3 Years for denying Holocaust

I am having a hard time justifying free speech in this circumstance - at the same time, I'm shocked he got jail time. I feel the same way about this free speech as I do about the cartoon free speech: not so squarely on the side of free speech rights.

0 Replies

'as an American'? Why is it that important to highlight that?

In any case, I hear you, I understand your reasoning, and I do know the American perspective (I teach human rights), but I just have a different opinion.
HR are universal, inalienable, and indivisible - which means ONE does not rise above the rest of them. They form a holistic unity, otherwise they are worthless. If you, for example, have right to life, but nobody guarantees your right to work in a healthy environment (be it due to discrimination, or exploitation or whatnot...), well than the right to life is a worthless piece of paper. Same with freedom of speech. As soon as it becomes absolute and trumps all other rights, other rights become meaningless.

Plus, don't forget that Jews, Gypsies, gay, and others DID die in WWII. I don't know about the Xandrians, but there are still many survivors in Austria and elsewhere that do remember Holocaust and DO feel threatened by Holocaust deniers and Nazi proselytizers.

I don't know what cannot be expressed legally in the States - but again - I don't necessarily think that that is a GOOD thing.

0 Replies

I agree on jail time being excessive, lk... yet the argument remains.

0 Replies

Re: 3 Years for denying Holocaust

phoney wrote:

David Irving was given 3 years jail in Vienna today for statements he made in 1989 denying the Holocaust. If he had denied the war it wouldn't have been a crime. It appears Austria and Germany are the only two countries where saying the Holocaust didn't happen, or even was not as bad as it was, is a crime.

David Irving, an now historian with no credibilty, denied, distorted and manipulated historical records to fit his anti-semitic, neo-nazi, racist agenda.

phoney wrote:

What a bizarre law. Irving has retracted his denial in recent years and said he was wrong, and I think jailing him now merely makes him a marty for some sections of the extreme right. His sentence just gives him publicity and will increase his book sales.
What happened to free speech.

No, this is not a bizarre law. What is bizarre is Mr. Irving denied there were ever gas chambers, he rejected historical evidence -- that millions of Jews were killed.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

I agree on jail time being excessive, lk... yet the argument remains.

It does seem strict, but remember--Those countries enacting the law are especially interested in not seeing another Hitler come to power.

After WWI Germany was left to try it's own war criminals, which resulted in no harsh sentencing, and of the two who were convicted they escaped no more than two weeks into their jail time. Hitler rose up, and well, the rest is history.

0 Replies

Europe, The case you gave from 1919 at first glance seems to fit into my argument perfectly. This was a person who was "obstructing recruitment", not merely expressing a belief.

My point of view has been supported by the courts on numerous occasions involving war protests since then, including such inflammatory protests like burning the flag.

The George Bush cases you mention are, like many things Bush does, probably unconstitutional.
----------------

But let me continue my argument from a different slant.

The United States allows Nazi's free expression-- including the right to publish hate-filled literature and to have marches in residential areas. Europe doesn't.

Which policy is more effective. I seems like in spite of (or because) the legal prohibition Nazi-like behavior is much more a problem in Europe, from racial violence to obnoxious behavior at sporting events. Now granted this is not a perfect argument because of the history involved...

But, when the Nazi's (defended by a laywer provided by the liberal ACLU) won the right to hold a march in a city (I think it was in Ohio) the result was a very strong counter-protest and a frank discussion of racism. The anti-racist marchers significantly outnumbered the Nazi's

I am a strong proponent of free speech-- which to me is the one of most sacred things there is.

But even if you don't value this liberty the way I do, letting hatred be expreseed, and dealt with out in the open is clearly more effective than forcing it into the shadows where it can grow without being dealt with by society.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

But let me continue my argument from a different slant.

The United States allows Nazi's free expression-- including the right to publish hate-filled literature and to have marches in residential areas. Europe doesn't.

Which policy is more effective. I seems like in spite of (or because) the legal prohibition Nazi-like behavior is much more a problem in Europe, from racial violence to obnoxious behavior at sporting events. Now granted this is not a perfect argument because of the history involved...

But, when the Nazi's (defended by a laywer provided by the liberal ACLU) won the right to hold a march in a city (I think it was in Ohio) the result was a very strong counter-protest and a frank discussion of racism. The anti-racist marchers significantly outnumbered the Nazi's.

