NationStates Jolt Archive

The guy's a Nazi apologist and his work has been discredited.In the two 1989 speeches he termed the Auschwitz gas chambers a "fairytale" and insisted Adolf Hitler had protected the Jews of Europe. He referred to surviving death camp witnesses as "psychiatric cases", and asserted that there were no extermination camps in the Third Reich.I was wondering what people thought on the subject. Should the guy be jailed for what he has said, or is this law too harsh, and that he should be allowed to say these things, no matter how misguided they are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714403,00.html

The guy's a Nazi apologist and his work has been discredited.I was wondering what people thought on the subject. Should the guy be jailed for what he has said, or is this law too harsh, and that he should be allowed to say these things, no matter how misguided they are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714403,00.html
That's a tough one, but I honestly don't think he should be jalied for being stupid. In an open society, people like this are rather quickly marginalized.

I believe in freedom of speech, so I would say that while this guy is a wacko moron, it's better to not put him in jail. I disagree with hate speech laws.

It's strange, especially since he pleaded guilty, and said he had "seen the light" and no longer denied the mass slaughter of Jews. Sure he was probably doing it to avoid jail time, but imo, jail shouldn't have been an issue for him regardless.

But then again, break another countries laws, pay the price I guess. I definately don't agree with it.

Well, at least he didn't say in Israel. They would have stoned him to death.

It's not as though he claims to still deny the holocaust. Given that, three years seems extraordinarily harsh.

I believe in freedom of speech, so I would say that while this guy is a wacko moron, it's better to not put him in jail.
I agree with you on this part.

Of all people who should have been familiar with the law in Austria regarding this, he is.He went out of his way to break the law knowing what may happen.And guess what?? It did.Is the law fair?Probably not.In this case it is a law against ignorance and that is never a good thing.

I'd argue that he shouldn't be jailed. I don't really have a position on hate speech, but then I don't really see this as hate speech. It just seems to be the denial of the accepted form of history. And I don't think that should ever be unlawful. I understand the reason for these laws in Germany and Austria, but I think this law is taking it one step too far.

I voted yes. The world needs less people stirring up old wounds. The guy is supposed to be educated after all. As for serving his sentence in the UK - NO. It's an Austrian law,not British, so they can pay for his jail time.

I voted yes. The world needs less people stirring up old wounds. The guy is supposed to be educated after all. As for serving his sentence in the UK - NO. It's an Austrian law,not British, so they can pay for his jail time.
Hmm. So we should jail all the Southern US people who fly Confederate flags, or who aver that the slaves were happy?

Of all people who should have been familiar with the law in Austria regarding this, he is.He went out of his way to break the law knowing what may happen.And guess what?? It did.Is the law fair?Probably not.In this case it is a law against ignorance and that is never a good thing.The small problem is that he made the speech before the Treay of Maastrict (the one that formed the EU). This treaty states that member states can not deny extradition requests from member states... I think... I could be wrong about the dates. And also the UK isn't a signatory to the Schengen Argeement, but rather has only adopted the parts that it wanted to, and I'm not sure which parts it adopted.

The guy's a Nazi apologist and his work has been discredited.I was wondering what people thought on the subject. Should the guy be jailed for what he has said, or is this law too harsh, and that he should be allowed to say these things, no matter how misguided they are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714403,00.html

Freedom of speech is a very valuable liberty, but it must have limits. The freedom to express one's opinions should not be abusable to express lies.
What Irving did goes far beyond freedom of speech, it was willful misinformation on a very delicate subject. For obvious reasons in Austria as well as in Germany (where Irving had been fined already) the laws dealing with denial of historic facts about the Nazi regime and its crimes are very harsh.
Austria and Germany have every right to put someone in prison who also is a threat to the current education of young people about the darkest period of European history.

It's strange, especially since he pleaded guilty, and said he had "seen the light" and no longer denied the mass slaughter of Jews. Sure he was probably doing it to avoid jail time, but imo, jail shouldn't have been an issue for him regardless.

But then again, break another countries laws, pay the price I guess. I definately don't agree with it.

