Anger Over Mohammed Cartoon

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pie

Actually, that's a very good question. Arguably, you cannot create kiddie porn without harming the kiddies -- that's the legal basis for banning the porn. There's been a whole new can o' worms opened with the concept of "virtual" kiddies -- no real person is being hurt. I still haven't made up my mind on this one.
Yes, pedophiles harm children. Yes, they usually can't be rehabilitated.

Recidivism among pedophiles is reported to be one of the lowest among criminals - about 15%. Crimes such as vehicle theft are typically 60+%. Above being a secondary point.

Primary point: one can appreciate Austria's fear or need (which one is part of a larger question) to make such holocaust laws that would otherwise be a violation of free speech. There is a line somewhere - subjectively. And that is the point.

However Irving all but flaunted that law. As long as he stayed out of Austria, then there would be no extradition. But Irving was either so obviously bold or so simply stupid as to go to Austria to give a speech to right wing extremist students. He all but begged Austria to enforce their laws. Austria did just that. IOW the purpose and enforcement of that law becomes secondary. The real penalty to Irving is because 1) he outrightly lied to the court about his change of opinion, and 2) he outrightly challenged Austria to enforce their laws.

Need we also cite an unfortunate American example - Dr Kevorkian?

[Pie]

Originally Posted by tw

Recidivism among pedophiles is reported to be one of the lowest among criminals - about 15%. Crimes such as vehicle theft are typically 60+%. Above being a secondary point.

Yes, I agreed to entertain this concept when Kitsune pointed it out, above.

Originally Posted by tw

Primary point: one can appreciate Austria's fear or need (which one is part of a larger question) to make such holocaust laws that would otherwise be a violation of free speech. There is a line somewhere - subjectively. And that is the point.

All I am trying to say is that I am not happy with the Austrian's location of that line. Capisci? I think I've said it two or three times now.

Originally Posted by tw

However Irving all but flaunted that law. As long as he stayed out of Austria, then there would be no extradition. But Irving was either so obviously bold or so simply stupid as to go to Austria to give a speech to right wing extremist students. He all but begged Austria to enforce their laws. Austria did just that. IOW the purpose and enforcement of that law becomes secondary. The real penalty to Irving is because 1) he outrightly lied to the court about his change of opinion, and 2) he outrightly challenged Austria to enforce their laws.
Need we also cite an unfortunate American example - Dr Kevorkian?

Fine whatever, throw them all in the klink. The ONLY point I was trying to make is that the definition of that "line" is awfully important.

tw, you're very good at arguing with yourself.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pie

tw, you're very good at arguing with yourself.

Who's arguing? If you think I am arguing, then you have no grasp of the constructive intent in my posts. Provided are talking points (examples) to frame a definition, a principle, or a better comprehension of this subjective concept called 'freedom of speech'. To define limits upon which one can challenge a law with legitimate reasons.

Why does free speech in Austria get to be less than in America and still be considered acceptable or not acceptable? The answer to that is found in reasons or guidelines. Examples were posted to help define or justify those guidelines. Instead you think I am arguing with you? Of course not. We should be moving onto a better understanding or better principles upon which to judge Irving, pedophiles, and Kevorkian.

Upon what basis or principles would one judge the innocence or guilty nature of each? Even subjective judgments are not valid without underlying reasons or principles. What would those principles be that Pie might use to decide? There is no argument. There exists a open ended question just begging to be challenged by one's grasp of worldly ideas.

One can think those Mohammed Cartoons are acceptable or are worthy of killing. OK. Why? Upon what principles does one make such decisions?