How would we formulate a court case?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2430
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

How would we formulate a court case?

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 4 days 16 minutes ago (Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:52 am)

Isn't codoh the biggest? The only? holocaust denying organization in the country? And with holocaust denial making front page news via it being banned by big tech, what would a good court case look like? CODOH v. Youtube? Or would an individual holocaust denier look better? The Amendments in the Constitution of the USA aren't in "no particular order of importance." The 1st is there for a reason. It's the biggest.

I think the angle is that social media is now "free speech itself." If a restaurant can put up a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." but in reality they don't have that right and can't discriminate. Applying that to holocaust deniers, we have a right to state our view on social media. The restrictions to free speech have been described as "yelling fire in a crowded theater." Was that John Paul Stevens in some minority opinion? (I always confuse that Supreme Court Justice with that guy in Led Zeppelin, John Paul Jones, which says a lot about the quality of my 'legal mind'.) The idea being that there is some speech that is not allowed. I think the points we would have our lawyers argue for are:
1) holocaust denial is speech that should be allowed
2) social media is where free speech is located today.

I remember years ago, when David Cole came out of hiding, one of his first articles was on some Southern California University having a weekend symposium where they were figuring out how to put together a court case that would be the perfect case for...I don't remember the details. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Everybody knows vaguely the Rosa Parks segregation on bus case. But I remember reading in a history class that there was already another case with a black woman but that woman was pregnant out of wedlock, and so the NAACP thought Rosa Parks as a 'test case' would look better, so they didn't pursue the first case. So I wonder what the best "Holocaust Denier vs. Social Media" court case would look like.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: How would we formulate a court case?

Postby borjastick » 3 days 21 hours ago (Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:04 am)

1296x550_orwell-freedom-Liberty_02.gif
George Orwell

First of all one would need to agree who or what 'we' would be taking to court. The problem with Zuckerberg and Dorsey and I guess others too is they have so much money. It could be far too costly and get bogged down. So I think the reality is to do it politically rather than a full frontal attack on a media owner.

The comparison between a restaurant owner refusing service and free speech on the interweb is, I fear, pointless. Of course a restaurant can refuse service to drunks for example but not to a black person or a muslim, and that's fair. The issue is of both reach and influence and also that the lefty brigades have managed to muddy the waters of free speech by introducing that horrible fudge 'hate speech'. It caters to the permanently offended. They claim hurt feelings and hey presto you are removed, de-platformed, cancelled.

The other thing to consider is how to frame your argument because it would inevitably become all about the point of free speech and not the issue of holocaust denial thus perhaps we should be legally arguing with the jews for proof of xxx mass murder or xxx gas chamber claims etc.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

DissentingOpinions
Member
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:16 pm

Re: How would we formulate a court case?

Postby DissentingOpinions » 3 days 19 hours ago (Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:27 am)

Present the hardest hitting revisionist material, like:
-Holocaust Handbooks
-The documentaries, rather than short videos
-CODOH's library
-Inconvenient History
-Scrapbook Pages blog

If we want Holocaust revisionism to be taken seriously, so that more people are open to giving it a chance, we need to show the general public & court system that it's more than just your standard run of the mill "Holohoax!" spouting deniers - they're the problem.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2096
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: How would we formulate a court case?

Postby Lamprecht » 3 days 18 hours ago (Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:54 am)

The bannings on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are getting extreme. I don't see why CODOH should be the one to first sue over this, given the massive legal costs and the massive, coordinated effort that would be produced. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance is suing Twitter over his ban from that platform. These tech giants are censoring big names that can gather the support of millions, including Trump and his son as well as Tucker Carlson.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai is looking over Section 230 right now, there are news articles on this coming out every hour. If some new laws get made or these tech giants lose some lawsuits, then maybe CODOH could try to remake its social media accounts and sue if they get unfairly banned. There would then be a legal precedent set that could be pointed to.

