US judge rejects 'free speech' plea Britons

[decim]

US judge rejects 'free speech' plea from 'racist' Britons seeking asylum

Two British men who tried to seek political asylum in America after being convicted of hate speech crimes are to be deported after spending nearly a year in a California jail.


By Tom Leonard in New York
Published: 10:30PM BST 04 Jun 2009

Stephen Whittle and Simon Sheppard flew to Los Angeles in July 2008 before they could be sentenced for writing anti-Jewish articles on a website.

Hoping they would be protected by America's free speech laws, they immediately asked for asylum, claiming they had been harassed by the British government over their views.

However, the pair were taken into custody at the airport and have remained in jail in Santa Ana ever since.

Sheppard, 52, from Selby, North Yorks, told the Los Angeles Times: "We thought they'd hold us for a day or so. We couldn't see how they wouldn't grant us asylum. The things we supposedly had done in Britain aren't illegal in America.

"We came to the beacon of free speech in the Western world, which turned out to be a complete fantasy," he said.

US officials have made clear that the pair were not detained for their views but because their visa waivers became invalid as soon as they told immigration officers they intended to remain in America.

An official also admitted that the men's legal status in Britain had been a factor in their lengthy detention.

"All they had to do was get off the plane in LAX and walk off into the free world," said Bruce Leichty, their former lawyer.

On top of any punishment for skipping bail, Sheppard and Whittle, 42, of Preston, Lancs, face possible jail terms for a string of racist essays attacking Jews, blacks and Asians.

The pair, dubbed the Heretical Two by supporters in reference to the website's name, were believed to be the first British citizens to be convicted of publishing racist material online.

The pair had argued that they were protected because the articles were posted on an internet server in California, supposedly beyond the reach of British law.

In March, a US immigration judge ordered that the men be deported to Britain.

The judge said they had failed to show they had been persecuted in the past or were likely to face persecution in the future.

The order became final on May 1 after they failed to appeal by a deadline. No date has been set for their deportation.

Mr Leichty told the LA Times the case had "very wide ramifications", adding: "I don't share their views or the way they communicate their views, but I certainly don't think we should be incarcerating people for what they did."

Police first investigated them in 2004 after they were alerted to a leaflet titled Tales of the Holohoax which was delivered to a synagogue in Blackpool.

They were charged with publishing racially inflammatory material, distributing racially inflammatory material and possessing racially inflammatory material with a view to distribution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5447450/US-judge-rejects-free-speech-plea-from-racist-Britons-seeking-asylum.html

[mynameis]

Do they have within reason any employable skills? If not then there isn't a reason to host em'.

[decim]

Do they have within reason any employable skills? If not then there isn't a reason to host em'.

Thanks judge judy.

[mynameis]

Thanks judge judy.

Sounds like they didn't even apply to the State Dept. for asylum...if they got it they would conclude with my aforementioned statement unless biased. That's what equal opportunity in a free society is about, no?

[decim]

Sounds like they didn't even apply to the State Dept. for asylum...if they got it they would conclude with my aforementioned statement unless biased. That's what equal opportunity in a free society is about, no?

Sounds like?

Of course they have languished in jail twiddling their thumbs with no clue.

[mynameis]

Sounds like?

Of course they have languished in jail twiddling their thumbs with no clue.

I wonder if interpol put a warrant out that also superceeded their flight?

[decim]

I wonder if interpol put a warrant out that also superceeded their flight?

I wonder if the warrant for bush,blair & aipac got returned to sender?

[whitenight639]

I really hate racists so am tempted to say screw em, but I can't they shouldnt be in jail just for writing and distributing leaflets of any nature.

however with freedom of speech comes responsibility, I reserve the right to kick off on any of these racists in the street should they run there mouth off about my woman.

[decim]

I really hate racists so am tempted to say screw em, but I can't they shouldnt be in jail just for writing and distributing leaflets of any nature.

however with freedom of speech comes responsibility, I reserve the right to kick off on any of these racists in the street should they run there mouth off about my woman.

Rightly so, it is a perogative of all of us to take offence for ourselves or others.

Loss of liberty for words, is bad for everyone.

There a no limitations on free speech, otherwise it should be named limited speech.

