Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!hou2g!scott
From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Could D. Black have legal problems?
Message-ID: <645@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 15:09:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2g.645
Posted: Wed Sep 25 15:09:24 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 03:50:57 EDT
References: <305@ihnet.UUCP>
Organization: The Finish Line
Lines: 36


> 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.

Do you really equate such nonsense as denying the holocaust
with yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?  The believability
of the two (especially given the circumstances) differs by 
quite a wide margin.


>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...[atrocious events are]...more likely to be repeated.
>Even if this scenario is unlikely, the risks are very great.
>The question is not trivial legally, or philosophically.

You know, I almost keeled over when I read this.  The above
sentiment mirrors my feelings on belief in a God to a tee.
Would you support a law prohibiting religion, even though I
couldn't "*prove* it is dangerous"?  No, I wouldn't either.
But it demonstrates how ridiculous your idea is.

>		Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad



			"Now see HERE!  I speak fifty languages
			 fluently, but gibberish isn't one of them."

				Scott J. Berry
				ihnp4!hou2g!scott


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com