Originally posted by Barts
If you could prove that this was the aim of Nazi's, then no. In the case of the Nazi's that would be pretty easy. A Nazi by definition subscribed to the party ideology (or they wouldn't be a part of the party) which was quite clear on how Jews would be treated.
The difference between your example and Muslims is that Muslims, unlike Nazis are a very diverse ...[text shortened]... , while these laws target the same behaviour, only aimed at a large part of the population.
The Nazi's would have publicly denied genocide against the Jews in 1940. If you were a whistle blower at the time, you might find it surprisingly difficult to prove your case in court if your "freedom" to say such things were to hinge on your ability to prove what you're saying is true. That being the case, you might find even those who have reason to believe you're speaking the truth won't come forward in your defense. Furthermore, even if you could prove your case, you might find it too expensive to fight in court.
Consider what constitutes "inciting hatred" now days. If one were to say that Islam is a false religion, some would say that is inciting hatred. If one were to say that Islam is a violent religion, some would say that is inciting hatred. Likewise, Mohammed was a pedophile, homosexuality is immoral, most terrorists are muslims, etc.
All these are plausible views held by people who don't hate, but all could be hauled into court to mount an expensive defense for "inciting hatred".
An assault on freedom of speech
04 Oct '10 19:29
Back to Top