Holocaust denier gets three years

nope, he expressed those views publicly.

besides, that's why he's appealing right now. his attorney says he 'modified his views' on holocaust since then. we'll see, nothing is over yet.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

thanks for the sorites paradox joe

OE "in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace"..

If one person is disturbed by denial of the Holocaust, that is not a disruption of public peace.

If two people are disturbed that is not a breach of the peace

Therefore if 9999 or 10000 are disturbed, that also is not a breach of the public peace

And note that, in order for a crime to be committed, there is no need for an actual disruption of public peace. The Holocaust denier must simply state his/her views in a manner capable of disturbing public peace. That's an awfully large hole through which the police and prosecutors can jump. I doubt if such a vague law could withstand scrutiny in the US (ignoring, for the moment, its obvious first amendment implications).

0 Replies

yeah that word capable is the killer.

In UK recently parliament effectively emasculated a bill designed to prevent "incitement to religious hatred". Its a good thing they did because it would have been a crime to give offense to religion EVEN if no offense was meant, and EVEN if what was said was factually correct. Punishable 7 years gaol max.

So we would only need one bunch of religious crazies to say they were offended by something another bunch of religious crazies said....and that would be enough to get them locked up. Actually this gives me an idea... Smile

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

And note that, in order for a crime to be committed, there is no need for an actual disruption of public peace. The Holocaust denier must simply state his/her views in a manner capable of disturbing public peace. That's an awfully large hole through which the police and prosecutors can jump. I doubt if such a vague law could withstand scrutiny in the US (ignoring, for the moment, its obvious first amendment implications).

Well, it's according to our constitution - said a couple of times in various rulings by the Federal Constitutional Court.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

nope, he expressed those views publicly.

....

That's exactly what the previous post said EXPRESSED.

Thinking and reading are awfully scarce on this thread.

Joe is correct that's an enormous hole in the law, but the judge had no choice except to follow the law as written and instruct the jury accordingly.

0 Replies

One thing is certain from the Irving tragicomedy and that's that nobody in Europe can object to Moslems revolting against cartoons and Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and so on.

You reap what you sow, this is appalling hypocrisy!!!!

0 Replies

Louise_R_Heller wrote:

Joe is correct that's an enormous hole in the law, but the judge had no choice except to follow the law as written and instruct the jury accordingly.

If you are referring to the Austrian case: there isn't a jury in Austria.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Louise_R_Heller wrote:

Joe is correct that's an enormous hole in the law, but the judge had no choice except to follow the law as written and instruct the jury accordingly.

If you are referring to the Austrian case: there isn't a jury in Austria.

Yes, I know, thank you, and I was very surprised to read about a jury in the BBC article posted earlier.

I thought maybe the man was tried according to his own jurisdiction ie British law.

0 Replies

Sorry the link is to timesonline.uk and not to BBC as erroneously posted by Fresco.

0 Replies

Louise_R_Heller wrote:

I thought maybe the man was tried according to his own jurisdiction ie British law.

It wasn't akind of "international" court but the Vienna Bezirksgericht' (here: 'Schwurgericht' as first instance).

Of course in Austria, like in any other independent country with an own jurisdiction only their own law applies for cases under their own law (e.g. in Germany NATO-statute gives a different legal reason for foreign courts in some special cases).

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
And note that, in order for a crime to be committed, there is no need for an actual disruption of public peace. The Holocaust denier must simply state his/her views in a manner capable of disturbing public peace. That's an awfully large hole through which the police and prosecutors can jump. I doubt if such a vague law could withstand scrutiny in the US (ignoring, for the moment, its obvious first amendment implications).

Well, it's according to our constitution - said a couple of times in various rulings by the Federal Constitutional Court.

You see Joe, our constitution can suck too.

0 Replies

Louise R. Heller

I would be obliged if you could keep your patronisation in check.

1, The BBC reported that Irving was arrested on arrival in Austria to address a right wing rally last year. My quote can be found on Google and I heard it on the BBC news myself.

2. The article I later cited was obviously from Timesonline and its purpose was to give an account of the atmosphere in which Irving was tried...i.e. the court considered him to be unrepentant and arrogantly "testing the system" by riding on the bandwagon of "free speech".

Those who feel that this simply is a "free speech" issue should bare in mind that attitudes to the horrors of Nazism ran sufficiently deep to physically divide Germany after WW2. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1947 can also be viewed as a direct consequence of Nazism and the collective guilt of the allies prior to to the war in turning a relatively blind eye to German events. IMO "Freedom of Speech" is a fine ideal but cannot come prior to "Freedom from Persecution".

0 Replies

Holocaust denier gets three years

fresco wrote:

Louise R. Heller

I would be obliged if you could keep your patronisation in check.

1, The BBC reported that Irving was arrested on arrival in Austria to address a right wing rally last year. My quote can be found on Google and I heard it on the BBC news myself.

