

I'll answer this later.....

I'm too tired to read those small letters:nice:

 

Actually Im not talking about the article, but what I wrote about whether or not it should actually exist.

Giving people freedom of speech can be a bad thing aswell as good. Everything has to be put into a context, a level of what is aloud, which leads to who makes these levels and who controls them which prove speech will never be free.

 

Hitler believed that there should be one race, one type of person, one voice! But where would the world have been today if Britian and America had aloud this 'speech'/movement to continue?? I bet in a bad way.

if we look back to the history...did the freedom of speech exist?

 

no, it didn't (some exceptions maybe). only if you have power, money, good connections you can talk about whatever.

 

Hitler had, this guy didn't...

Nik I'm thinking in a hypothetical sense, I also do it when thinking of an ultimate true form of Democracy, both true forms of Freedom of Speech and Democracy cant possibly exist, but its interesting as many people want these things to exist, should we actually be protesting for them?

 

I definately dont think so, not for Speech anyway.

yeees, democracy...

 

of course everybody wants democracy, but i don;t think that democracy, that some countries have now, is better than the regime what they had before.

 

example: russia and ussr

 

ussr had comunism and many people were against it and when they made a revolotion in '91 everybody was happy. and are they happy now? not everybody. living in Russia is terrible for average people. prices are high if we compare them to the standards that people can afford themselves, they grow witn years but the salaries don't really. russian people are blind, they don't really see the problems that they face. they believe they have democracy, but they don't. they pay really high taxes when RICH peeps pay really small taxes or don't even pay anything. look: Mikhail Khodorkovskiy who was the owner of Yukos and was the richest russian. he protested against Putin and the government. what did Putin do? he quickly found that M.Khodorkvskiy didn;t pay taxes and put him for 9(!!!!) years to the jail. the question is : Khodorkovskiy is the onliest who didn't pay taxes? NO IMO. the rest of milliarders are just good friends of today's government. that really pisses me off. btw it's only my theory, but i really think it is true. if i'd be 18 and i would say it in Russia, tomorrow i'd be dead maybe...sure i'd be...or in jail ;)

 

P.S i think democracy is the biggest lie that ever existed. it's only a myth as well...me thinks that.

I had something to write for that, now I've lost it. Deng.

 

Something about how democracy is a terrible idea anyway, wouldnt you rather a few percent of the population making everything run correctly, as opposed to 100% of the population trying to assume control in their own little ways? (Not politics, but everything, businesses, jobs, education, everyones trying to get ahead, there's no control)

time to bump this thread...

 

the biggest problem in the democracy (wherever would or wouldn't it be: politics, business, education etc ) that there's and there will be a big boss who has more power than the rest and the last word is this boss' . we can't handle this situation, no life without sacrifices

freedom of speech shouldn't exist in it's purest form. not that it will happen anyway. everything needs to come in moderation. too much freedom leads to radicalism and i'd hate to imagine a society where red necks, sexists, and plain idiots reigned supreme.

 

freedom of speech is a nice concept and all. but shouldn't exist extirely. then again, it should exist to a smaller degree. ideally speaking, it shouldn't be on either extreme. if people were oppressed for their views and beliefs, that's also another extreme.

 

we were discussing the whole david irving scenario in modern history the other day and it just seems a bit extreme to punish someone for their views. i think he's banned from even entering certain countries. heck i don't agree with what he's said but people still should be allowed some form of freedom in forming their own opinions and beliefs.