Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-hector.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-hector!melissa
From: melissa@mit-hector.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech and the holocaust
Message-ID: <121@mit-hector.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 15:41:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-hect.121
Posted: Tue Oct 15 15:41:25 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 20:26:35 EDT
References: <305@ihnet.UUCP> <645@hou2g.UUCP> <843@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: melissa@mit-hector.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 54


With regards to freedom of speech and comparing the "FIRE in the theater"
to denying the holocaust:

First I'd like to note that it was the US Supreme Court that decided
that cases like screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre are not
protected. From what I've been able to gather of this conversation,
the relevent comments were made under Canadian jurisdiction. Since
when does Canada autmoatically adopt decisions by the US SC? Or did
I miss something?

Second, that very decision put down a rule for restricting freedom
of speech. The rule is that such restriction is acceptable if a
"clear and present danger" to any individual or specific group can
be shown. Oh, yeah remember that? And to put to rest any argument
as to whether denying the holocaust is a clear and present danger,
the Court in later cases made it very clear that this means
"Very specific and very imminent". This means that if you cannot
point to someone or someones and say that on such-and-such a date
(or some reasonable range of time) so-and-so(s) will be harmed by
such-and-such specific effect directly caused by the words someone
said, then you have no case. Does this sound like terms nearly
impossible to satisfy? Hmmm, maybe that was the Court's intention!
These terms are slightly relaxed during war-time, but that's not
relevent here.

End of rational argument--------

   What is the reason given for defending so vehemently the fact of
the holocaust? So no one forgets so it will not happen again, is
my understanding. Come on guys! If a large population is ever worked
up emotionally to the point that the Germans were that they ignored what was
happening, they are not going to be listening to outsiders pointing
to history books. I don't claim to be any sort of expert, but it
seems to me that mob psychology indicates that rationality is useless
in such situations.  If the Jewish community is really concerned that
such a horrible thing will happen to them again, they
should concentrate their efforts in very pragmatic directions - like
improving their group public image through traditional advertising
means. Other groups have ad's that I've seen. Even while recognizing
the fact that they are ads, I have gained a much more positive attitude
towards the Mormons, for instance, from seeing the goodwill they are
trying to put across in their TV commercials. 
   I should mention that I am an atheist, so all religions are equally stupid 
in my eyes unless they do or say something to cause me to revise that 
opinion. I'm not anti-semitic any more than I'm anti-christian or 
anti-anything-else.  But while I certainly believe the holocaust happened, 
I don't see that anything is accomplished by screaming bloody murder at those 
pathetic fools who deny it.  Don't dignify them with response.
If a significant group of people are willing to listen to them,
the Jewish community has a deeper, PR problem.


Melissa Silvestre