[mynameis]

They wanted an out and ran from the law prior to their being an out for their safety. Very bad planning imho. Bush, Cheney, Blair, & AIPAC....they always have an out and always use plausible deniability backed with lucre and lawyers.

[decim]

They wanted an out and ran from the law prior to their being an out for their safety. Very bad planning imho. Bush, Cheney, Blair, & AIPAC....they always have an out and always use plausible deniability backed with lucre and lawyers.

Safety from speaking or writing?

The bush, blair, aipac crew have good lawyers so war crimes are ok?

So in summary if you want to have free speech make sure you have an international exit strategy, a few million, along with some crooked shyster lawyers.

[mynameis]

Safety from speaking or writing?

The bush, blair, aipac crew have good lawyers so war crimes are ok?

So in summary if you want to have free speech make sure you have an international exit strategy, a few million, along with some crooked shyster lawyers.

It's the modus operandii of the elite class. I'm sure you already know this. War crimes are backed by lucre and clout. Remember Rumsfeld ran from France when they were going to prosecute, so there are some limitations to the use of law as we know it in its current formula.

[tyler]

Questioning the facts about what happened to the jews in WW2 is not racism!

Jews are not a race. Judaism is a religion. Catholics are not a race neither are Buddhists.
Am I a racist if I accuse the wartime pope of being a Nazi collaborator?

Should I be arrested for denying the official figures for the number of dead children in the Allied bombing of Dresden?

[mynameis]

Questioning the facts about what happened to the jews in WW2 is not racism!

Jews are not a race. Judaism is a religion. Catholics are not a race neither are Buddhists.
Am I a racist if I accuse the wartime pope of being a Nazi collaborator?

Should I be arrested for denying the official figures for the number of dead children in the Allied bombing of Dresden?

Racism is only one factor of most hate speech laws that disturb groups of people with commonality among them. This is why Scientology views Anonymous as a hate group. Anonymous as long as their speech does not carry violent behavior from connected individuals is tolerable, but agent provocateurs can infiltrate. This is not to excuse violent behavior, but more an indication of how those individuals are propagandized through the machine of the media.

[decim]

It's the modus operandii of the elite class. I'm sure you already know this. War crimes are backed by lucre and clout. Remember Rumsfeld ran from France when they were going to prosecute, so there are some limitations to the use of law as we know it in its current formula.

The two in question here are British citizens.

They are not war criminals or international arms dealers.

They wrote "controversial" essays on an American server.

[mynameis]

The two in question here are British citizens.

They are not war criminals or international arms dealers.

They wrote "controversial" essays on an American server.

Yea, but they had to have done this on British soil...etc...It's like the guy from Britain who broke into the Pentagon. The choice of venue is with the originating country for selection of the arena for prosecution of violations by the State Authority in your question. The USA had to ask for permissions to extradite the man who hacked the Pentagon.

[decim]

Racism is only one factor of most hate speech laws that disturb groups of people with commonality among them. This is why Scientology views Anonymous as a hate group. Anonymous as long as their speech does not carry violent behavior from connected individuals is tolerable, but agent provocateurs can infiltrate. This is not to excuse violent behavior, but more an indication of how those individuals are propagandized through the machine of the media.

"Hate speech" is a misnomer.

Any speech could be construed as "hateful" by an particular person or group.

It is ridiculous.

There is either free speech or there isn't.
There are no "grey" areas, no interpretation, no clauses, no responsibility.

[mynameis]

"Hate speech" is a misnomer.

Any speech could be construed as "hateful" by an particular person or group.

It is ridiculous.

There is either free speech or there isn't.
There are no "grey" areas, no interpretation, no clauses, no responsibility.

If someone is going around claiming to kill or target soandso and then has followers it is the laws applied are seen as deterrent for social stability. This also has to do with the speech in question. I don't know what the essays contain, but a jury of peers or the prevailing authority thought otherwise, hence their predicament compounded by flight from justice.

[decim]

Yea, but they had to have done this on British soil...etc...It's like the guy from Britain who broke into the Pentagon. The choice of venue is with the originating country for selection of the arena for prosecution of violations by the State Authority in your question. The USA had to ask for permissions to extradite the man who hacked the Pentagon.