That's about where I stand on it. If it were the US and we had a law like that, I'd be fighting to get the law overturned, but it's not the US, and Austria has their reasons. I might not agree with their reasons, but it's not my country. Irving knew the law when he made the speech, and now he has to pay the consequences. I don't like it either, but it is their law.

What I'm wondering is if this conviction isn't a violation of his human rights as set down in the ECHR...
Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

(Text) (http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf)
My gut reaction is that the austrian law is in violation with the convention.

Hmm. So we should jail all the Southern US people who fly Confederate flags, or who aver that the slaves were happy?

I am not too well up on American history, but I don't think it involved an attempt to wipe a group of people of the face of the earth due to their enthinicty. I agreed with you though that is getting harder to draw a line between free speech and incitment though.
I am not sure if flying Confederate flags would cause as much of a stir as someone flying a swastika in central europe would though.

I am not too well up on American history, but I don't think it involved an attempt to wipe a group of people of the face of the earth due to their enthinicty. I agreed with you though that is getting harder to draw a line between free speech and incitment though.
I am not sure if flying Confederate flags would cause as much of a stir as someone flying a swastika in central europe would though.
Perhaps not, but it's about the only analogy I could come up with. :p

Perhaps not, but it's about the only analogy I could come up with. :p
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8858/police7mp.jpg :p

Freedom of speech is a very valuable liberty, but it must have limits. The freedom to express one's opinions should not be abusable to express lies.
What Irving did goes far beyond freedom of speech, it was willful misinformation on a very delicate subject. For obvious reasons in Austria as well as in Germany (where Irving had been fined already) the laws dealing with denial of historic facts about the Nazi regime and its crimes are very harsh.
Austria and Germany have every right to put someone in prison who also is a threat to the current education of young people about the darkest period of European history.
Defining what is and what isn't a lie can be very controversial. If someone believes something to be the truth and tells you about it, but then you find that they were wrong - were they lying?

Besides, these laws restricting speech of the Third Reich do not appear to have prevented the resurgence of neo-nazis in Germany and Austria. So one could argue they are not having their intended results, perhaps even the opposite.

I am not too well up on American history, but I don't think it involved an attempt to wipe a group of people of the face of the earth due to their enthinicty. I agreed with you though that is getting harder to draw a line between free speech and incitment though.
I am not sure if flying Confederate flags would cause as much of a stir as someone flying a swastika in central europe would though.
I think the biggest difference is that in the US, there's an acknowledgement that the right to be offensive is included in our freedom of speech and expression, and that any laws such as the Holocaust Denial laws would be quickly found to be unconstitutional. As far as I know, we don't even have enforceable Sedition laws in the US anymore.

Freedom of speech is a very valuable liberty, but it must have limits. The freedom to express one's opinions should not be abusable to express lies.But whose job is it to determine what are lies and what aren't?What Irving did goes far beyond freedom of speech, it was willful misinformation on a very delicate subject. For obvious reasons in Austria as well as in Germany (where Irving had been fined already) the laws dealing with denial of historic facts about the Nazi regime and its crimes are very harsh.I agree, the German and Austrian societies might be a special case, and I think that the law was served in the case (to the best of my knowledge). I still think they're going to far: it should be his right to be stupid. I think he law should be changed (though it's not as likely given the history of the two countries), but I'm fairly sure the ruling was fair.

I guess my answer to the poll is split. If the poll means "should, according to the laws, Irving be in prison", then I'd likely say "yes" (since the lawyers involved are certainly more adept at the Austrian laws than myself). If the question is "should what Irving did be against the law", then I'd say "no". I should have a right to be stupid. One man's stupidity is another's credo.

Freedom of speech is a very valuable liberty, but it must have limits. The freedom to express one's opinions should not be abusable to express lies.
What Irving did goes far beyond freedom of speech, it was willful misinformation on a very delicate subject.
You mean like, say....Publishing a cartoon that states someone's god is a terrorist?

The guy's a Nazi apologist and his work has been discredited.I was wondering what people thought on the subject. Should the guy be jailed for what he has said, or is this law too harsh, and that he should be allowed to say these things, no matter how misguided they are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714403,00.html
I'm really an advocate for free speech, but trying to justify the mass-slaughter of millios of people by such shameless insane lies is really going too far :mad:
This guy is really way past braindead already, so putting him into jail is probably the best. Leaving such braindead freaks run around freely certainly won't do any good :rolleyes:
After a few years of getting it up the ass from Bubba he will hopefully improve.

