Has Policital Correctness killed Freedom of Speech?
I've heard people are being jailed for nothing more than raising debate over accepted myths. Myths such as the extent and severity of the 'holocaust' in WWII. From what I can gather there are questions being raised as to the actual severity of the holocaust and when-ever someone does this questioning publicly they are immediately silenced. If there is nothing to hide, why can't this be debated?

GI_Jane

Many people adhering to "political correctness" often do so to conceal what they really believe - in fear of ridicule. In other words we appear to have become a nation of people who speak with "forked tongues."

Having said that, I am not denying that it is essential to practise a good degree of diplomacy and civility in any enlightened nation.

However my chief concern in Australian society is with the state and federal governments' suppression of freedom of information which has been to the citizens' detriment. In addition, I have openly objected to Mr Costello's endeavours to suppress freedom of speech when he legislated to charge the ACCC with the powers to sue any group which may see fit to boycott businesses they sincerely believe to be operating unethically.

"Myths such as the extent and severity of the 'holocaust' in WWII."

So which part of the "extent " and "severity" of the Holocaust do you consider to have been benign, GI_Jane?

Your example of suppression of freedom of speech has me confused since Hitler specifically ordered the Reichstag to convene at Nuremberg to pass the anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws which revoked German citizenship for all Jews. These are documented facts - not myths.

Nevertheless, in Australia, citizens are free to deny that Hitler's intention was to commit genocide on a specific group of people.

I doubt those who deny the severity of the Holocaust would be "gaoled" or "silenced" for attempting to debate this issue - perhaps shunned by their more "politically correct" opponents or ridiculed or challenged by the more vocal, who would no doubt simply request to view hard evidence in support of those beliefs!

GI JANEY...

I agree.. open debate is healthy.

The problem is.... 'information' is often "managed" in order to fulfill specific agendas.

I heard something on the news a few days ago.. the US government was panicking over a loss of confidence in the financial sector.. shares etc.. and some high ranking person rang Rupert.. and asked 'give things a bit of a positive spin and plug Rup...k? :)

NATO INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO.

NATO came to the negotiating table with three basic economic objectives in Kosovo and Yugoslavia in 1999: (1) to dismantle Yugoslavia’s competing socialist economic system, (2) to gain control of valuable mineral resources, and (3) to command the site of a future energy distribution network.

Describing this focus a year before the NATO intervention, New York Times columnist Chris Hedges labeled northern Kosovo’s mines, rich in "lead, zinc, cadmium, gold and silver," as the "Kosovo war's glittering prize."

the International Crisis Group [ICG], then published a report on Trepca stating that UNMIK should "take over the Trepca Mining Complex from the Serbs as quickly as possible and explained how this should be done."[25] The Trepca mines were occupied in 2000 by UN peacekeepers on the grounds that the mines posed an environmental hazard, and were turned over to the Washington Group, a large U.S. defense contractor with partners in France and Sweden.[26]

woooooooo!

The ugly murkey picture emerges.

BUT WAIT... did we hear anything about this in the build up to the intervention?

NOPE..

What DID we hear? "Human rights trampled.. blah blah yada yada..suffering Albanians.. poor Albanians.. BADDDD Serbs.. EEEEVIL Serbs..

The history of Kosovo and Serbia goes back to 1389!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=STO20051229&articleId=1666

Any debate on it should include ALLLL the history!

Same with Holocaust..same with many things.

DICKIE..agreed.

I'm a great believer in "freedom of speech" and generally don't advocate censorship of any kind.

However, I've noticed that those who most vociferously invoke the right to free speech tend to do so in order that they can continue to publish hateful, false, distorted and obnoxious claims and ideas under the cloak of anonymity.

For example, I think that in forums such as this, people should be free to post whatever they like so long as they do so under their real names, which have been verified by the site owners.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Thanks for that - VERY interesting re Kosovo etc - I've been seeking the bigger picture on that one.
I feel like a babe in the woods as I plough through history - so much left unsaid and it is more often the un-said that taints policy rather than that which is said.
I hope that makes sense.
On the holocaust denial issue..see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
regarding David Irving being jailed for daring to debate a moment in history.
Also...talking about free speech - what is happening to our scientists? Dr Watson (of Watson-Crick fame) recently found evidence of a relationship between race and intelligence and stated this publicly only to be attacked vehemently by the press etc and he's now gone - stopped his work it seems. Disappeared.

If j i Jane you think the Holocaust is a myth you have my deepest sympathy.
It happened and to say it did not is a tool some knowingly use to protect a dreadful history of a dreadful political movement we are better of without.
Your quote seems to highlight that dreadful event as untrue?
We always defend free speech but I have doubts about some ideas.