Cyber jurisdiction?

This is the road we are heading down.

Legal gymnastics in order to police peoples thoughts.

[mynameis]

Cyber jurisdiction?

This is the road we are heading down.

Legal gymnastics in order to police peoples thoughts.

It's just admiralty law applied to the law. No legal gymnastics required. Mostly all things are run by admiralty law unfortunately in the western style governments.

[decim]

If someone is going around claiming to kill or target soandso and then has followers it is the laws applied are seen as deterrent for social stability. This also has to do with the speech in question. I don't know what the essays contain, but a jury of peers or the prevailing authority thought otherwise, hence their predicament compounded by flight from justice.

Saying or writing something, is not criminal.

Doing something criminal that causes injury or loss is criminal.

[decim]

It's just admiralty law applied to the law. No legal gymnastics required. Mostly all things are run by admiralty law unfortunately in the western style governments.

Apropos they got what they deserved?

[mynameis]

Saying or writing something, is not criminal.

Doing something criminal that causes injury or loss is criminal.

Not if the law says otherwise in the country that is proclaimed a law. As I said before, I don't know what is contained within the essay those individuals wrote that the prosecutor, judge, & jury sentenced them. If the jury and or judge condemned their actions, then their actions are forfeit to the state. They need to suck it up like men or women. If they can appeal, then they should do so through the other evil court, the ICC of human rights.

[decim]

Not if the law says otherwise in the country that is proclaimed a law. As I said before, I don't know what is contained within the essay those individuals wrote that the prosecutor, judge, & jury sentenced them. If the jury and or judge condemned their actions, then their actions are forfeit to the state. They need to suck it up like men or women. If they can appeal, then they should do so through the other evil court, the ICC of human rights.

Are you a lawyer?

[mynameis]

Are you a lawyer?

My expertise is journalism and English...As one following the law is almost obligatory, free speech is a paramount next to how the law works. If I was afraid to go to jail to protect my sources, I wouldn't be a journalist etc...

[bradstone]

I don't know what the essays contain, but a jury of peers or the prevailing authority thought otherwise

So basically you don't know even know what they said, but a bunch of people who just enjoy throwing the book at whomever they don't like the look of, are within their right to lock somebody up for that?

[bradstone]

My expertise is journalism and English...As one following the law is almost obligatory

Can't you see the problem here is that the law is not clearly defined as to what constitutes hate speech, meaning that we don't have freedom of expression?

You've even admitted yourself that you don't even know what this pair actually wrote, and you've made up your mind that they deserve deportation.

[yozhik]

I don't "hate Jews".
I don't hate any race, nationality or religion.

I do hate some behaviour.

I hate bullshit.
I also hate deception and lack of transparency.
I hate when my rights are breached.
... and the list goes on.

I do not deny some form of atrocities occurred in WWII.
However, I also strongly assert that Jews were not the only people who were victim of wartime atrocities.

My anger with regards the whole "Holocaust Industry" is the protectionism, the abuse of legal systems to maintain a shroud of taboo and the fact that is is a thought crime to even question details of it.

That is not anti-semitic.
It is not an act of hatred for Jews; it is about promoting transparency and insisting on scientific evidence and data to substantiate serious allegations.

Everything I have read and viewed leaves me with one single understanding; the claims of the Holocaust do not stand up when examined.

Now ... I am more than happy to accept any facts about the Holocaust; if and when they can be proved, with supporting MODERN, scientific data. Until that day, I can not logically accept a story that is based on emotion, questionable diary entries, conflicting personal testimony and wild unsubstantiated accusations. Maybe they are true ... maybe. However, when it comes to accusations of genocide and the (alleged) death of 6 million people, I can't go on "maybe".

I wouldn't go on "maybe" in a court room, should I be one of the jurors.
In fact, a "maybe" is called reasonable doubt and is basis for acquittal.
So how does a maybe become a guilty verdict in this scenario?
Again, my bullshit meter starts twitching whenever I consider this oh too simple question.

Why was a commemorative plaque, which originally stated "4 million Jews died ...", upon discovery of verified documents in Russian archives, changed to "about 1.5 million people, including Jews ..."; and yet the total figure of 6 million was never revised?