I say lets not throw the man in prison. This is purely a issue of freedom of speech, despite we know that historically it is all false. If we did this we would have to nail everyone who is putting out misinformation of historical events such as people who think the moon landing is faked.

I say lets not throw the man in prison. This is purely a issue of freedom of speech, despite we know that historically it is all false. If we did this we would have to nail everyone who is putting out misinformation of historical events such as people who think the moon landing is faked.

Can you really compare some harmless conspiracy nut to a man who lies about millions of people dying.

Much as I hate the scum and everything he stands for, he shouldn't be jailed. He should have the right to say what he wants - and we should have the right to ignore it and/or debate it.

Can you really compare some harmless conspiracy nut to a man who lies about millions of people dying.
Yes. What is being said isn't important. The important part is that both are widely considered historical fact.

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/8858/police7mp.jpg :p
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4572/smileytroutsmack22lw.gif (http://imageshack.us)

You mean like, say....Publishing a cartoon that states someone's god is a terrorist?
Good point, even though that's straining comparisons to the limit. :)

So he denied the holocaust?
And?
Their's a lot worse stuff going on in the world. And he gets austrian priority because they re-interpret a speech Irving made. Why is it illegal to deny the holocaust? It's not illegal to deny the crusades.

Mainland Europe needs a pychiatrist, quickly.

I don't think he should be jailed- its not the state's job to stop hate speech. It's our job.

However, I am quite pleased at the prospect of this little scumbag rotting in a prison cell for a few years

In a free society, each person has the right to express their own opinions and ideas in public forum, no matter how stupid or foolish it makes them look.

That being said, I would firmly oppose any law which make certain topics "forbidden", or outlawed dissenting views.... Such societies are not free, but rather tyranical, does not matter whether they are democratic or autocratic.

In a free society, each person has the right to express their own opinions and ideas in public forum, no matter how stupid or foolish it makes them look.based on that I say...
Austria is NOT a Free society.

Hmmm fairytale?

I wish my great-uncle was alive. He helped liberate two of those camps and would probably have bitch slapped him for saying that. What he saw messed him up till the day he died....

Jail time? Nah. You can't go to jail for being a stupid ass unless you hurt somebody else....

he's entitld to his opinion, no matter what it may be. But if he broke the law, he broke the law. simple as that really. Arragance or ignorance of a law does not stop it being broken

In any other country I'd say let him say what he says, but in Germany and Austria there is a very evident cause for such a law. So, throw the book at him.

So he denied the holocaust?
And?
Their's a lot worse stuff going on in the world. And he gets austrian priority because they re-interpret a speech Irving made. Why is it illegal to deny the holocaust? It's not illegal to deny the crusades.

Mainland Europe needs a pychiatrist, quickly.

It is illegal to deny the holocaust because to do so is to deny the lessons that the world must learn from the darkest episode in human history. 1.5 million children were systematically gassed, starved and shot to death, simply because they happened to be born Jewish. 4.5million women, old people and men were brutually murdered because of what was written on their birth certificate. This was 60 years ago, in what was supposed to be the cradle of culture, academia and reason-Germany and Austria. The fact that such a refined nation/s could commit such attrocities is one of the most uniquely shocking elements of the holocaust. To compare it to the crusades and indeed any other of the countless attrocities the world has seen is inaccurate. For one the crusades occured hundreds of years ago by a bunch of religous zealots and their followers, executing non-christians with chaotic frenzy. The holocaust was a system of factories of death. To deny that men are capable of depravity and evil, is to deny that this would ever be possible again. Very sadly it isnt. We must, must, must learn the lessons of 1933-1945 if we as humanity want to avoid a repetition of these horrors. Denying it, is to deny that human kind is not capable of such attrocities. Unfortunately we are.

As for David Irving and the rest of the holocaust denying bunch, their rhetoric is so blatantly and transparently anti-semitic. The basic jist of all his books and speeches are 'Hitler never really killed 6 million Jews, although he should have done.'

the holocausts happened.

