David Duke Arrested in Czech Republic

[jundp 191]

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

While we may not understand these laws, one must consider that in a country where nearly 90% of an ethnic group's population was systematically destroyed by the ruling government and another ethnic group, the Romi, were also targeted and nearly destroyed, laws such as this are important. Perhaps in America it's okay for a person to publicly deny the Holocaust ever took place, but most European countries which suffered such devastating acts (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Austria, France, etc) consider Holocaust denial and speech about National Socialist ideologies, displaying the swastika or even reading Mein Kampf, to be unacceptable. Though some countries, including Germany, are trying to shed light on this dark time in history by erecting memorials, documentation centers, and teaching about what led up to this time, allowing this type of ideology to run free is terrifying for them. They saw what happened once and they don't want it to happen again.

We don't have the same attitude towards the Holocaust in America. We didn't enter the way because of anything Germany or the National Socialists did. We entered the war because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

Well it does if the 6 year prison term awarded to the New York man who broadcast Hezbollah TV in the US is any indication.

We can certainly promote the idealistic view that societies should protect free speech when it comes to the promotion of fringe ideologies and extremist views, but the practical reality is that this is something that has been systematically chipped away at by laws (most notably post 9/11) that seek to make it easier to secure convictions related to terrorism offences for activities that weren't traditionally considered "criminal".

To be perfectly honest, there's no significant difference between a guy who was found guilty of providing material support to a terrorist group by broadcasting a TV channel Vs. a guy who is detained in a foreign country for "promoting" another kind of extremism, certainly not when that sort of extremism is related to the commission of hate crimes and/or terrorism in that country.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Private Pike

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

Well it does if the 6 year prison term awarded to the New York man who broadcast Hezbollah TV in the US is any indication.

We can certainly promote the idealistic view that societies should protect free speech when it comes to the promotion of fringe ideologies and extremist views, but the practical reality is that this is something that has been systematically chipped away at by laws (most notably post 9/11) that seek to make it easier to secure convictions related to terrorism offences for activities that weren't traditionally considered "criminal".

To be perfectly honest, there's no significant difference between a guy who was found guilty of providing material support to a terrorist group by broadcasting a TV channel Vs. a guy who is detained in a foreign country for "promoting" another kind of extremism, certainly not when that sort of extremism is related to the commission of hate crimes and/or terrorism in that country.

Both cases seem pretty harsh, especially the US case. I have seen some pretty inflamatory stuff on LinkTV and on C-SPAN, but in the name of free speech, and general critical thinking, both those networks continue to provide a diversity of perspectives, as did NPR, before it went "mainstream".

[rooster 1]

David Duke has made more than just "free speech". He is an active member of the Klan and therefore, IMO, a piece of sh!t. I hope they burn his AZZ on a cross. And for the record, I am a white USC living in "redneck country" Oklahoma. Anyone who presents and believes his opinion, from either side, whether it is the Klan, Black Panthers, or any other racist oriented group, is a piece of SH!T in my opinion. Racism is racism no matter what side of the fence your are on.

[peejay 327]

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

Well it does if the 6 year prison term awarded to the New York man who broadcast Hezbollah TV in the US is any indication.

We can certainly promote the idealistic view that societies should protect free speech when it comes to the promotion of fringe ideologies and extremist views, but the practical reality is that this is something that has been systematically chipped away at by laws (most notably post 9/11) that seek to make it easier to secure convictions related to terrorism offences for activities that weren't traditionally considered "criminal".

To be perfectly honest, there's no significant difference between a guy who was found guilty of providing material support to a terrorist group by broadcasting a TV channel Vs. a guy who is detained in a foreign country for "promoting" another kind of extremism, certainly not when that sort of extremism is related to the commission of hate crimes and/or terrorism in that country.

Considering that Hezbollah has actually fired missles recently, killed people, and is still presently an active terroristic threat...there is no comparison to someone denying that murders didn't happened 69 years ago. Especially if this fool is not involved in these murders in the first place. Hell, he wasn't even born yet when this sh*t was going down.

I'm no fan of David Duke or the Nazis, but let's compare apples to cactuses here. There is a significant difference.

Edited April 26, 2009 by peejay

[jundp 191]

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

Well it does if the 6 year prison term awarded to the New York man who broadcast Hezbollah TV in the US is any indication.