Where did those missing 2.5 million people go?

If the total of 6 million was based on the initial figure of 4 million, as marketed on the plaque; then when the plaque was revised, due to verifiable evidence, to "about 1.5 million" ... then why and how did the original figure of 6 million remain as a total of 6 million?

Not only does that fly in the face of logic, it also suggests that all of the mathematics teaching I received at school was bullshit. There might be a perfectly good explanation for this numerical anomaly, which can be substantiated by verifiable evidence. I have not seen any.

The only part I have seen verifiable evidence for is the Russian documents, which dictated a revision of the figure from 4 million to "about" 1.5 million, "including Jews". The revision of the plaque is an admission by the Holocaust promoters themselves that the figure was inflated by a minimum of 2.5 million. Why minimum? because the figure of "about" 1.5 million is not 1.5 million Jews; it "includes" an unspecified number of Jews.

Do not misunderstand me, even 1.5 million people, sent to camps and tortured or summarily murdered as policy, is still 1.5 million too many.
That's not the point.
The point is; we deserve to know the truth.
Not here say. Not speculation.

The technology and the information is available.
Why are we not permitted access to the truth?
When did a desire to clarify history and establish factually accurate information (truth) become a crime?
Why can science and history not be revised to the truth?
Why is there such a ferocious system in place to protect the status quo?
When there is no logical reason, based on factual evidence, to cling on to the "old" version?

I am not anti-semitic.
I do not hate Jews.
I hate bullshit
I hate some forms of behaviour.
I hate lack of transparency and systematic deception.


Now, I have just expressed myself, as I believe I am entitled to do.
This is not "hate speech". it is a quest for truth.
However, given court rulings and other atrocities committed in the name of the Holocaust; I could probably be labelled a criminal for this post.

Does that sound reasonable and the actions of a society you would label a democracy, which honours truth, justice and liberty, protecting the rights of every man, woman and child to freedom of expression and thought?

[mynameis]

Can't you see the problem here is that the law is not clearly defined as to what constitutes hate speech, meaning that we don't have freedom of expression?

You've even admitted yourself that you don't even know what this pair actually wrote, and you've made up your mind that they deserve deportation.

Their peers passed that judgment on the two and they fled from the law without a way out. They are not citizens of the USA, so they failed to prove their ability to stay so hence, deportation and extradition. It doesn't bother me either way how the laws work as long they all work. As I said before, do they want some cheese with their whine?

[dogsmilk]

I think people are forgetting they were initially investigated after a complaint when they posted their 'satire' e.g.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x164/album8932/morestuff/hoax02b.gif

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x164/album8932/morestuff/hoax08b.gif

to a synagogue.

I mean really - these fucking dickheads (who don't like black people either, or women unless they're doing as they're told) are some kind of martyrs for free speech for that?? Great. Why don't you advocate the freedom to push 'Pakis go home' leaflets through Asian people's letterboxes while you're at it if you've got nothing better to do.

Why was a commemorative plaque, which originally stated "4 million Jews died ...", upon discovery of verified documents in Russian archives, changed to "about 1.5 million people, including Jews ..."; and yet the total figure of 6 million was never revised?

Where did those missing 2.5 million people go?

If the total of 6 million was based on the initial figure of 4 million, as marketed on the plaque; then when the plaque was revised, due to verifiable evidence, to "about 1.5 million" ... then why and how did the original figure of 6 million remain as a total of 6 million?


LOL - the canard that would just not die.

[yozhik]

LOL - the canard that would just not die.

... and the answer is???

Your reference to it being a canard (lie) is itself, a lie.
You know the plaque was altered/revised.
This is fact. How can you deny it?


Poland Agrees to Change Auschwitz Tablets

6.17.92 / New York Times

After 50 years of deflecting the requests of Jewish groups, the Polish Government has agreed to change
the wording on stone tablets at Auschwitz and Birkenau, the adjacent Nazi camps where more than one
million Jews died during World War II.

Additional tablets will be near the monument, with this inscription translated into 18 languages:
“Let this place remain for eternity as a cry of despair, and a warning to humanity. About one and half
million men, women, children and infants, mainly Jews from different countries of Europe, were murdered
here. The world was silent. Auscwhitz-Birkenau, 1940-1945.”