I still think we are rapidly losing the right of free speech all over the world.

Hmm. So we should jail all the Southern US people who fly Confederate flags, or who aver that the slaves were happy?

I don't think that any one is denying the existence of slavery in the United States. If someone was preaching that slavery never really existed, they would probably be laughed at.

The Confederate Flag issue is debatable though. I'm sure there are people in Germany who felt the swastika meant German Pride and not Genocide, where as people in the South say the Confederate Flag meant Southern Pride and not Slavery. But I don't believe anyone in America has passed hate laws. And I don't believe America's in any real danger of voting in a nationalist party bent on enslaving the black population. At least I would hope not...

Preventing the rise of Naziism in Germany/Austria is a worthwhile goal. Making it illegal to spread factually incorrect information to the ignorant is a worthwhile endeavour. Beyond that, well if people want to be assholes, I guess that's their right.

Don't jail the doucebag, it'll just make him a "martyr" of the Holocaust denial crowd

He KNEW he would be violating Austrian law. He went there specifically to do it. Most likely for several reasons: 1, marketing. How many people have now heard of David Irving because of this, when if he'd been a law abiding citizen he would be anonymous? Shit, how many of you are thinking of buying his book now? 2, confirmation. Now he can point in self righteous indignation at mean ole Austria and say "SEE? I'm being repressed, therefore I'm so totally correct! Buy my book, I'm a historian!"

I have about zero sympathy for people who travel to another country just to break the law there and get media attention for their bullshit conspiracy theories.

I mean Christ people, he went to AUSTRIA to deny the holocaust. Do you think he just didn't know it was a crime there?

Don't jail the doucebag, it'll just make him a "martyr" of the Holocaust denial crowd

though letting him go will just make them claim that the government conceded that the holocaust didn't happen. they are delusional liars either way.

Don't jail the doucebag, it'll just make him a "martyr" of the Holocaust denial crowd

Exactly. Almost every neo-nazi I've debated brings up the Holocaust denial law as evidence that its fake. Jailing the guy will just make them even more convinced that the Holocaust is fake.

Exactly. Almost every neo-nazi I've debated brings up the Holocaust denial law as evidence that its fake. Jailing the guy will just make them even more convinced that the Holocaust is fake.

Dude, they also bring up the 'fact' that Jews control the media as 'evidence.'

Who cares what they think. They'll use any excuse.

We can't go tip-toeing around trying to make it hard for them to grab excuses out of their ass. What could we do, fire all Jewish people from the media? Then they'd use THAT as an excuse. "See! Now they're trying to cover up!" Then maybe we could legalize hate crimes. "See? This is preparation for when they make their final assault on the White Race!" etc. There's no pleasing them.

To compare it to ... the countless attrocities the world has seen is inaccurate. For one the crusades occured hundreds of years ago by a bunch of religous zealots and their followers, executing non-christians with chaotic frenzy. It is difficult to Compare.. the numbers Could be 30 millions, 6 millions or less than a million.
of course If your Main reference for "History" is Hollywood.. the exact number is exactly 6 million.. and at least 99.99% Jews..

The guy's a Nazi apologist and his work has been discredited.I was wondering what people thought on the subject. Should the guy be jailed for what he has said, or is this law too harsh, and that he should be allowed to say these things, no matter how misguided they are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714403,00.html
Lamentable. I cannot believe Austria upholds this law still.

Freedom of speech is a very valuable liberty, but it must have limits. The freedom to express one's opinions should not be abusable to express lies.
What Irving did goes far beyond freedom of speech, it was willful misinformation on a very delicate subject. For obvious reasons in Austria as well as in Germany (where Irving had been fined already) the laws dealing with denial of historic facts about the Nazi regime and its crimes are very harsh.
Austria and Germany have every right to put someone in prison who also is a threat to the current education of young people about the darkest period of European history.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

We should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

We should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree.
Exactly. Words to be engraved in memory.

We should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree.
And was that not what Weimar did?

And was that not what Weimar did?
Weimar had huge holes in its Constitution. There is no reason to suppress the freedom of speech today.

What I'm wondering is if this conviction isn't a violation of his human rights as set down in the ECHR...

