It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are 9/11 Denial Laws Possible/Probable?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   
In many countries you can actually go to gaol for denying the Holcaust of the Jews in WW2

en.wikipedia.org...

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalize genocide denial. In addition, the European Union has issued a directive to combat racism and xenophobia, which makes provision for member states criminalising Holocaust denial, with a maximum prison sentence of between one and three years. Also, the Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cyber Crime, concerning the prosecution of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems includes an article entitled Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity, although this does not have the status of law. Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, a number (Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Romania) were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and many of these also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as Nazi symbols.


Is it possible or even foreseeeable that in the near future that such laws could be drafted about 9/11 denial. I mean if you don't accept the "OFFICIAL STORY". With all the information going around about FEMA Camps, martial law & the Patriot act, if such scenarios ever come into play is it plausible that such laws could come into existance.

Does anyone even know if such laws have even been thought of, planned or even discussed?

Just throwing this out there as a possibility, because if such laws came into existence, they would be a great excuse for TPTB to round up many what they would call "disidents" or even label "terrorist".

I was just curious about this since so many cases in modern times of the freedom of speech being taken away more & more.
edit on 28-11-2010 by acrux because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
People have been deported & gone to gaol because of holocaust denial laws.

www.rense.com...

David Irving, the controversial British historian, was arrested in Austria on November 11 for a 16-year-old violation of that country's "Holocaust denial" statute. He has now been formally charged, and if found guilty could face years in prison.

His case is by no means unique. In Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland and several other European countries, as well as in Israel, it is a crime publicly to dispute the official version of Holocaust history.

The list of those who have been fined, imprisoned, or forced into exile for "denying the Holocaust" includes Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Juergen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland, and Guenter Deckert, Hans Schmidt and Fredrick Toben in Germany.

On November 8, the trial in Germany of "Holocaust denier" Ernst Zundel began with a dramatic clash between his attorneys and the presiding judge. And a few days later Germar Rudolf, a German citizen, was deported from Chicago to his homeland, where he likewise faces years of imprisonment for "denying the Holocaust."


edit on 28-11-2010 by acrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
The fascists in the obama administration have already started talking about it.

There would be a lot of us here on ATS that would be locked up in the hoosegow if obama had his way.

www.salon.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 



So Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on those who" do it -- but he says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions." I'd love to know the "conditions" under which the government-enforced banning of conspiracy theories or the imposition of taxes on those who advocate them will "have a place." That would require, at a bare minumum, a repeal of the First Amendment. Anyone who believes this should, for that reason alone, be barred from any meaningful government position.


Scarey stuff. I think many of us here would probably get death-row or at least be a lifer



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Possible/Probable?

No, not really. Any thought to the contrary is trying to inflate the truth movement with importance it simply doesn't have.

And the Sunstein piece is being hyped beyond hysterics, to the point that it's rather amusing to follow.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


What about the sunstein expose makes it hyped and hysterical?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Possible/Probable?

No, not really. Any thought to the contrary is trying to inflate the truth movement with importance it simply doesn't have.


Couldn't the same be said in the situation of holocaust denial.

I mean if the holocaust is so definate as they tell us, why do they need make it illegal to say othyerwise.

No I not denying the holocaust as a fact, I am just using this instance to portray the point I'm trying to get cross.
edit on 28-11-2010 by acrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 

Apart from the fact that it was an acedemic paper from years ago, which the Obama administration have made no attempt to turn into reality?

I mean, even Greenwald had to admit

"[t]here's no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a program"


The paper advocates legal means of injecting better information into the networks of extremist groups. The paper points out that extremist groups are often influenced by a shallow stream of information, and, in many cases, deliberate and calculated misinformation. However Sunstein made a basic error: Most of these groups don't want the right information, they want the information that supports their pre-established view. The majority of the threads in here is a prime example of that.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by acrux

Originally posted by roboe
Possible/Probable?

No, not really. Any thought to the contrary is trying to inflate the truth movement with importance it simply doesn't have.


Couldn't the same be said in the situation of holocaust denial.