The new tablets will replace one with the following inscription:
“This is the place of martyrdom and death of four million victims murdered in the Nazi genocide, 1940-45.”

It was previously thought that four million died at the camps. More recent research has revealed the figure to be closer to 1.5 million.

Plaque in 1948
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2032/1948ausplaq.gif (http://img191.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1948ausplaq.gif)


Plaque in 1990
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7499/1990ausplaq.gif (http://img191.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1990ausplaq.gif)

[flyermay]

"We came to the beacon of free speech in the Western world, which turned out to be a complete fantasy," he said.

Unfortunately, the world is full of innocents.

More at: "Freedom of Speech" (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1032309#post1032309)

[dogsmilk]

... and the answer is???

In a nutshell this was a Soviet figure from a deeply flawed methodology that alluded to 'people' that generally was never taken seriously in the West. For example early major studies like Hilberg's and Reitlinger's did not say four million at Auschwitz. In fact Hilberg's was comparable to the kind of death toll generally accepted today. Reitlinger's entire death toll estimate was something like 4 and half million. Other old works estimated two million or whatever which diudn't mean everyone had to suddenly revise everything because -

You can look at death toll demographically (which doesn't tell you where people died very well) or by stuff like tracking transportation records and clocking where people suddenly vanished off the face of the earth. The latter has got easier over time as more archives have become available and is obviously far better for saying where people died.

On top of that, six million isn't some set figure, it's just the figure that gets most frequently bandied about.. In the same way two million is often cited for the Cambodian genocide but there's a bunch of different estimates kicking around.

The reason it's a canard is because it's a total non-issue the denier community have peddled when they know damn well it's a non-issue.

The ironic thing is (and you'd have to ask the boffins at RODOH for further details as I can't remember the specifics) that apparently the four million figure totally shafts denier claims of the Soviets inventing evidence because interrogation transcripts of perpetrators flatly contradict the figure being that high - something that would simply not occur if you were inventing the story.

[yozhik]

In a nutshell this was a Soviet figure from a deeply flawed methodology that alluded to 'people' that generally was never taken seriously in the West. For example early major studies like Hilberg's and Reitlinger's did not say four million at Auschwitz. In fact Hilberg's was comparable to the kind of death toll generally accepted today. Reitlinger's entire death toll estimate was something like 4 and half million. Other old works estimated two million or whatever which diudn't mean everyone had to suddenly revise everything because -

You can look at death toll demographically (which doesn't tell you where people died very well) or by stuff like tracking transportation records and clocking where people suddenly vanished off the face of the earth. The latter has got easier over time as more archives have become available and is obviously far better for saying where people died.

On top of that, six million isn't some set figure, it's just the figure that gets most frequently bandied about.. In the same way two million is often cited for the Cambodian genocide but there's a bunch of different estimates kicking around.

The reason it's a canard is because it's a total non-issue the denier community have peddled when they know damn well it's a non-issue.

The ironic thing is (and you'd have to ask the boffins at RODOH for further details as I can't remember the specifics) that apparently the four million figure totally shafts denier claims of the Soviets inventing evidence because interrogation transcripts of perpetrators flatly contradict the figure being that high - something that would simply not occur if you were inventing the story.

Not really an answer, is it.
The plaques are real.
The Polish government's decision is real and documented.
The decision was made because of "more recent RESEARCH".

Research.
Important word.

It would not have been a decision made lightly.
The EVIDENCE (another important word) for such an amendment, was substantial and able to stand up to the harshest SCRUTINY (another really crucial word).

Keep trying dogsmilk ... if nothing else, your tenaciousness and dedication to the cause is undeniably relentless.

As I have stated; I do not hate Jews.
I am not anti-semitic.
I hate bullshit.
I love evidence.
I don't deny the Holocaust; I simply question some of the emotional stories asserted as facts, although SCRUTINY and SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION to support the claims with EVIDENCE, is summarily rejected and the requests labelled as being anti-semitic and criminal.

me thinks they doth protest too much.

[yozhik]

six million isn't some set figure, it's just the figure that gets most frequently bandied about..

