> Charles: LePen's politics and status do not
> support your argument. You seem to be
> mixed up. Are you a LePen fan ?
Of course not, and that's a shitty thing to assert. The last dodge of the intellectually challenged is making an assertion like that. It reminds me of a Nazi questioning the ethnic heritage of his interlocutor.
I, however, defend your right to be as shitty as you want in your speech.
> What are you talking about ?
I'm talking about France's "progressive" policies against holocaust denial have not stemmed the growth of LePen's movement one iota.
> France outlaws some forms of
> fascistic speech, such as denial of
> the Holocaust. This has not at all
> made France less free or with less
> freedom of speech than the United States.
> In fact, it has made France more free.
> As far as I can tell, France is a more
> progressive and free country than the U.S.
I don't consider it progressive or free when tenured professors are fired for political speech.
>
> Charles: This is easy to answer. There may
> have been MORE neo-Nazis today, if they
> had not been outlawed !!! and you can't
> prove otherwise. In the latest election in
> Germany, the neo-fascists got NO
> seats. Look like the method of outlawing
> them worked !
Nor can you prove it that it is so. Until someone can prove it either way, I'll believe my view.
> The driving underground/expose to
> light argument is
> Justice Brandeis' from the 1920's.
Actually the argument goes back much further, to Locke, if I recall correctly.
In any event, you're not going to convince me, nor I you, so I'm done with this thread.
--
Joseph Noonan jfn1 at msc.com