2. The article I later cited was obviously from Timesonline and its purpose was to give an account of the atmosphere in which Irving was tried...i.e. the court considered him to be unrepentant and arrogantly "testing the system" by riding on the bandwagon of "free speech".

Those who feel that this simply is a "free speech" issue should bare in mind that attitudes to the horrors of Nazism ran sufficiently deep to physically divide Germany after WW2. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1947 can also be viewed as a direct consequence of Nazism and the collective guilt of the allies prior to to the war in turning a relatively blind eye to German events. IMO "Freedom of Speech" is a fine ideal but cannot come prior to "Freedom from Persecution".

With regard to free speech, sometimes the time, place, and the manner in which it's delivered should be considered. But without realizing, by making those words spoken illegal, they have become the very thing that they are so fervently against.

0 Replies

PoetSeductress

Sorry, I disagree !

Freedom is always relative, never absolute. Man is a social animal and speech is a social act with social consequences. It is the consequences of that act (not the words) which delimit any "freedom".

0 Replies

How did this happen? The ones who scream from the rafters that George Bush is taking away freedoms are doing more damage to freedom than he could possibly imagine.

They want to blame a newspaper for printing cartoons, and they want to muzzle speech. Now, the comparison to 1984 comes alive.

Watch this grow. Here is where your freedoms are leaking. Across Europe and with the elitist Balancing Voicers, who will tell you what you can and can't say.

0 Replies

Holocaust denier gets three years

fresco wrote:

PoetSeductress

Sorry, I disagree !

Freedom is always relative, never absolute. Man is a social animal and speech is a social act with social consequences. It is the consequences which delimit any "freedom".

That's okay, fresco. Smile

But if you'll notice my first sentence, "With regard to free speech, sometimes the time, place, and the manner in which it's delivered should be considered," I didn't rule out controlling the time, place, and manner of the speech. For instance, you can yell "Fire!" in certain public places, which would not cause a panic or riot (such as at a shooting range, or a bonfire on the beach, etc.). But to scream in a crowded mall or a commercial airplane, is definitely illegal.

Those who don't believe the Holocaust ever happened (which I'm not one of them), should be able to speak their opinion. However, due to the extreme sensitivity of it, the law should regulate minimal guidelines for it. I think this is a fair way to go about it, while still respecting both sides, and keeping the fundamentals of free speech in tact.

Would you be able to go along with this?

0 Replies

Re: Holocaust denier gets three years

PoetSeductress wrote:

However, due to the extreme sensitivity of it, the law should regulate minimal guidelines for it. I think this is a fair way to go about it, while still respect both sides, and keeping the fundamentals of free speech in tact.

a) there are kind of "guidelines" both in Austrian as well as in German Criminal Law, namely comments and previous court rulings (in Germany especially those by the Federal Constitutional Court).

b) according to both the constitution of Austria as well as that of Germany these "fundamentals of free speech" are regulated in the resp. constitutions.
I sincerely doubt, one of this contries will change their constitution only to please US-Americans and/or to conform it with the American constitution/laws.

0 Replies

Re: Holocaust denier gets three years

Walter Hinteler wrote:

PoetSeductress wrote:
However, due to the extreme sensitivity of it, the law should regulate minimal guidelines for it. I think this is a fair way to go about it, while still respect both sides, and keeping the fundamentals of free speech in tact.

a) there are kind of "guidelines" both in Austrian as well as in German Criminal Law, namely comments and previous court rulings (in Germany especially those by the Federal Constitutional Court).

b) according to both the constitution of Austria as well as that of Germany these "fundamentals of free speech" are regulated in the resp. constitutions.
I sincerely doubt, one of this contries will change their constitution only to please US-Americans and/or to conform it with the American constitution/laws.

I understand, Walter. But my perspective wasn't arising under imposing the label of an American, rather from the generic, universal perspective of common sense and fairness.

Do you think that there should be no laws of any kind, regulating speech, regardless of the effects of it?

0 Replies

Well, I think these laws re Holocaust denying should stay until .... who knows?

Our (=the German, although the Austrian is quite similar) law system AND constitution are quite different to the USA.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you think that there should be no laws of any kind, regulating speech, regardless of the effects of it?

This is my explanation of U.S. law. This also happens to be the way I think a free society should be.

1) Anyone has the right to publically express and defend any belief no matter how offensive.

2) Restrictions on the form of expression of these beliefs are only allowed when there is a overriding public interest.

Examples of #2 are direct threats ("I am going to kill you"), Libel ("Chad the petstore owner kills and eats puppies"), Malicious mischief with a direct and predictiable bad result ("There's a fire in the theater") and Incitement ("Let's go kill the Xandrians").

Statements like "The Holocaust never happened","You deserve to die", "Chad is an animal" or "Xandrians are from the devil" are clearly on the permitted side of the line.

0 Replies

Holocaust denier gets three years

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know