We can certainly promote the idealistic view that societies should protect free speech when it comes to the promotion of fringe ideologies and extremist views, but the practical reality is that this is something that has been systematically chipped away at by laws (most notably post 9/11) that seek to make it easier to secure convictions related to terrorism offences for activities that weren't traditionally considered "criminal".

To be perfectly honest, there's no significant difference between a guy who was found guilty of providing material support to a terrorist group by broadcasting a TV channel Vs. a guy who is detained in a foreign country for "promoting" another kind of extremism, certainly not when that sort of extremism is related to the commission of hate crimes and/or terrorism in that country.

Considering that Hezbollah has actually fired missles recently, killed people, and is still presently an active terroristic threat...there is no comparison to someone denying that murders didn't happened 69 years ago. Especially if this fool is not involved in these murders in the first place. Hell, he wasn't even born yet when this sh*t was going down.

I'm no fan of David Duke or the Nazis, but let's compare apples to cactuses here. There is a significant difference.

No, there's not. Please re-read my post. I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to Holocaust Studies in Europe and the current atmosphere. There's no significant difference when you consider that what happened 69 years ago took the lives of at MINIMUM 11 million people...not counting soldiers from all countries involved, and that those ideologies are still being pushed by people like David Duke.

[peejay 327]

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

Well it does if the 6 year prison term awarded to the New York man who broadcast Hezbollah TV in the US is any indication.

We can certainly promote the idealistic view that societies should protect free speech when it comes to the promotion of fringe ideologies and extremist views, but the practical reality is that this is something that has been systematically chipped away at by laws (most notably post 9/11) that seek to make it easier to secure convictions related to terrorism offences for activities that weren't traditionally considered "criminal".

To be perfectly honest, there's no significant difference between a guy who was found guilty of providing material support to a terrorist group by broadcasting a TV channel Vs. a guy who is detained in a foreign country for "promoting" another kind of extremism, certainly not when that sort of extremism is related to the commission of hate crimes and/or terrorism in that country.

Considering that Hezbollah has actually fired missles recently, killed people, and is still presently an active terroristic threat...there is no comparison to someone denying that murders didn't happened 69 years ago. Especially if this fool is not involved in these murders in the first place. Hell, he wasn't even born yet when this sh*t was going down.

I'm no fan of David Duke or the Nazis, but let's compare apples to cactuses here. There is a significant difference.

No, there's not. Please re-read my post. I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to Holocaust Studies in Europe and the current atmosphere. There's no significant difference when you consider that what happened 69 years ago took the lives of at MINIMUM 11 million people...not counting soldiers from all countries involved, and that those ideologies are still being pushed by people like David Duke.

So David Duke today is as much of a threat as Hitler in 1938? I don't believe that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

True, if David Duke wins a major election somewhere, I'll worry about him. Till then he's just a sh1tstain.

[jundp 191]

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

Well it does if the 6 year prison term awarded to the New York man who broadcast Hezbollah TV in the US is any indication.

We can certainly promote the idealistic view that societies should protect free speech when it comes to the promotion of fringe ideologies and extremist views, but the practical reality is that this is something that has been systematically chipped away at by laws (most notably post 9/11) that seek to make it easier to secure convictions related to terrorism offences for activities that weren't traditionally considered "criminal".

To be perfectly honest, there's no significant difference between a guy who was found guilty of providing material support to a terrorist group by broadcasting a TV channel Vs. a guy who is detained in a foreign country for "promoting" another kind of extremism, certainly not when that sort of extremism is related to the commission of hate crimes and/or terrorism in that country.

Considering that Hezbollah has actually fired missles recently, killed people, and is still presently an active terroristic threat...there is no comparison to someone denying that murders didn't happened 69 years ago. Especially if this fool is not involved in these murders in the first place. Hell, he wasn't even born yet when this sh*t was going down.

I'm no fan of David Duke or the Nazis, but let's compare apples to cactuses here. There is a significant difference.

No, there's not. Please re-read my post. I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to Holocaust Studies in Europe and the current atmosphere. There's no significant difference when you consider that what happened 69 years ago took the lives of at MINIMUM 11 million people...not counting soldiers from all countries involved, and that those ideologies are still being pushed by people like David Duke.

So David Duke today is as much of a threat as Hitler in 1938? I don't believe that.

No but allowing such ideologies to freely spread is exactly what happened in 1928 (not 1938) when Hitler began gaining supporters.

[tallcoolone 102]

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

Well it does if the 6 year prison term awarded to the New York man who broadcast Hezbollah TV in the US is any indication.