DissentingOpinions wrote:Present the hardest hitting revisionist material, like:
-Holocaust Handbooks
-The documentaries, rather than short videos
-CODOH's library
-Inconvenient History
-Scrapbook Pages blog

If we want Holocaust revisionism to be taken seriously, so that more people are open to giving it a chance, we need to show the general public & court system that it's more than just your standard run of the mill "Holohoax!" spouting deniers - they're the problem.

It would not even really be a case of "Did the Holocaust happen?"
It's about freedom of speech and expression. What would have to be proven is that CODOH actually believes what it is saying. Some people seriously argue that "Deniers" actually believe the H but pretend not to just to foment hatred against Jews.

In the USA we have the 1st Amendment and many famous court cases that have determined what is protected speech and what is not. Some major concepts:

1 - Miller test:
Obscene speech is not protected if "the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions" and "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Obviously this does not apply to CODOH, it's mostly about pornographic material or ridiculous "art" and such things.

2 - Brandenburg v Ohio:
A Klansman (Brandenburg) argued for the theoretical killing or expulsion of Blacks and Jews, but he did not specify specific individuals or a specific time and place where they should be killed/expelled, so it was ruled that in order for a violent statement to fall afoul of the First Amendment, a threat must be imminent and specific. This does not even apply to CODOH at all.

3 - "Shouting fire in a crowded theater"
Pretty self explanatory. You can't just say things that you know are wrong to create a huge panic. It also has to be false, if there is a fire in the theater you can shout it.

4 - Hess v. Indiana
This reaffrmed #2, Hess stated after the police stopped a riot something like "We'll take to the f***ing street later!" and it was ruled protected speech because it "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time."
Again, doesn't really apply to CODOH.

5 - Libel / defamation
You can't just publish false statements about a person in order to damage their reputation. This one may be tricky, one can look up "Beauharnais v. Illinois" - it was about a state law though, not federal. So the speech would have been protected in other US states. The case upheld an Illinois libel law which makes it illegal to publish in writing anything portraying the "depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion."
I can see an argument being made that "Holocaust denial" is group libel against Jews in the way that Beauharnais's statements were group libel against Blacks.
However, other cases after this one had different results. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan found that the statements must have "actual malice" meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true.

There's a lot more to it but those are some of the big ones.
By the way, Castle Hill Publishers is UK-based company. CODOH's website is hosted in the USA though and the about page says its headquarters are in California. California is a very leftist state and is at the forefront of pushing legislation that borders on violating the 1st Amendment (and second). Back in March, a California state ban on "High-Capacity Gun Magazines" was struck down. But they certainly will not stop, they will just keep trying to widdle away at the 1st and 2nd.
Personally, I think CODOH should change its headquarters to a US state that is more favorable to the bill of rights. A lot of these tech companies are also headquartered in California so I wonder if a lawsuit against them would be handled only at the state level.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

DissentingOpinions
Member
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:16 pm

Re: How would we formulate a court case?

Postby DissentingOpinions » 3 days 17 hours ago (Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:25 am)

That's where the mentality is wrong. If our goal is to have worldwide free speech on the Holocaust, then we can't do that without proving that serious revisionism isn't hateful, like the MSM & Industry claim it is. Presenting the most convincing material is the best way to do that.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2430
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: How would we formulate a court case?

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 3 days 11 hours ago (Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:24 pm)

The David Cole article I mentioned was on his now defunct personal website called 'biginfidel' but I found it on the wayback machine. This is a little abstract: his great and original article was all about the early intellectual inception of 'group hate speech.' I mentioned it is because the complex process would be really what we should do for "holocaust denial free speech." They wrote a statute, they made up a court case, they argued the case in a 'moot court' with well known legal scholars. We don't have those resources, but the point is, if a case is going to get into the courts, it has to be a compelling sound one.
http://web.archive.org/web/201504092351 ... hives/5318
Architect of “Hate Speech” Laws Slams “ADL-Type Thinking,” Denounces Own Work

Posted by David Cole Stein on Tuesday, June 17, 2014 · 3 Comments

adl-logo

*

Very few people know the name Joseph M. Ribakoff. Yet in the decades-old fight to make “hate speech” a crime, his presence is certainly felt. Mr. Ribakoff holds a unique place in the movement to criminalize speech that “defames” minority religious and ethnic groups. He created what is still, to this day, the model statute for “group defamation” laws. “Group defamation” means that a person can be criminally prosecuted or tried civilly for “defaming” not an individual, but a racial or ethnic group.