The reason it's a canard is because it's a total non-issue the denier community have peddled when they know damn well it's a non-issue.



Tell me you're taking the piss.
You are ... right?

dogsmilk ... does the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" mean anything to you?

The ONLY figure that has been "peddled" for decades is the figure of "6 million".
Now you are trying to just casually brush off the 6 million figure ... which has been rammed down the throats of everyone who walks on this planet; in the vast majority of books, plaques, teaching aids, memorials, articles and museums, as being "the official figure". The 6 million figure is the basis of all of the "guilt" Germany is supposed to feel AND PAY FOR, in the financial compensation Israel still enjoys.

... and you claim its just the figure that is "most frequently bandied about"??????

THEN, to further discredit yourself, you then claim that it is the "deniers" who are "peddling" figures???????????

THIS is exactly the type of bullshit that feeds the cynicism.

[dogsmilk]

Not really an answer, is it.
The plaques are real.
The Polish government's decision is real and documented.
The decision was made because of "more recent RESEARCH".

Research.
Important word.

It would not have been a decision made lightly.
The EVIDENCE (another important word) for such an amendment, was substantial and able to stand up to the harshest SCRUTINY (another really crucial word).

Keep trying dogsmilk ... if nothing else, your tenaciousness and dedication to the cause is undeniably relentless.

Oh for fuck's sake, it's a new york times article written by a journalist about a plaque at a museum. If you get your historical information from the paper and museum plaques that's entirely up to you, but you won't get very far.
The figure was known to be wrong for ages - Frans(however you spell it) Piper was pushing for it to be changed for a while.

Believe what you like, chief. It's why I'm not arguing about the Holocaust at the moment - it's always the same old stuff going round and round because people won't get off their lazy arses and try to actually learn about it.

[yozhik]

Believe what you like, chief. It's why I'm not arguing about the Holocaust at the moment - it's always the same old stuff going round and round because people won't get off their lazy arses and try to actually learn about it.

How can we learn about it?
We're not allowed to question anything.
Researchers aren't allowed to acquire hard scientific data.
if any is found and published, that brings into question anything but the "official story"; persecution, legal action and an avalanche of "anti-semite" accusations are but a mere nanosecond away.

I don't buy the pap you're passing off as fact.
It has holes in it.
Period.

I do not deny people were killed in the war, at the hands of some very evil individuals.
However, I can not accept the story of the Holocaust, in its present form.
It does not add up and the cloak of secrecy only reinforces the cynicism.

I have a right to express that.
I also have a right to reject any suggestion that does not pass my bullshit filter.

[dogsmilk]

Tell me you're taking the piss.
You are ... right?

dogsmilk ... does the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" mean anything to you?

The ONLY figure that has been "peddled" for decades is the figure of "6 million".
Now you are trying to just casually brush off the 6 million figure ... which has been rammed down the throats of everyone who walks on this planet; in the vast majority of books, plaques, teaching aids, memorials, articles and museums, as being "the official figure". The 6 million figure is the basis of all of the "guilt" Germany is supposed to feel AND PAY FOR, in the financial compensation Israel still enjoys.

... and you claim its just the figure that is "most frequently bandied about"??????

THEN, to further discredit yourself, you then claim that it is the "deniers" who are "peddling" figures???????????

THIS is exactly the type of bullshit that feeds the cynicism.

I'm not being funny, but I have never had anything 'rammed down my throat'. In fact, I barely ever thought about the Holocaust until I frequented forums like this one. Nobody I know knows much about it or really cares. When I was a lad, it was all war comics and stuff with zero mention of the Holocaust.

Estimates for the overall death toll basically range between 5-6 million. No figure is set in stone. There is no such thing as the 'official figure'. If you think there is, then tell me what body is responsible for setting it.

[dogsmilk]

How can we learn about it?
We're not allowed to question anything.
Researchers aren't allowed to acquire hard scientific data.
if any is found and published, that brings into question anything but the "official story"; persecution, legal action and an avalanche of "anti-semite" accusations are but a mere nanosecond away.

I don't buy the pap you're passing off as fact.
It has holes in it.
Period.

