Merci : pas besoin de plombier en ce moment.

You seem to have lost your voice? Don’t worry you will get well soon in fact as soon as you are talking to people who agree with you. It is sad that a seemingly intelligent and educated person is taking refuge in such a childish way.

Ooops sorry, Sittingbull, couldn’t help it. Won’t happen again.

« I repeat: I am in favour of freedom of speech; and Mr. Faurisson’s views are repugnant; AND they should not be forbidden; AND it is not the same to tell blatant lies in order to fuel antisemitism as making fun of Mohammed. »

Let us be clear about what you are saying here.

You believe that although the professor’s views are repugnant you still accept his right to freedom of speech.

You also believe that Danish cartoons are OK. You are not ready to condemn the cartoons and the vilification of Islam and its prophet by the pope as even repugnant.

The above shows that you believe in absolute freedom of speech.

You condemn attack on the professor by individuals but it appears that you have nothing to say about the punishment given to him by the courts of law.

Am I right?

“I would like to raise another issue. While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legislated, we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies, with the intention of fueling anti-semitism.”

Here you are against the legislation of truth and falseness but then you accept the “benefit” from the legislation of truth and falseness!

Here you are for and against freedom of speech!

Sheikh, if you are unable to understand plain English sentences, please tell us so we don’t waste our time.

I repeat: I am in favour of freedom of speech; and Mr. Faurisson’s views are repugnant; AND they should not be forbidden; AND it is not the same to tell blatant lies in order to fuel antisemitism as making fun of Mohammed.

1) these views are false and repugnant

2) lies and repugnant views are not and should not be forbidden.

No contradiction whatsoever. Comprende?

I have read some of Faurisson’s arguments some of which I found ridiculous. I don’t mean to promote what he or any other person says about the Holocaust. My purpose for this discussion’s sake is not to go into what someone says and whether he is telling the truth or not but to put you people to test on your claim and belief in freedom of speech. What I am trying to argue with you people is that you cannot eat your cake and still have it. Either you are for restrictions on freedom of speech or not. Personally I am for restrictions.

The thing to consider is whether it is true or not

“It is not. It’s a deliberate, disgusting lie.”

“Concerning the main point, you are trying to equate Muhammad’s drawings and revisionism. I am for total freedom of speech.”

“Again, I am against these laws. But lying to demean Jews and spread antisemitism is not the same thing as drawing Muhammad.”

“I would like to raise another issue. While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legislated, we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies, with the intention of fueling anti-semitism.”

You cannot be against a law and in favour of it also. What you are saying is that if someone’s view are pleasant and according to your or a group of people’s taste or likes to which you belong or whom you favour then they fall within the realm of free speech otherwise everything else is outside the realm of free speech.

“While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legalised….. we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies,”

Crystal clear contradiction. What is the difference between falsness and spreading of lies?

Cataloun:
23 oct 06 à 15:51

It is sad that you are again resorting to personal and childish attacks.

“Mr. Seikh seems confused, as we have often seen here and elsewhere. Being for free speech does not mean we have to respect all manners of speech, especially the vile, repugnant venom spread by the likes of Faurisson and Irving.”

What is your view about the Pope’s recent venom spreading address at a German university?

1. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
By providing a link to a known Holocaust-denying site, M S Sheikh is wittingly, or unwittingly putting this blog under a possible danger of criminal charge in many states.
I personnally have no time to waste arguing with an however well-meaning indivudual, but still ignorant of the contradiction between giving any credit whatsoever to a site founded by a notorious racist, and associate of several Nazi-apologists, Right-wing nuts, Ku Klux Klan members, on the one hand , and on the other hand pretending to show known humanitarian
issues of the past in a favourable perspective. Unless the said gentleman, through further research possibly, has acknowledged the mistake of confusing free speech with hate speech, free thought with free lunch,
I’ll stop bothering him with my nitpicking.

The purpose of providing the link with a bloody picture was to show you the price someone had to pay when he exercised the freedom of speech we are discussing and nothing else. Although I have the dubious luck of living in a country where the variety of freedom of speech is absolute, I would not use any material for grotesque purposes knowingly.

On the other hand, as you rightly say, choosing these persons to make a point does say an awful lot about someone; especially if you call the Nazis free-thinkers (see below).

I would like to raise another issue. While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legislated, we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies, with the intention of fueling anti-semitism.

It is as repulsive as free speech gets, short of promoting murder.