This is actually a good point.

0 Replies

once again, ebrown: i'm sure you're right that it is that way. but that does not mean it itself is necessarily right. it certainly does not make me feel grand that nazis can march around in a city. i am a strong proponent of all rights - not just freedom of speech. none of them is superior.

....and this case is NOT about america or americans.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Taking into account the history, I still think this is basically stupid. I would prefer to have nutjobs up front and on the stage where their idiocies can be judged than locked away and hidden.

Dys For President!!!

I so agree!!

0 Replies

dys, you got that in this country.

0 Replies

Of course, many of our idiots can preach their idiocies from behind bars....

But, again, this is about european laws, right?

0 Replies

Don't you think in countries where some speech can be punished with imprisonment, there may be an associated chilling effect?

Wouldn't you rather know what people were thinking and where their sentiments were...rather than allow it to fester and come out explosively?

As much as I despise anti-Semitism and other isms, I'd fight like hell for their right to speak. I'd be afraid to enforce some Big Brother-like censor.

And, moreso, I'd wonder when they'd come after MY right to speak.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

'as an American'? Why is it that important to highlight that?

Please forgive me when I indulge in a bit of patriotism. I think the US view, and history on the forfront of freedom of speech is one of our best contributions to the world and has saved us more than once.

Quote:

HR are universal, inalienable, and indivisible - which means ONE does not rise above the rest of them. They form a holistic unity, otherwise they are worthless. If you, for example, have right to life, but nobody guarantees your right to work in a healthy environment (be it due to discrimination, or exploitation or whatnot...), well than the right to life is a worthless piece of paper. Same with freedom of speech. As soon as it becomes absolute and trumps all other rights, other rights become meaningless.

I disagree with this for one reason. Freedom of Speech-- even for people you find reprehensible-- does not take away any of your rights. Quite the contrary. When the rights of one group is taken away, it weakens the rights of everyone.

This man was arrested and jailed for "holocaust denial". Denying the Holocaust does not hurt the human rights of anyone. No one is losing their liberty because of what this man says. No one is losing life nor liberty.

Now you will say that this man is deeply offensive (and I will agree with you).

The right to not be offended is not a basic human right. The fact that the Holocaust was unbelievably horrible and still painful makes this that much more offensive. But the fact remains that that you can't keep people from offending you if you want liberty.

Claiming there is a right to not be offended on the same level as the Freedom of Speech is dangerous. The line gets real fuzzy. Atheism, Homosexuality, Judaism, flag burning and opposing war are all deeply offensive to some.

To you Naziism and Holocaust denial are clearly offensive and Miscegination is not-- but do you see the danger? You are setting the precedent that if a belief is deemed deeply offensive by a significant part of society, it can be legally stuffed underground.

Quote:

I don't know what cannot be expressed legally in the States - but again - I don't necessarily think that that is a GOOD thing.

Freedom of speech means that every idea-- good, bad, horrifying controversial or revolutionary can be discussed and accepted or rejected as part of public discourse. In the United States the freedom of speech is very well established-- with exceptions for threats and incitement to violence; but Nazi's and the like are protected along with hippies, anarchists and peace-niks.

I find the Nazi's as vile as you do, but I don't fear their ideas. Let them express it-- and then let me respond. More important is that when I have an ideas that goes against popular opinion, I have the legal right to state my case without worrying about being legally muzzled.

0 Replies

Wow. Incredibly powerful post, ebrown.

Unassailable.

0 Replies

(Lash, you seem to be getting a fair bit more liberal recently, or is it me?. I like it much better when we agree.)

0 Replies

I am having a really hard time deciding where I fall on this whole thing. I guess I feel that one can't judge all cases by the same yard stick. Disenters in China are due freedom of speech, but this nutter in Austria has gone, in my opinion, too far. He's been at it for decades. But, after reading some of his statements, claims, and opinions, I'd say he belongs in a mental institution more than a prison.

0 Replies

One question - what about the right to persue happiness?

0 Replies

This has always been my stance on free speech.

It may be some other issue I can't think of right now, but I prefer to agree, as well. That was just a remarkable explanation of why Free Speech is so vital.

It concerns me that those who put these "legal protections" in place, may wind up being worse that what they began fighting against.

3 Years for denying Holocaust

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know