Ribakoff’s statute was selected as the most effective and legally sound method by which to criminalize “racist” speech at an ADL-sponsored conference at Hofstra University in 1988. The goal of that conference, which brought together legal scholars from the U.S., Europe, Canada, and Australia, was to choose a statute that could pass legal muster in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Conference director Monroe Freedman (the Dean of Hofstra Law School) explained the purpose of the contest:

“We are looking for a model statute outlawing group defamation, that is, one that would permit prior restraint by public officials of speech that is defamatory of any minority group. The statute should be as broad as the drafters conclude is constitutionally permissible or, at least, arguably permissible.”

Ribakoff’s statute was chosen by the conference’s attendees, and tested in a moot court proceeding in which a fictional “white racist” and Holocaust revisionist named Jesse Stump was put on trial and convicted for his views, with Columbia Law School Vice Dean (and former Director-Counsel of the NAACP) Jack Greenberg acting as prosecutor, and Alan Dershowitz acting for the defense.

The judges were Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Amalya Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Ribakoff (at the time a student at Whittier College School of Law) was awarded $1,500 (about $3,000 in 2014 dollars) for his winning statute.

Sadly, in the years since his group defamation statute proved such a hit with those who favor restricting free speech, Mr. Ribakoff’s career as a lawyer has not proven as successful. The California State Bar disciplined and suspended him in 2001 and 2002. He was ordered inactive twice in 2007, and once in 2009. He was classified as “not eligible to practice law” at various times in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2009.

And finally, in November 2010, he was disbarred. If you have a high tolerance for pain, you can read Mr. Ribakoff’s California State Bar record here (one word — ouch!).

These days, Mr. Ribakoff has come to reject the “ADL-type thinking” behind anti-speech laws, and he admits that he only crafted the model statute for the money.

The fact that Ribakoff admits creating his “group defamation” statute merely for the money, and the fact that he has come to doubt the wisdom of his own creation, is especially tragic because the statute, and similar ones based on Ribakoff’s legal theory, have been adopted in quite a few countries.

In one recent high-profile case, Dutch politician (and critic of radical Islam) Geert Wilders was prosecuted using the group defamation statute. Europeans who have spoken out against unchecked immigration have also been hauled into court using the group defamation statute. And as recently as 2009, NYU Law School Professor Thomas Waldron, lecturing at Harvard as part of that university’s Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures Series, vigorously advocated bringing group defamation laws to the U.S. Waldron lamented that, outside the U.S., group defamation laws are

“common and widely accepted. For us, that gives rise to a question about what the European or Canadian or New Zealand legislators think they are doing with these laws. Why have most liberal democracies undertaken to prohibit manifestations of hatred, these visible defamations of social groups, rather than permitting and tolerating them in the name of free speech?”

Which brings us to my interview with Joseph Meir Ribakoff – disbarred and doubting, opining on his metastasizing, monstrous creation, which you can read in its entirety, and exclusively, here: ModelStatute.

***

David Cole: I’m curious how you heard about the Hofstra “group defamation” model statute contest, and why you decided to enter it.

Joseph Ribakoff: I learned of the competition from a flyer posted in the Boston U. Law School library. I went to the library to research landlord/tenant law. I wanted to research landlord/tenant law because my apartment had roaches and the landlord would not do anything.

DC: Did you go about writing your statute with a sincere desire to one day see a statute of this kind enacted into law, or was it more of am academic exercise for you?