My gut reaction is that the austrian law is in violation with the convention.

Exactly my opinion.

There is a certain hypocrisy expressed when Europeans have laws on the books like this and then condemn places like Gitmo. That doesn't excuse the US, but some "cleaning house" is in order.

I say that austria has gone too far. I, though believe that the holocaust was an exaggeration, far less jews were killed then you all think. Far less. SO much less that "a fraction of what you believe" would not desxribe the low amout.

Weimar had huge holes in its Constitution.
The one decisive hole was that it included everyone, regardless of how undemocratic their opinions were.

http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php

The one decisive hole was that it included everyone, regardless of how undemocratic their opinions were.

http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php
Not really. I don't see that as a fault. It's a democracy after all. What was the problem was its partisan system and the low threshold of votes needed to gain seats in the Reichstag.

What was the problem was its partisan system and the low threshold of votes needed to gain seats in the Reichstag.
Yes, that too.

But even if all that hadn't existed, Nazis, Communists, Monarchists and so on all would have been fighting on the streets for power and minds, and no one would have stopped them. It's not going to happen again, it's as simple as that.

And was that not what Weimar did?

There are a few more variables involved in what happened to the Weimar than whether it allowed freedom of speech.

Nice try.

Yes, that too.

But even if all that hadn't existed, Nazis, Communists, Monarchists and so on all would have been fighting on the streets for power and minds, and no one would have stopped them. It's not going to happen again, it's as simple as that.
Blame the sour ending of WW 1 for that. I don't think suppressing freedom of speech is enough. Eventually people begin to wonder why it's done. If something is not debated, ideas against it cannot be formed and learnt. Therefore, except in the most extreme cases, I am against anyone silencing people.

There are a few more variables involved in what happened to the Weimar than whether it allowed freedom of speech.

Nice try.
Yep. It was a mess. Both the Constitution itself, the way government was conducted and domestic conditions all helped to ruin it. It was not as simple a matter as letting extremists enter the system.

The one decisive hole was that it included everyone, regardless of how undemocratic their opinions were.

http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php

So the prime weakness of democracy is democracy!

There are a few more variables involved in what happened to the Weimar than whether it allowed freedom of speech.
So it's a question of whether or not the Nazi government would have come about if their movement had been outlawed from day one, along with other undemocratic forces.

I'm not saying that the mere existance of undemocratic groups brought Weimar down, I'm saying that its downfall may have been prevented if there hadn't been an undemocratic alternative for people to choose.

In other words: Would Germany be under threat right now if it didn't have the laws? Of course not.
But if things took a drastic turn for the worse, would the laws be another safeguard against catastrophe? I believe so.

So the prime weakness of democracy is democracy!
Exactly.

A democracy can not always be counted on to defend itself by strength of argument alone.

Exactly.

A democracy can not always be counted on to defend itself by strength of argument alone.

So we must burn the village to save it.

He shouldn't be jailed. People should be able to believe what they want no matter how offensive and ludocris it seems to others.

If he denies the Shoah, can we really call him a "Historian"?

So we must burn the village to save it.
More like burning one house in a controlled burn to save the whole thing from being engulfed in the forest fire.

If he denies the Shoah, can we really call him a "Historian"?
He still shouldn't be jailed.

More like burning one house in a controlled burn to save the whole thing from being engulfed in the forest fire.
So say the US adopts this argument, and it views the world as a village. Should it just start burning down houses (countries) it views as dangerous?

So say the US adopts this argument, and it views the world as a village. Should it just start burning down houses (countries) it views as dangerous?
That's an interesting jump of metaphors...

That's an interesting jump of metaphors...
It's equally valid though. If you saw the US as the arbiter of democracy (which it more or less professes being), it would then be entitled to rub any threat to democracy off the map based on that logic.

It's equally valid though. If you saw the US as the arbiter of democracy (which it more or less professes being), it would then be entitled to rub any threat to democracy off the map based on that logic.
That's a matter of international relations though. The US can claim whatever it wants.
Fact is that in Germany, the government is the arbiter of democracy, claim or not.

