Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Could D. Black have legal problems?
Message-ID: <305@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:41:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihnet.305
Posted: Wed Sep 25 12:41:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 03:29:13 EDT
References: <195@pyuxh.UUCP> <10451@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 25

> the first major tests of the free speech rights, a couple of Nazis get convicted
> for saying that the Holocaust didn't happen.
> ...
> number of Western Canadian lawyers that I know won't talk to Christie, because
> he blew the world's easiest case, and, incidentally, also set a rather nasty
> precedent: that the Hate Laws stand up under the Charter.  For fairly obvious
> reasons, few informed Canadians are happy about that.
> 						-- Rick.

While I agree, a defense of "they might be right" is absurd,
I don't consider this case "easiest in the world", as you seem to imply.
Remember the famous "shouting fire in the theater" case, where the abuse
of free speech might be harmful to society.
Similarly, if not more so, denying the existence
of the holocaust is (I believe) *very* dangerous in the long run.
On this basis, I would support a law/ruling prohibiting individuals from
making such claims.  The trouble is, I can't *prove* it is dangerous.
I just feel that some will be convinced/brainwashed,
and learning from history will be more difficult,
and the event is more likely to be repeated.
Even if this scenario is unlikely, the risks are very great.
The question is not trivial legally, or philosophically.
-- 
	This .signature file intentionally left blank.
		Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com