I do not deny people were killed in the war, at the hands of some very evil individuals.
However, I can not accept the story of the Holocaust, in its present form.
It does not add up and the cloak of secrecy only reinforces the cynicism.

I have a right to express that.
I also have a right to reject any suggestion that does not pass my bullshit filter.

What has your 'research' into the Holocaust consisted of?

[yozhik]

What has your 'research' into the Holocaust consisted of?

Watching factual movies, like Schindler's List ... ouija board ... reading tea leaves ... talking to my neighbour who lived next to a Jewish family ...

C'mon ... seriously?
I'm not going to get into a "my research is better than your research" pissing contest.

Let's just agree to disagree.

You'll keep "shilling for the Holohoax since 2007" ... and I'll keep sitting on the fence until I see some hard, factual evidence.

[dogsmilk]

Watching factual movies, like Schindler's List ... ouija board ... reading tea leaves ... talking to my neighbour who lived next to a Jewish family ...

C'mon ... seriously?
I'm not going to get into a "my research is better than your research" pissing contest.

Let's just agree to disagree.

You'll keep "shilling for the Holohoax since 2007" ... and I'll keep sitting on the fence until I see some hard, factual evidence.

No, I'm not saying "my research is better than yours" for a second. I know fuck all about it, and I would certainly never reduce myself to saying I know best so shut up even if I was some kind of authority. I actually feel marginally insulted you thought that's what I meant.

What bemuses me somewhat is the way people don't seem bother to learn a subject before critiquing it. You get an absolutely massive weighting to denial stuff people have seen online, but people just don't seem concerned with discovering why innumerable historians in Britain, America, Poland, Germany etc far, far outweigh the comparatively miniscule amount of deniers who basically keep recycling the same 'arguments' endlessly with only one or two of them who've ever done anything that arguably constitutes actual research and who have a strange tendency to not like Jews and/or be associated with the far right. I genuinely don't get it - I could understand if someone studied the subject seriously and came out the other side saying they don't believe it and that seems the most logical way of finding out if a generally accepted history washes to me. Yet - and I do not mean this arrogantly in the slightest - I get the impression I've read more 'official history' than any of the deniers here, yet I feel I have barely scratched the surface and keep discovering new stuff I just did not know about. Yet people seem so confident to scream 'holohoax' or say things they don't actually understand are 'suspicious' when they just don't seem familiar at all with what they're criticising. This is made worse by the appalling 'methodology' denier literature seems to favour but which people parrot.

So this is a very serious question; why does the process of critique not begin with a thorough understanding of the subject to be critiqued?

[adbasque]

Unfortunately, the world is full of innocents.

More at: "Freedom of Speech" (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1032309#post1032309)

There are a lot of innocent people true, my question what exactly was the nature of their alleged racist remarks, how can it be free speech when you are being openly racist towards another human being?

They went to America expecting to get protection after showing racist speeches against Jews, they have got to be joking lol

They can get protection perhaps elsewhere but never in the US, no way.

I wonder if these guys are not BNP supporters lol

[dogsmilk]

I wonder if these guys are not BNP supporters lol

Sheppard certainly used to be BNP.

[arty2000]

Thanks judge judy.

lol:D

[arty2000]

It's the modus operandii of the elite class. I'm sure you already know this. War crimes are backed by lucre and clout. Remember Rumsfeld ran from France when they were going to prosecute, so there are some limitations to the use of law as we know it in its current formula.

yeah but what is bush,blair,rummy and cos. employable skills exactly;)

[adbasque]

Sheppard certainly used to be BNP.

I thought so :)

[flyermay]

There are a lot of innocent people true, my question what exactly was the nature of their alleged racist remarks, how can it be free speech when you are being openly racist towards another human being?

As far as I know, they only posted a satire.

If the satire was based on some truths, they are not to be blamed for criticising any situation (no matter who is the object of the criticism).

If the satire was based on a fantasy, then no one should be offended.

For god sake, our governments have started wars on whole countries just because some terrorists were supposedly hiding there, isn't that far worse and harmful to the rest of the country who are not terrorists? But none of them are in prison.

[adbasque]

As far as I know, they only posted a satire.

If the satire was based on some truths, they are not to be blamed for criticising any situation (no matter who is the object of the criticism).