We can certainly promote the idealistic view that societies should protect free speech when it comes to the promotion of fringe ideologies and extremist views, but the practical reality is that this is something that has been systematically chipped away at by laws (most notably post 9/11) that seek to make it easier to secure convictions related to terrorism offences for activities that weren't traditionally considered "criminal".

To be perfectly honest, there's no significant difference between a guy who was found guilty of providing material support to a terrorist group by broadcasting a TV channel Vs. a guy who is detained in a foreign country for "promoting" another kind of extremism, certainly not when that sort of extremism is related to the commission of hate crimes and/or terrorism in that country.

Considering that Hezbollah has actually fired missles recently, killed people, and is still presently an active terroristic threat...there is no comparison to someone denying that murders didn't happened 69 years ago. Especially if this fool is not involved in these murders in the first place. Hell, he wasn't even born yet when this sh*t was going down.

I'm no fan of David Duke or the Nazis, but let's compare apples to cactuses here. There is a significant difference.

No, there's not. Please re-read my post. I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to Holocaust Studies in Europe and the current atmosphere. There's no significant difference when you consider that what happened 69 years ago took the lives of at MINIMUM 11 million people...not counting soldiers from all countries involved, and that those ideologies are still being pushed by people like David Duke.

So David Duke today is as much of a threat as Hitler in 1938? I don't believe that.

No but allowing such ideologies to freely spread is exactly what happened in 1928 (not 1938) when Hitler began gaining supporters.

Only the dumb and stupid followed him and his ideology.......

[jundp 191]

We could say that about quite a few 'leaders' but that doesn't change the fact that the poison they spread is dangerous.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Eventually, occasionally, a semblance of justice makes an appearance.

How is this justice? Being arrested for sharing your opinion is something that is intollerable. If one wants to deny the horrors of the holocaust or even support the attrocities that occured or support racial pride and seperation, so be it. That makes them a bigot but it doesn't make them a criminal.

Well it does if the 6 year prison term awarded to the New York man who broadcast Hezbollah TV in the US is any indication.

We can certainly promote the idealistic view that societies should protect free speech when it comes to the promotion of fringe ideologies and extremist views, but the practical reality is that this is something that has been systematically chipped away at by laws (most notably post 9/11) that seek to make it easier to secure convictions related to terrorism offences for activities that weren't traditionally considered "criminal".

To be perfectly honest, there's no significant difference between a guy who was found guilty of providing material support to a terrorist group by broadcasting a TV channel Vs. a guy who is detained in a foreign country for "promoting" another kind of extremism, certainly not when that sort of extremism is related to the commission of hate crimes and/or terrorism in that country.

Considering that Hezbollah has actually fired missles recently, killed people, and is still presently an active terroristic threat...there is no comparison to someone denying that murders didn't happened 69 years ago. Especially if this fool is not involved in these murders in the first place. Hell, he wasn't even born yet when this sh*t was going down.

I'm no fan of David Duke or the Nazis, but let's compare apples to cactuses here. There is a significant difference.

There's no difference Peejay. None whatsoever.

Neo-fascism is a big problem across Europe. Its true that in some countries they are more sensitive to anti-semitism and the holocaust, but if neither Duke or the TV guy are explicitly perpetrating or otherwise inciting violence directly - what difference does it make that the one guy is supporting one group of extremists, while the other guy is supporting another?

I mean - what are you saying here? That being jailed for showing Hezbollah TV is allowed, but being jailed (and supported) for promoting holocaust denial is not?

Both of the court rulings cited threats to national security as their justification for the treatment of the individuals involved.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not even true, well not in the sense that once the snowball started rolling an awful lot of highly intelligent people were carried along in a tide that could not be stopped. The 'dumb and the stupid' would not have succeeded in creating the 3rd Reich - although there was certainly some insanity involved.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not even true, well not in the sense that once the snowball started rolling an awful lot of highly intelligent people were carried along in a tide that could not be stopped. The 'dumb and the stupid' would not have succeeded in creating the 3rd Reich - although there was certainly some insanity involved.

They were insane when they started believing their own mythology about aryanism and racial purity, though that theory was cooked up originally for the purposes of promoting their nationalist agenda.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So David Duke today is as much of a threat as Hitler in 1938? I don't believe that.

It doesn't matter whether or not he's an "equivalent" threat - the reasoning behind his arrest was that he was promoting divisive, extremist politics that would undermine that stability of the country and its government.