From: Bruce Murphy <packrat@ratbox.rattus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 20:23:30 +0800
To: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)
Subject: Re: The Big Lie
In-Reply-To: <a3ZFiD78w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <199601291158.TAA00437@ratbox.rattus.uwa.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <a3ZFiD78w165w@bwalk.dm.com>, 
  Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote:
> Zero crypto relevance...
> 
> mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
> > It is interesting to note that there is no specific law
> > prohibiting free speech for Holocaust Agnostics in Germany. The
> > actual laws under which such cases are prosecuted are libel laws,
> > which have been liberally interpreted to mean that one may not
> > "libel" deceased Jews as a class or their memory in the minds of
> > their surviving relatives.
> >
> > The notion of libeling a class of deceased persons strikes me as
> > a dangerous and particularly convoluted legal fiction. (Although
> > I certainly don't mean any disrespect for the deceased or their
> > survivors when I say this.)
> 
> To me this sounds like a very twisted legal reasoning. If I understood
> correctly some other posts in this thread, by saying something like, "the Naz
> is
> invaded Denmark for reasons other than to round up and kill the 3,000 Danish
> Jews", this Zendel loser automatically implies that whoever says otherwise is
> lying; and that is a libel/slander, and is a criminal (not just civil) offens
> e.

I was under the impression that you couldn't libel/slander a dead
person. Mainly because libel/slander is a offence against reputation
which dead people don't care much for, but also because once you go
against this principle where in hell (no pun intended) do you draw the
line.

Of course my impressions tend to be based around the legal system I've
lived in all my life...

--
Packrat (BSc/BE;COSO;Wombat Admin)
Nihil illegitemi carborvndvm.