If the satire was based on a fantasy, then no one should be offended.

For god sake, our governments have started wars on whole countries just because some terrorists were supposedly hiding there, isn't that far worse and harmful to the rest of the country who are not terrorists? But none of them are in prison.

I see your point but people can be offended depends on the nature of the criticism, as you said if the information is correct and it's true, so be it, but if the satire was a pack of lies, people could be offended, for example.


Let's assume you're a Jew and your father or grand father was murdered during the war, and someone comes along and says it didn't happen, you would be offended, right?

Imagine you're a Pakistani and you hear things like they all live on social benefits or something like that you would be offended.

Now if these guys were telling the truth about something specific and they have evidence to back it up, then yes I agree

If everywhere you go you read about British people being this and that, sooner or later you will be offended.

I know the Elite caused this racism, I know they caused the wars, but we should not play into their hands by adding to each other, we should support one another.

I think these two guys went to the US under the impression, they can say whatever the hell they want without any fear of being legally pursued, well obviously they were wrong.

They probably got fooled by the "land of the free" it all depend how you interpret "free"

I don't condone racism of any form or shape
That's my opinion anyway

[decim]

I see your point but people can be offended depends on the nature of the criticism, as you said if the information is correct and it's true, so be it, but if the satire was a pack of lies, people could be offended, for example.


Let's assume you're a Jew and your father or grand father was murdered during the war, and someone comes along and says it didn't happen, you would be offended, right?

Imagine you're a Pakistani and you hear things like they all live on social benefits or something like that you would be offended.

Now if these guys were telling the truth about something specific and they have evidence to back it up, then yes I agree

If everywhere you go you read about British people being this and that, sooner or later you will be offended.

I know the Elite caused this racism, I know they caused the wars, but we should not play into their hands by adding to each other, we should support one another.

I think these two guys went to the US under the impression, they can say whatever the hell they want without any fear of being legally pursued, well obviously they were wrong.

They probably got fooled by the "land of the free" it all depend how you interpret "free"

I don't condone racism of any form or shape
That's my opinion anyway

Who else's opinion would you use?

There is either free speech or there isn't, there's no semi free, or conditions.
If you cannot speak your mind, then you don't have freedom of speech.

Everyone has the right to be offended about anything.

[adbasque]

Who else's opinion would you use?

There is either free speech or there isn't, there's no semi free, or conditions.
If you cannot speak your mind, then you don't have freedom of speech.

Everyone has the right to be offended about anything.

Yes you can speak your mind, but if you're telling lies about others it's no longer a speech, that my point, so long as you can back up your claims and arguments that's fine, but you can't make stories about people and claim free speech, if the speech will cause some distress to others.

I know it's my opinion, it was a figure of speech, meaning I have no personal direct interest in the issue.

What made these guys think that they'll have a free speech in the US rather than in their own country?

If there's anywhere on earth today where anyone could still speak freely is in the UK, certainly not the US, maybe the US years ago not anymore.

[mynameis]

yeah but what is bush,blair,rummy and cos. employable skills exactly;)

You should read their wiki if you really want to know and aren't joking. They are also not seeking asylum.

[dogsmilk]

Who else's opinion would you use?

There is either free speech or there isn't, there's no semi free, or conditions.
If you cannot speak your mind, then you don't have freedom of speech.

Everyone has the right to be offended about anything.

As well as the point Adbasque made -

Let's assume you're a Jew and your father or grand father was murdered during the war, and someone comes along and says it didn't happen, you would be offended, right?


- as can be seen from the images I posted, their 'satire' also portrayed the stereotypes of Jews as money hoarders and lazy and workshy in the context of a concentration camp. And this was posted to a synagogue.

Do you therefore think it is fine for us to have the freedom to post 'satirical' images about Asian Muslim people - say that they're sponging immigrant fundamentalist terrorists - to our local Mosque on free speech grounds?
Maybe Muslims and Jews should be posting 'satires' about Christians to their local church?
Maybe you should post a 'satire' to the neighbour you don't like telling them they're a cunt?

And is this what 'revisionism' is supposed to be about? Nazi types posting stupid cartoons to Jews?
I always knew it was retarded....