That's a matter of international relations though. The US can claim whatever it wants.
Fact is that in Germany, the government is the arbiter of democracy, claim or not.
The US, at least for now, can make those claims come true. Either way, I don't think freedom of speech should be suppresed. Better to use reason than force against people who spread hatred.

That's a matter of international relations though. The US can claim whatever it wants.
Fact is that in Germany, the government is the arbiter of democracy, claim or not.

Tut, tut.

If a law making denial of the holocaust is valid today, why isn't a law requiring a denial of the holocaust valid tomorrow?

First they came for ...

Exactly.

A democracy can not always be counted on to defend itself by strength of argument alone.

Perhaps it would be better to simply let the state decide what it is acceptable for people to think and say, that way everyone would be spared the nastiness of debate.

The double-standards Europe applies piss me off to no end. People who deny Nazi atrocities are hounded and persecuted, yet people who deny communist atrocities are not. Many European countries outlaw Nazi parties, yet allow communist parties to be legal. Can we say "double-standard" boys and girls? :rolleyes:

He shouldn't be jailed. By supressing extremists' free expression, we do nothing but make their ideology look attractive to the marginalized and/or rebellious elements of society, with the result being their radicalization and increased difficulty in reducing the problems that fuel extremism, be it Neo-Nazi or any other.

Not to mention jailing him looks like a plot and gives credibility to his work among conspiracy theorists and the like...even if it's totally discredited by reputable scholars.

Perhaps it would be better to simply let the state decide what it is acceptable for people to think and say, that way everyone would be spared the nastiness of debate.
The Government knows best after all.

I think he probably deserves to be beaten with a stick until his ears and eyes bleed.

I think he probably deserves to be beaten with a stick until his ears and eyes bleed.
Yep, because reasoning with people is what idiots do.

I don't think anyone should ever be jailed for what they say, no matter how ignorant we think it is. What they do on the other hand is a different matter. That being said, in Austria denying The Holocaust is against the law. There's a good chance he knew that but he denied it anyway, so he should have to deal with the consequences. Is the law too harsh? I think so. Does that mean people shouldn't have to obey it? No. If you don't like a law, fight to have it changed, don't just break it.

I don't think anyone should ever be jailed for what they say, no matter how ignorant we think it is. What they do on the other hand is a different matter. That being said, in Austria denying The Holocaust is against the law. There's a good chance he knew that but he denied it anyway, so he should have to deal with the consequences. Is the law too harsh? I think so. Does that mean people shouldn't have to obey it? No. If you don't like a law, fight to have it changed, don't just break it.
Seconded.

I believe in freedom of speech, so I would say that while this guy is a wacko moron, it's better to not put him in jail. I disagree with hate speech laws.

Exactly my sentiments on this subject. I guess no freedom of speech in Austria then is there....

Holocaust deniers are a sorry, loathsome lot, but it is a clear human rights abuse to jail him over this, and a disgrace.

The guy's a Nazi apologist and his work has been discredited.I was wondering what people thought on the subject. Should the guy be jailed for what he has said, or is this law too harsh, and that he should be allowed to say these things, no matter how misguided they are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714403,00.html

I don't agree with what he's saying but to jail him because of his beliefs is simply dictatorial and unacceptable in a free society.

I don't think anyone should ever be jailed for what they say, no matter how ignorant we think it is. What they do on the other hand is a different matter. That being said, in Austria denying The Holocaust is against the law. There's a good chance he knew that but he denied it anyway, so he should have to deal with the consequences. Is the law too harsh? I think so. Does that mean people shouldn't have to obey it? No. If you don't like a law, fight to have it changed, don't just break it.

Thirded.

He knew he was banned from Austria following Holocaust-denying speeches he gave in 1989. So knowing that he was already banned from entering the country, he deliberately chose to re-enter, thereby essentially daring the Austrian authorities to arrest him.

I think that under usual circumstances denying the Holocaust, while morally repugnant, shouldn't necessarily be a crime. But in this case Irving chose to deliberately break the law and provoke the authorities for his own self-serving purposes.

He wasn't trying to prove a point on freedom of speech, he was trying to bring himself considerable publicity, and possibly sell some books (he's essentially bankrupt). So in this one specific case he got precisely what he deserved.

Freedom of speech is designed to protect unpopular speech.