I mean if the holocaust is so definate as they tell us, why do they need make it illegal to say othyerwise.

No I not denying the holocaust as a fact, I am just using this instance to portray the point I'm trying to get cross.
edit on 28-11-2010 by acrux because: (no reason given)

In the vast majority of cases, the laws are not specific to Holocaust, but either makes it illegal to deny crimes against humanity or makes it illegal to incite religious hatred.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
if the dancing Israeli thing gets out of hand on them....
If people start questiong the fact the Israeli security let the Hijackers through at more then one terrorist incident

The Israeli firm ICTS International (not to be confused with ICTS Europe, which is a different company), and two of its subsidiaries are at the crux of an international investigation in recent days, as experts try to pinpoint the reasons for the security failure that enabled Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board Northwest flight 253 and attempt to set alight explosives hidden in his underwear.

A Haaretz investigation has learned that the security officers and their supervisor should have suspected the passenger, even without having early intelligence available to them.

www.haaretz.com...

just a matter of time.
edit on 28-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


There's a lot of smoke here with cass sunstein and the obama regime in general. Behind the scenes, the fascist fires are burning brightly.

These people have been talking, thinking about and planning to "engineer consent" for decades, and it follows that they have been thinking about "deconstructing and transforming" the rights we have long held.

Incrementalism has been a tool used by these fascists for a long time. They are admittedly "injecting truth" into online discussions, as evidenced by the white house paying cold hard cash to MIT "experts" to come out publically in favor of the obamacare farce.

Look at what a primary white house/obama advisor sunstein has said in print:



They have already carried out #s 3, 4, and 5. How much longer before #s 1 and 2 are invoked. I'm just wondering also about the other components of the plan developed by obama's people that aren't enumerated - i.e., arresting / interning conspiracy theorists, prosecuting conspiracy theory-related thought crimes, seizing webdomains that disseminate information that doesn't follow the party line - OOPS! They are already doing the latter...I forgot!

As most of us can acknowledge, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I believe it all depends very much on exactly HOW it is "denied". If it is just questioning the official story or not fully agreeing with it, then NO, I do not believe in any laws like that.
If the questioning, however, involves the"truther" being downright disrespectful towards the people that- for instance- had phone contact with their loved ones onboard the planes and had their last heartbreaking goodbyes and farewells, then yes, I could see such theoretical laws being set in place. Not to hide, but to protect.
Indeed, some "truthers" can be very disrespectful towards the survivors and even hinting that they are liars, and that the people on the ground that had planes fly over their .s(HunkaHunka being one of those), are liars too, which I find extremelydisgusting.

That said, I don't believe in any such laws ever being set in place, so my post is all just speculation.
edit on 28-11-2010 by Nightchild because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild
I believe it all depends very much on exactly HOW it is "denied". If it is just questioning the official story or not fully agreeing with it, then NO, I do not believe in any laws like that.
If the questioning, however, involves the"truther" being downright disrespectful towards the people that- for instance- had phone contact with their loved ones onboard the planes and had their last heartbreaking goodbyes and farewells, then yes, I could see such theoretical laws being set in place. Not to hide, but to protect.
Indeed, some "truthers" can be very disrespectful towards the survivors and even hinting that they are liars, and that the people on the ground that had planes fly over their .s(HunkaHunka being one of those), are liars too, which I find extremelydisgusting.

Hey, anything's possible! I saw a bizarre TV programme a few months back, about some "stolen valour" thing, where it's apparently illegal to say you "served" in one or other of the illegal wars the USA has started since 9/11... (It all turned out to be for the purpose of denigrating a Democrat standing for office somewhere - why such a programme was ever screened in NZ is beyond me, but still...Unless the intended audience was Americans living in NZ to get them to vote for Republicans, but meh, how many Americans are there here who still vote in US elections? )
However, if saying you "served" in Iraq etc when you didn't is illegal and an imprisoning offence, then why not make being a 9/11 sceptic illegal?




top topics



 
1

log in

join