JR: I got involved in the competition because I am interested in First Amendment issues. I also got involved because I needed the first prize money.

When I returned to my seat after being called up to receive my award, I found that my pants zipper was down.

DC: Have your views on “Group Defamation” changed in any way since 1988?

JR: This is really two questions. Group defamation involves the constitutional issue. The first issue is if group defamation is 1st Amendment protected speech. My view on this hasn’t changed. Group defamation is the same as individual defamation. If I say that all Mongolians are child molesters, then ain’t I saying the Genghis is a child molester? If Genghis can sue me for defamation if I say that he is a child molester, why can’t he sue me if I that all Mongols, including him, are child molesters? I believed then that group defamation is unprotected, and I believe today that it is not protected.

The second issue is a policy issue. Are speech regulations a good idea? My views have changed since then. I have changed because I have matured. I have grown old and ugly, but I am a little wiser.

I was raised with ADL-type thinking – hate laws and all that. This is European thinking. We are not in Europe. We are in the US. The US is superior to Europe. One of the important difference is the First Amendment. Our tradition is not to limit speech, but to learn to answer our detractors and trust our fellow citizens to know right from wrong. Our system works better.

DC: Regarding Holocaust “denial,” where do you fall in the debate between those who say that the best response is silence, versus those who say that denial must be effectively countered with education, versus those who say denial should be countered with legislation (as in France and Germany)?

JR: I believe in the American way. I trust that John Q American is decent, honorable, and intelligent and can make a fair decision on his own without government intervention.

DC: Do you think your statute could be used to restrict the speech of, let’s say, an African-American speaker or university professor who makes a blanket condemnation of white people, or a Holocaust survivor who makes a blanket condemnation of Germans as a people?

JR: You raise an interesting point with that question. It has to do with the law of unintended consequences. I recall someone concluding that the ones who were benefiting from all the college speech regulations were white males. Most of the time the new speech rules were being used to censor speech by some minority.

The more rules you write, the more likely they will be abused. After a decade of practicing law, I have also learned not to trust the judiciary. They too misinterpret statutes. This is perhaps one reason more to weigh carefully any new law before enacting it.

DC: From my experience, there were people in the ACLU who favored “hate speech” laws.

JR: As I recall, the [national] ACLU does not support hate speech laws, just the Southern California ACLU. I am a friend of Michael Klein and Eddie Tabash. I was on the First Amendment Committee during the hate speech debate. The 1st Amendment Committee opposed the So Cal ACLU board’s hate speech position. I remember debating Sam Paz a couple of times over the hate speech codes.

DC: In the Canadian trials of Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, the law allowed Zundel the right to try and prove the merit of his claims, as truth is always a defense against an accusation of defamation or “spreading false news” (the actual charge against Zundel). Zundel essentially put the Holocaust itself on trial, gaining more publicity for his views than he possibly could have if left alone by the government. Some called the trial a “circus.” Should there be any limits on how vigorously a defendant like Zundel can defend himself?

JR: None and there should be none. A trial is put up or shut up time. Zundel should have been allowed to put the holocaust on trial. He lost, didn’t he? The state answered him. The trial became a podium for a new generation to learn about what really happened. This is exactly the way it should be. If the state cannot answer his challenge, then maybe there is merit to it. I never want to restrict your right to defend yourself, even a miscreant like Zundel. If you restrict Zundel’s right to challenge the state like this, then you are restricting everyone’s right to challenge the state. The state can be wrong. One of our important freedoms in keeping the state in check is the freedom to turn a trial into, as you would say, a circus.

I wish to amend one of my earlier answers. I previously said something to the effect that freedom is the best answer to racism. I was wrong. It is the only answer – well, freedom and comedy.