Hate speech laws are ignorant, dangerous and antidemocratic.

I do not believe he should be in jail.

And no, there is NO limit to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is designed to protect unpopular speech.

Hate speech laws are ignorant, dangerous and antidemocratic.

I do not believe he should be in jail.

And no, there is NO limit to freedom of speech.
Unless they incite people to hatred of a manifest nature. Though I don't think he was telling people to go kill Jews, so that is hardly the case here.

I say that austria has gone too far. I, though believe that the holocaust was an exaggeration, far less jews were killed then you all think. Far less. SO much less that "a fraction of what you believe" would not desxribe the low amout.

Yes, you and OceanDrive2, both.

So where do you get these ideas that only a few Jews died in the holocaust, stormfront?

You of all people, your from freaking Poland. the vast majority of Polish Jews were slaughtered...how can you oversee that?

Jesus, is this a joke, or do you really beleive the shit that comes out of your mouth.

I half expect to hear a Sieg Heil from you.

Yes, you and OceanDrive2, both.

So where do you get these ideas that only a few Jews died in the holocaust, stormfront?

You of all people, your from freaking Poland. the vast majority of Polish Jews were slaughtered...how can you oversee that?

Jesus, is this a joke, or do you really beleive the shit that comes out of your mouth.

I half expect to hear a Sieg Heil from you.

The issue is, and it's an established one (at least where open debate is still legal [namely outside of states such as Austria]), not as many died as is traditionally reported... As not all those who were mowed over by the "Holocaust" were jews, and more often than not, all are accounted under those numbers, along with Jews, countless Gypsies, Homosexuals, Communists and Christians as well fell under the wheels of Hitler's genocidal plans.

The issue is that he was charaged with making a speech in 1989 stating that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. The Austrian government later made a law making Holocaust denial a crime (1992), so they grandfathered in a conviction.

He did not commit a crime when he made that speech, and he did not deny that the holocaust occured, he just stated that there were no gas chambers at that particular camp.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,402404,00.html

*snip*
There is a difference though between revisionism, which seeks to make sure History is accurate, and actual Holocaust denial. I am not saying Irving was attempting true revisionism, yet he was hardly culpable of inciting hatred against Jews. Austria should eventually rid of these laws.

It seems the only lesson that central Europe has learned from the World Wars is that war is bad. Not a bad lesson by the way.

They still fail to understand the concept of individual rights.

"I am not too well up on American history, but I don't think it involved an attempt to wipe a group of people of the face of the earth due to their enthinicty [sic]"

You obviously aren`t up on your American history. Who do you think populated the continent before the arrival of Anglo-European settlers?

It seems the only lesson that central Europe has learned from the World Wars is that war is bad. Not a bad lesson by the way.

They still fail to understand the concept of individual rights.
They will, in time.

These nonsensical laws are all about salving the conscience of Western Europe vis a vis the Holocaust and enshrining it out of meaningful historicity. Let`s remember the Holocaust is not a Jewish issue. It is a Western European issue. It was "cultured", "civilized" "modern" Europe that perpetrated the Holocaust on the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. Yet we still think of the Holocaust as "Jewish History".

As for David Irving, Im fairly sure he`s a total c*** so I don`t really care what happens to him, per se.

So when the west posts evil "cartoons" defaming the great Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) its hailed as free speech, but when someone even so much as questions the "holocaust", they are evil. Not too much of a double standard.....

He KNEW he would be violating Austrian law. He went there specifically to do it. Most likely for several reasons: 1, marketing. How many people have now heard of David Irving because of this, when if he'd been a law abiding citizen he would be anonymous? Shit, how many of you are thinking of buying his book now? 2, confirmation. Now he can point in self righteous indignation at mean ole Austria and say "SEE? I'm being repressed, therefore I'm so totally correct! Buy my book, I'm a historian!"

I have about zero sympathy for people who travel to another country just to break the law there and get media attention for their bullshit conspiracy theories.

I mean Christ people, he went to AUSTRIA to deny the holocaust. Do you think he just didn't know it was a crime there?
Not to mention that he went to Austria even though he was barred there:

By the late 1980s, Irving was barred from entering Austria. In the early 1990s, a German court found him guilty of Holocaust denial, and he was subsequently fined and barred from entering Germany.

