3 Years for denying Holocaust

princesspupule wrote:

So there is a different standard for the press vs. historians speaking out publically at an event?

No. Your example wasn't about Holocaust denying by the press compared to Holocaust denying by individuals.

(I'm rather sure that applies under Austrian Criminal Law as well - but I actually haven't studied that.)

But you should perhaps consider that freedom of speech is just ONE freedom.

It's not really a continental difference - it has a lot to do with the dirrerent law systems (we have Roman Law) and especially with a longer law history (e.g. 'insult' has been forbidden since there the first ideas of law in society).

I recognize that there are very different perspectives on this issue depending on what continent a person comes from.

In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher was charged with denying the Holocaust and making anti-semitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code (now section319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.

and re: Larry Sommers...he talked about women's brains being biologically different from men, which was the reason, in his opinion, why women did not do so well in science and academia. not just about low enrollment. he was not forced to step down, though he should have and would have if he was a decent man. that has little to do with freedom of speech. that was just blatant idiocy on his part and has nothing to do with the rest of this thread.

Restricting expression any more than the U.S. Constitution allows for makes the line in the sand too fluid. Comparisons between the Danish Cartoons and Holocaust denial are quite valid.

Restricting expression any more than the U.S. Constitution allows for makes the line in the sand too fluid.

Attempting to forbid that which can't be extinguished by laws is a fool's game.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Restricting expression any more than the U.S. Constitution allows for makes the line in the sand too fluid. Comparisons between the Danish Cartoons and Holocaust denial are quite valid.

May I kindly remind you that the US constitution has no legal meaning at all in Austria as well as that Austrian Criminal Law sees the Danish cartoons and the Holocaust per lege differently?

But you should perhaps consider that freedom of speech is just ONE freedom.

I disagree with the views Austrian lawmakers have enshrined here. Do you agree with them?

Thomas wrote:

I disagree with the views Austrian lawmakers have enshrined here. Do you agree with them?

It's always quite difficult to compare penalties - in different countries as well as under the same Criminal Code.

I agree with the latter. I even agree with the three years since the law says so. (Otherwise, I suppose, two year with probation would have been okay.)

If we hadn't such a law (similar to the Austrian), I wouldn't mind either.
However, I suppose, such would definitely be the most possible wrong way to handle our terrible past ... legal and peacefully.

Personally, I do think it is as bad as anything else you get three years for.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Personally, I do think it is as bad as anything else you get three years for.

I must admit that this puzzles me, so please help me understand. I can see that when someone denies the Holocaust, that offends people. It offends me too. But how, in your view, does this offense rise to a level where it violates our rights with similar severity as an infanticide or a rape would? I just can't see how you get from here to there.

I appreciate that judgments like this rely on gut instinct, and that this may make it hard to give a rationale for your conclusion. But if there is a rationale, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Personally, I do think it is as bad as anything else you get three years for.

I must admit that this puzzles me, so please help me understand. I can see that when someone denies the Holocaust, that offends people. It offends me too. But how, in your view, does this offense rise to a level where it violates our rights with similar severity as an infanticide or a rape would? I just can't see how you get from here to there.

I appreciate that judgments like this must partly rely on your gut instinct, so you may find it difficult to give a rationale for your conclusion. But if there is a rationale, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Thomas wrote:

I appreciate that judgments like this must partly rely on your gut instinct, so you may find it difficult to give a rationale for your conclusion. But if there is a rationale, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Violence or rape might only affect one other person.

Holocaust denial, if it is not checked, could lead to very undesirable political consequences, potentially affecting many.

I think it is not possible for a meaningful comparison to be made, but I am quite happy an example was made of Irving in this case.