And a related article

Exclusive Recordings of Conference That Crafted Anti-Free Speech Laws

Posted by David Stein on Monday, March 28, 2011 · 3 Comments

Twenty-three years ago, a three-day conference was held at Hofstra University (New York’s largest private college). It was an international gathering of legal scholars, and they had gathered for one purpose – to determine the most effective method to criminalize speech that is considered “offensive” to minority ethnic, racial, and religious groups. Scholars from Europe, Australia, and Canada gave talks on the successes and failures of European attempts to criminalize “offensive” speech, and some of the most influential legal scholars in the U.S. spoke about their desire to see such speech restrictions enacted here.

The main goal of the conference was to choose a model statute criminalizing all “offensive” speech. That model statute would be used to strengthen anti-speech laws in Europe, and (eventually) create anti-speech laws in the U.S.

Today, “hate speech” laws are being used to stifle honest and open debate in Europe regarding the threat posed by radical Islam. Again and again, those who oppose the Islamists are dragged into court for the “crime” of offending Muslims. Whatever their original intent, these “hate speech” laws are now being used to protect Islamic extremism from criticism.

So we at the Republican Party Animals thought this would be a good time to release the audio recordings of the Hofstra conference – audio recordings that have never before been made public.

We’ll be releasing several hours of these recordings per week, starting today with the least-known of the speeches made at the conference – the keynote speech, given by one of the most influential Democrats in Congress.

But to step back for a moment, let’s look at the history of the Hofstra conference.

In the early 1980s, laws that criminalize “hate speech” were becoming increasingly popular in Europe, Canada, and Australia. At the time, those laws were primarily aimed at Holocaust deniers, who were becoming not only more vocal, but more sophisticated in their methods, eschewing clumsy Der Stürmer-style anti-Jewish propaganda in favor of slick pseudo-historical and pseudo-scientific arguments aimed at painting the Holocaust as a Jewish “hoax.”

Laws that criminalized Holocaust denial quickly popped up in countries like Germany, France, and Canada, as debate raged as to whether or not such laws were appropriate. Some free speech advocates used the “slippery slope” argument, warning that if Holocaust denial, however odious, is banned because it’s offensive, other types of speech will end up banned as well.

And, indeed, some proponents of hate speech laws had that very notion in mind. By the late ‘80s, a steady influx of immigrants from Muslim nations, and several high-profile controversies involving the abuse of lax amnesty laws in countries like Germany and the Netherlands, had provoked the ire of European conservatives. Many European liberals became convinced that broader speech criminalization laws were needed to silence critics of Muslim immigration.

Several European countries already had laws on the books that targeted “hate speech,” but those laws were often confusing, vague, and arbitrarily applied. Many of the laws that criminalized Holocaust denial were useless in prosecuting speech critical of Muslims. Germany’s anti-denial law specifically targeted what it referred to as “defamation of the dead” (defaming the memory of the Holocaust’s victims). This law was too narrow to be applied to critics of Islam. Canada had been prosecuting Holocaust deniers under an arcane, colonial-era law against spreading “false news.” However, in 1985, that law took a huge hit when neo-Nazi Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel’s conviction under the “false news” law was overturned (Zundel would again be convicted of violating the false news law in 1988, and, again, his conviction would be overturned when the Canadian Supreme Court ruled the false news law to be unconstitutional).

To further the effort to craft speech criminalization laws that could A) pass constitutional muster in their respective countries, and B) “protect” all minority ethnic, religious, and racial groups, an international conference was convened at Hofstra University, April 2oth through the 22nd, 1988.

The aim of the conference, which was co-sponsored by several minority advocacy groups (including the NAACP), was to explore the use of “group defamation” laws (the expansion of defamation laws to include speech directed not at a specifically-named individual, but at an identifiable “group” of individuals) to criminalize speech.

The centerpiece of the conference would be the unveiling of the ideal group defamation model statute, which could be used as the basis for future speech criminalization laws. Law students from across the country were invited to submit their own model statutes. The winning statute would be decided by the conference’s attendees, and given a “test run” in a moot court with Columbia Law School Vice Dean (and former Director-Counsel of the NAACP) Jack Greenberg acting as prosecutor, and celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz acting for the defense.