He deserves his time out. He asked for it and they accommodated him.

Yes, you and OceanDrive2, both.

So where do you get these ideas that only a few Jews died in the holocaust, stormfront?

You of all people, your from freaking Poland. the vast majority of Polish Jews were slaughtered...how can you oversee that?

Jesus, is this a joke, or do you really beleive the shit that comes out of your mouth.

I half expect to hear a Sieg Heil from you.
They are actually right whether you see it or not

He's just amazingly stupid. Like, seriously.
So, in the name of free speech, I don't think he should go to prison. But oh well. I don't particularly care.

The guy's a Nazi apologist and his work has been discredited.I was wondering what people thought on the subject. Should the guy be jailed for what he has said, or is this law too harsh, and that he should be allowed to say these things, no matter how misguided they are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1714403,00.html

He should be allowed to say whatever he said, its through discourse that truth(or relative truth) is discovered- even if this guys off his rocker he has that right, in my opinion.

These nonsensical laws are all about salving the conscience of Western Europe vis a vis the Holocaust and enshrining it out of meaningful historicity. Let`s remember the Holocaust is not a Jewish issue. It is a Western European issue. It was "cultured", "civilized" "modern" Europe that perpetrated the Holocaust on the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. Yet we still think of the Holocaust as "Jewish History".

Youre forgetting that hitler also wanted to kill the slavs, or at least relocate them until he had time to kill them later. In fact he would have probably proceeded to kill most non-germans.

So when the west posts evil "cartoons" defaming the great Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) its hailed as free speech, but when someone even so much as questions the "holocaust", they are evil. Not too much of a double standard.....

no, it isnt a double standard. a cartoon of an historical figure, who claims to have heard the words of 'god,' and a complete denial of the systematic slaughter of gypsies, homosexuals, socialists and jews, has no moral equivalence. im sure 'Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him)' was not so egotistical as to worry about a little cartoon by some danish journalist. im sure he would be much more insulted that people are murdering innocents in his name. this is by far the greater sacriliage.

You obviously aren`t up on your American history. Who do you think populated the continent before the arrival of Anglo-European settlers?[/QUOTE]

I take your point but don't feel the situations are comparable (they happened 300 years apart). I'm sure the Pilgrim Fathers weren't planning a 'final solution' as the crossed the Atlantic.

He broke the law - lock him up!

He broke the law - lock him up!

That's just it, he did not break the law. What he did in 1989 was not illegal.

He shouldn't be jailed any more than someone who publishes cartoons of Mohamed should be. He's an idiot and his penalty is marginalization and ridicule. Better to let him open his mouth so he can be used as an example of how not to live your life than to shut him up and put him in jail. Btter to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

He certainly should not be going to jail. Whether or not there is a law on a matter is secondary to whether the law is a just one; and not only is the law on "holocaust denial" unjust it was not even in place in 1989. Irving did not even deny the holocaust but rather, as already stated in previous posts, expressed disagreement as to whether gas chambers existed at a specific death camp. There is no way that I can perceive expressing disagreement over a historical belief worthy of imprisonment or punishment. If Irving is wrong (as he even now admits to be) he can be refuted; if he is refuted the argument is over and he has failed. Even if Irving was right, that doesn't mean that anti-semitism would sprout from his claim. The significance of this law goes beyond Austria and Germany; Ernest Zundel, for example, was deported to Germany for "denying" the holocaust (arguing for revision is more accurate since there is no one that actually denys that there were camps and people killed) from either Canada or America (admittingly I can't remember). And most importantly, no one would ever be incarcerated for denying the far worse atrocities commited by Stalin, Mao, or the Japanese during WWII. For those who would argue that those are different since genocide wasn't their goal; there are plenty of other acts of genocide that have occured after WWII that it is perfectly legal to deny. For those who argue that these other acts of genocide or mass murder weren't as bad since they weren't as "systematic" or something similar; that is a meaningless asethetic consideration.

*snip*
I second your view.

Is it really so complicated to understand that these laws have a purpose?

http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=212
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n3/holodeni.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-2001941_1,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,402404,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,395810,00.html