The judges would be Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Amalya Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As an additional bonus, the winning submission would fetch $1,500 for its author (about $3,000 in 2010 dollars).

In a letter to then-Missouri-Kansas City School of Law student Devin House, conference director Monroe Freedman (the Dean of Hofstra Law School) explained the purpose of the model statute:

“We are looking for a model statute outlawing group defamation, that is, one that would permit prior restraint by public officials of speech that is defamatory of any minority group. The statute should be as broad as the drafters conclude is constitutionally permissible or, at least, arguably permissible; at the same time, it should include whatever limitations or conditions are considered essential to satisfy constitutional requirements. An accompanying legislative report should set forth the legislature’s grounds for concluding that the statute is necessary, the legislature’s purpose in enacting the statute, and the legislature’s reasoning in drafting the statute as broadly/narrowly as it is.” (November 16, 1987; copy supplied by Devin House)

For three days, legal scholars and minority activists addressed the issue of creating and implementing group defamation laws. Not every speaker at the conference was in favor of the idea; several came to argue against it. But the overwhelming majority of speakers argued for the necessity of such laws.

At the close of the conference, the winning model statute was chosen. The moot court was held, and (not surprisingly) the “defendant,” a fictional white racist named Jesse Stump, was convicted using the model statute.

The statute (which can be viewed as a PDF file here: ModelStatute) had proven its viability in a moot court presided over by two U.S. Court of Appeals justices, with two renowned constitutional law experts as prosecutor and defense attorney.

Since the Hofstra conference, group defamation laws have become the norm in Europe and elsewhere in the West. They have been used primarily to prosecute (some would say persecute) opponents of radical Islam (in one recent high-profile case, Dutch politician and Islam critic Geert Wilders was prosecuted under the Netherlands’ group defamation law). And there has been no shortage of attempts to enact such laws in the U.S. As Southern University legal scholar Thomas David Jones notes in his book Human Rights: Group Defamation, Freedom of Expression and the Law of Nations:

“Although there exists no federal group defamation law in the United States, a few state legislatures have promulgated group defamation statutes, while a cause of action for group defamation has been recognized as justiciable in the decision law of other states.”

As recently as 2009, NYU Law School Professor Thomas Waldron, lecturing at Harvard as part of that university’s Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures Series, vigorously advocated bringing group defamation laws to the U.S. Waldron lamented that, outside the U.S., group defamation laws are

“common and widely accepted (though not uncontroversial). For us, that gives rise to a question about what the European or Canadian or New Zealand legislators think they are doing with these laws. Why have most liberal democracies undertaken to prohibit these manifestations of hatred, these visible defamations of social groups, rather than permitting and tolerating them in the name of free speech?”

Waldron specifically stressed the need to enact group defamation laws in order to “protect” Muslim Americans.

In 1995, to commemorate the impact of the Hofstra conference, Greenwood Press published a collection of essays by the conference’s participants (“Group Defamation and Freedom of Speech”). As is frequently the case when academic conferences are published in book form, the participants were allowed to re-edit their original speeches, changing them and updating them. As a result, the essays published in the book are not the same as the speeches that were recorded during the conference.

Oddly, nowhere in the book did it mention the conference’s keynote speaker, Democratic Congressman John Conyers Jr. Not only was Conyers’ speech left out of the book, his very participation in the event was completely omitted.

Perhaps the fact that a United States Congressman (who, after all, had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution) had taken part in a conference the stated goal of which was to limit First Amendment freedoms was not something Conyers was comfortable publicizing.

Whatever the reason, Conyers’ participation in the conference was completely wiped from the record. The audio tape of Conyers’ speech is the sole piece of actual evidence that he was there.

You can hear his speech here.

In a related article, the man who wrote the model statute that won the approval of the assembled legal minds at the conference (including the two U.S. Court of Appeals justices) was recently disbarred for misconduct. That article can be seen here.

PrudentRegret
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:51 pm

Re: How would we formulate a court case?

Postby PrudentRegret » 3 days 4 hours ago (Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:37 pm)

We should contact the ACLU, I am sure that they will defend free speech against the monopolistic ban on Revisionism.

In all seriousness though, I do think this is something CODOH should pursue. If they publicized a legal fund with a compelling strategy I bet many would contribute.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2096
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: How would we formulate a court case?

Postby Lamprecht » 3 days 4 hours ago (Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:08 pm)

PrudentRegret wrote:We should contact the ACLU, I am sure that they will defend free speech against the monopolistic ban on Revisionism.

In all seriousness though, I do think this is something CODOH should pursue. If they publicized a legal fund with a compelling strategy I bet many would contribute.

It really is not the time, I believe. Ajit Pai tweeted this only yesterday: https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/1 ... 3805236226

Image

I don't agree with this "Section 230" approach, these big tech giants should be declared instead to be common carriers [or even natural monopolies] and thus cannot discriminate by political ideology. Your electricity company can't just turn off your power because you said Jews weren't gassed at Auschwitz.

The groundwork has been laid already, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommu ... ct_of_1996
Part of the provision says that you cannot be refused service by common carriers, especially phone companies - which at the time were providing internet services because everyone had dial-up - for your political or ideological beliefs.

Revisionism is growing for sure, but the censorship train is silencing a lot more mainstream voices. CODOH is not going to get the same amount of sympathy as mainstream conservatives will get. Jared Taylor (who certainly gets more funding than CODOH) sued Twitter two years ago and his case was dismissed. How would CODOH get a different result? Maybe it would work as a publicity stunt, but it would be an extremely expensive one. Somehow, CODOH links are not banned from Facebook. You can post them and it doesn't delete the post. But if you try a Stormfront or Unz.com link, it will say you cannot post it. As I pointed out in the Wikipedia's treatment of CODOH thread, they just pretend CODOH doesn't exist.

There has to be a sucessful lawsuit to set a precedent if Trump can't handle this at the federal level. Court cases like this take a long time, literally years until the case would be heard. If someone else does it and is successful (unlike Jared Taylor) then a lawsuit could be filed and the companies may just settle out of court or reinstate the account to avoid paying fees.

They're too sloppy with the censorship. They're going to censor someone very mainstream and it's going to backfire. Revisionism just doesn't have enough public support right now to go anywhere with a lawsuit.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: How would we formulate a court case?

Postby borjastick » 2 days 12 hours ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:36 pm)

Just to put this in context in France yesterday a teacher was beheaded by a muslim loon. This is what President Macron said today.

Mr Macron said: "One of our compatriots was murdered today because he taught ... the freedom of expression, the freedom to believe or not believe."


So it's fine for someone to express an opinion which differs to the one they might like us to have, that being inclusion and the untouchable position of Islam and its followers as all being sweet kind types, but not to allow real freedom of expression on the subject of the holocaust. This could be served up nicely in a court room.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2096
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: How would we formulate a court case?

Postby Lamprecht » 2 days 12 hours ago (Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:41 pm)

borjastick wrote:Just to put this in context in France yesterday a teacher was beheaded by a muslim loon. This is what President Macron said today.
Mr Macron said: "One of our compatriots was murdered today because he taught ... the freedom of expression, the freedom to believe or not believe."

So it's fine for someone to express an opinion which differs to the one they might like us to have, that being inclusion and the untouchable position of Islam and its followers as all being sweet kind types, but not to allow real freedom of expression on the subject of the holocaust. This could be served up nicely in a court room.

Mr. Macron is quite a character. He claims to be for freedom of speech and expression as revisionists are fined and imprisoned in his country.

French Pres. Macron claims to support 'Free speech' as "deniers" (musicians, poets, rappers, artists) are persecuted
viewtopic.php?t=13510
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests