Writer jailed for breaking holocaust denial law.

[Cosmoline]

The facts about the Holocaust are not determined by Government edict - they're widely known, have been investigated by historians and scientists for decades, and have nothing to do with whether or not a Government endorses or rejects them. Facts are facts.

But the problem here is that THE STATE has decided which "facts" are absolutely True, and to prosecute people for disagreeing with this Truth. Do you really not see the problem with this? The truth does not need protection from the state.

Irving is being held accountable for the consequences of his statements

What are the SPECIFIC consequences which can be directly tied in fact to Irving? WHo did he tell to go commit what crime? If you can show a conspiracy to commit a specific crime, by all mean charge him. Otherwise the state needs to leave him alone. The current charges do NOT claim that he actually caused any violence or conspired to cause violence. They merely claim he said something the state decided he did not have a right to say about the Holocaust.

You seem to view ideas as trumping freedom of choice. Do you disagree with the basic concept that each adult, sane man is completely responsible for his own actions? If you agree with this principle, how can you blame this thing called an "idea" for the actions of sane, adult men? Can an idea kick in my door? Can it attack me in the street? No, of course not.

I propagate a falsehood that causes others to act criminally or anti-socially, and innocent people are hurt through such actions, the perpetrators of the actions should certainly be held accountable - but should I escape the consequences of my lies, simply because I personally didn't participate in the actions those lies engendered? I don't think so... and neither does any court of which I'm aware.

You're completely wrong. Every court puts limits on the extent to which individuals may be punished for a lie. Even in Euroland. In the US our limits are far more strict, as they should be.

Besides, you seem to think the state of Austria is going to have to show a link between this clown's statements and some actual harm. They have no intention of doing so. All they have to show is that he uttered the verbotten words. Do you support this?

 

[jsalcedo]

I agree preacherman with most of what you said.

It might be difficult to prove damages unless the nazi punks had copies
of irvings books and sexy posters of him on the walls of their offices.

I'm glad Austria is going after this rectal headpiece.

I would be worried however if people in the US were being arrested for unpopular speech no matter how vile and dangerous. KKK, NAMBLA PETA for example

I worry about the government deciding what dangerous speech is.
Maybe it is for the civil courts to decide.

 

[gc70]

My question was whether, when the facts - clearly, scientifically demonstrable facts, validated by historical study or whatever other discipline(s) are involved - are known beyond any question of doubt, is speech challenging those facts, which can simultaneously incite negative consequences for certain individuals or groups as a result of its factual inaccuracy, to be protected?

When can facts be known beyond any question of doubt?

Today, we can ridicule Galileo's sentence of life imprisonment by the Inquisition for publishing his Dialogues on Copernican heliocentrism. But the Earth as the center of the universe was an established, demonstrable (look at the sun and stars pass overhead), validated (by countless scientists and theologians) fact at that time.

Let me frame your question around the example of vaccinations:

Vaccinations unquestionably prevent diseases. Persuading people not to take vaccinations would unquestionably have negative consequences. Therefore, should a doctor or scientist be allowed to speak out and challenge vaccinations? Would your answer change if the doctor or scientist was presenting previously unknown ideas that would invalidate the old beliefs?

If you answered 'no' to the first question, it would be impossible to reach the second question because the new ideas would have never been presented.

In the open marketplace, new ideas sometimes displace old facts, even in the physical sciences.

 

[magyvor]

BOTTOM LINE......

If he was in our country, he has the right to be an idiot. He can burn a flag, and stand on a soap box and proclaim Hitler the savior. Thats why we love our country, our constitution, and the freedoms we have.

BUT....what he did wasnt here, and he broke a law of the land where he was.

I say its a good excuse to be rid of a walking waste of oxygen....but maybe thats just me

 

[Art Eatman]

My father was involved in liberation of one of the work camps. In the natural course of things he talked to some of the internees as to the miseries imposed upon them. During my time in the Army, I served with guys who had been involved in liberation of other Nazi camps; same deal.

The Holocaust was real; it happened. Heck, I still remember the newsreels of the liberation of some of the camps, as well as of at least one of the death camps. Walking skeletons aren't real pretty...

So I can see why folks would get fed up with these "denial" cretins. Germany has basically said they can take their garbage elsewhere, but doing a bunch of lying in Germany has penalties. Simple as that.

Art

 

[JohnBT]

"When can facts be known beyond any question of doubt?"

When you see it with your own eyes. When you see the pics and the films. When you have talked to those who were there. IOW, when there is enough evidence.

Are you ready to argue that the people I've known with numbers on their arms were all volunteers in some grand conspiracy?

As far as scientific facts go, I cannot prove the law of gravity exists, but I fully expect things I drop to fall.

John

Oh, and P.S. - "The right to spread lies and untruths is an integral part of free expression."
What about the laws against libel, slander and false advertising? There are limits to public behavior.

 

[c_yeager]

What about the laws against libel, slander and false advertising? There are limits to public behavior.

All those laws require the existence of an actual victim. One *could* argue that "society" is the victim of holocaust deniers, however i dont really like the concept of society as a victim simply because it can be used to justify virtually any kind of social restriction that a government chooses.

For the record I know for a fact that this guy is full of it. My grandfather had the dubious honor of participating in the liberation of the camps, and being an amatuer photographer he brought back ample evidence. I have also met more than one gentleman with a number tatood on his arm. The fact that this guy is an idiot liar does reduce his right to free expression.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Art,

According to the article posted he did not dispute that it happened, only the numbers and manner in which many died. Your father might very well have liberated death camps but that doesnt necessarily means he knew about everything that happened there before he arrived.

I don't doubt that Irving is a Nazi at heart but if he has data that he wants to present to support his claim he should be able to do so without fear of govt. persecution. I find it odd that those that think he is full of it want the govt to prevent him from making his arguement when I would think that they would want him the best and most public opportunity to make his claim, one cannot give another a beating if they cannot show up to the fight. By banning Irving's idea you make those ideas into a forbidden fruit, you give them strength because you show your fear of them, why fear something that is weak and harmless?

A grand and public beating is the best way to ruin a bully, that is what is needed for this guy. Banning his ideas will not destroy them, they will only fester and spread in the underground, is that the result you want to achieve as a result of govt attempted thought control?

 

[Preacherman]

I don't doubt that Irving is a Nazi at heart but if he has data that he wants to present to support his claim he should be able to do so without fear of govt. persecution. I find it odd that those that think he is full of it want the govt to prevent him from making his arguement when I would think that they would want him the best and most public opportunity to make his claim, one cannot give another a beating if they cannot show up to the fight. By banning Irving's idea you make those ideas into a forbidden fruit, you give them strength because you show your fear of them, why fear something that is weak and harmless?

GG, unfortunately, Irving (and others like him) have been given every opportunity to state their case and bring their proofs. They have been universally debunked by every competent scholar in the field. This has not stopped the Holocaust deniers from continuing to state their (now-debunked) case and bring their (now-discredited) proofs... they simply won't accept defeat in debate, and continue to spread their lying propaganda. It's also sadly true that those in neo-Nazi movements aren't renowned for their intellectual curiosity, and will continue to blindly believe these things. (Heck, millions of people all over the world are told - by neo-Nazi's, Arab anti-Semitic propaganda, etc. - that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", long proven to be a (rather bad) forgery, are in fact true! Since no counter-argument is ever presented or made available, they don't know any better, and believe the nonsense they're spoon-fed.)

These liars won't stop lying because they've been publicly debunked. Heck, Irving has been branded a liar, anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, and other savory things by the very court he used to sue someone who called him those things! You can't get much more officially debunked than that. Has this stopped him spreading his lies? No way...

 

[Cosmoline]

The state has no business demanding that anyone prove their points to avoid jail time. At most that's a matter for civil court in a defamation case--IF some specific person has been injured by the lies and can prove it. I detest nazis, but the idea of the government of Austria or Germany jailing someone for wrongthinking is far more disturbing than some idiot denying the holocaust. A state than can declare a particular understanding of history "Historical Fact" and then put anyone who disagress in prison is a state that is no better than its fascist forerunners. Imagine if the US government declared that the Civil War was ALL ABOUT SLAVERY and put anyone who disagreed in prison because their words supposedly aided the KKK.

These liars won't stop lying because they've been publicly debunked. Heck, Irving has been branded a liar, anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, and other savory things by the very court he used to sue someone who called him those things! You can't get much more officially debunked than that. Has this stopped him spreading his lies? No way...

What's your point? The man has a right to continue to argue what you claim are lies.

Oh, and P.S. - "The right to spread lies and untruths is an integral part of free expression."
What about the laws against libel, slander and false advertising? There are limits to public behavior.

ONLY IF YOU CAN PROVE SPECIFIC HARM AND SUFFICIENT CULPABILITY! Otherwise, you may like it or lump it. Europe of course has no real freedom, so the state is able to outlaw certain kinds of expression purely because it disagrees with the notions.

When you see it with your own eyes. When you see the pics and the films. When you have talked to those who were there. IOW, when there is enough evidence.

Are you ready to argue that the people I've known with numbers on their arms were all volunteers in some grand conspiracy?

I remember hearing people swear up and down that the nazis made soap and lampshades from people.
The fellow who came to my high school to talk about the Holocaust made these claims. So did many others. But of course it was all a lie, and a rather silly one at that. No American troops to my knowledge ever saw an actual gas chamber. They were allegedly used in about eight of the larger camps in the east. But the actual number of people killed in them is absolutely subject to debate. By stifling free debate on the subject, however, all these fools in power have done is make the case of the deniers that much stronger. If debate had been free, the lies about lampshades would have been revealed much earlier. But it's never been accepted to discuss these matters in the US and it's actually ILLEGAL in much of Europe. The truth does not need protection from the state--but lies do. Which begs the quetion--just how much of the accepted dogma is true and how much is a lie? How many died becauase barking German soldiers pushed them into gas chambers and how many died because their civilian neighbors beat their brains in?

OOOPS! I just violated Austrian law!!! Better put me in prison.

 

[Typhoon]

The crux of this argument hinges on what is criminally prosecutable. Here in the United States, we do not have a specific statute regulating Holocaust denial. Austria does.

Whether we in the United States agree on that is immaterial. We do not have the problem Austria seems to have with respect to anti-Semitism and neo-Nazis. Here in Los Angeles we have a huge Jewish community. I have not heard of any persecution against them recently. (My biggest problem is paying attention to all the pedestrians on Highland avenue Friday nights )

Freedom of speech is indeed a Constitutionally guaranteed right. But, I agree with Preacherman that it is not without consequences. Those consequences might play out in a civil court as a defamation case. Or, in the case of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre and someone gets trampled and dies, you as the yeller might get a criminal manslaughter charge. It depends.

Austria is a duly elected democratic society. They chose to put this law on the books. Irving ran afoul of it. Too bad for him…

 

[Cosmoline]

No nation on the face of the earth has the right to undermine the right to freedom of expression or the right to keep and bear arms. The Austrian government is WRONG. I am not beholden to support or follow Austrian laws or support them. The leaders of Euroland can go straight to the hot place. Any pretense that they are our "allies" is long gone. We clearly did not firebomb those people sufficiently to clean them up.

Besides, the problem has never been the tiny cadre of neonazis over there. The problem is the deep Jew hatred that still exists just below the surface.

 

[gc70]

by JohnBT:
"When can facts be known beyond any question of doubt?"

When you see it with your own eyes. When you see the pics and the films. When you have talked to those who were there. IOW, when there is enough evidence.

Are you ready to argue that the people I've known with numbers on their arms were all volunteers in some grand conspiracy?

JohnBT,
I'm was not arguing about the Holocaust at all.

Preacherman posed a general formula for conditions to restrain freedom of speech. I posed a question about one of the conditions in Preacherman's formula and gave an example (vaccinations) for him to consider.

 

[Typhoon]

Cosmoline -

If a specific law was passed, regulating specific conduct, relating to a specific problem Austria has, you would object?

 

[gc70]

by Cosmoline:
We clearly did not firebomb those people sufficiently to clean them up.

I think that solution went out of vogue when the Conquistadors quit demanding that native peoples convert to Christianity or die.

 

[Cosmoline]

Cosmoline -

If a specific law was passed, regulating specific conduct, relating to a specific problem Austria has, you would object?

I object to their laws, along with those of Germany, which forbid the denial of the Holocaust and make any attempts to support such theories criminal. There is a fundamental, natural right to free expression that cuts across all national borders. All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

 

[Cosmoline]

I think that solution went out of vogue when the Conquistadors quit demanding that native peoples convert to Christianity or die.

It only went out of vogue when they raised the white flag. But clearly all that destruction did nothing to cure the underlying problem. Central Europeans still look to their government to tell them what is right and what is wrong, and approve of laws making wrongthinking illegal.

 

[Typhoon]

Retracted statement. Never mind.

 

[GEM]

I basically agree with Preacherman. His goal is not scholarly but to promote hatred and violence against innocents. It is a narrow line, I grant you but I think he crosses it as do Islamics who preach terrorism. The influence on those who would act is not to be disregarded as serious.

Another comment - someone mentioned consequences to Bellisiles. He is the author of the book claiming a much lower gun ownership in colonial and revolutionary America and wanted to undercut the historical basis for the RKBA. You probably don't follow the scholarly world but after his book came out and was destroyed by Clayton Cramer and then a host of professional and gun neutral scholars:

1. The prize the book won was withdrawn
2. He lost his job
3. His disgrace was front page news in the Chronicale of Higher Education - that is the national business journal for educators and if that happens you are toast. Similarly, the NY Times competently reviewed his downfall as did other major papers.

Last question - I assume all those who would not support action against Naziboy would also be against flag burning amendments in the USA? Is that the case or is your outrage selective?

 

[pax]

Last question - I assume all those who would not support action against Naziboy would also be against flag burning amendments in the USA? Is that the case or is your outrage selective?

GEM ~

In my case at least, that's absolutely correct.

pax

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to my conscience, above all liberties. -- John Milton

 

[Mad Chemist]

Putting him in jail just makes his voice stronger and gives his ideas more credibility. They put Hitler in prison for a few years, and it only got us Mein Kampf.

Besides, the strict laws against Holocaust denial have prevented critical examination of the events. A resistance against questions led to continuing citation to Soviet propaganda about soap and lampshades--things we now know never existed. The gas chamber--so emphasized in Sillywood and literature--is really a sideshow. The Holocaust is not about gas chambers--it's about genocide using a wide array of methods from forced labor and starvation to old-fashioned bullets to the head. I would argue the Holocaust isn't even about the Germans. It's about all the Polish and French civilians who jumped at the chance to kill local Jews or at least steal their property. In many parts of the occupied countryside, the German force consisted of a guy on a motorcylce who drove through once a month. The locals could have hidden Jews at will--but they chose not to. There was a great documentary about a Jewish village in Poland where the local gentiles rounded up the Jews after the German invasion and literally had to force a busy German commander to take them. It was vile. There are a lot of people over there who never wore a uniform or belonged to a fascist party who deserve a circle of hell.

I've alwasy suspected that the REAL reason for the denial laws is to make everyone just shut about about what really happened. It's not about protecting the truth--it's about keeping the full extent of the horror from every being known. The truth has never needed protection from the state--and when the state puts people in jail for raising questions EVERY FRICKING ALARM BELL should be going off in your head. Those Euroscum have a vested interest in making sure the official story of the Holocaust continues to place the blame on a byegone German administration, and that the image portrayed in the media is about a Nazi guard pushing old Jews into the gas chamber. That image--however horrifying--can be digested and accepted. The Nazis are gone, the gas chambers shut down. The darker truth of VERY DEEP Jew hatred in that cesspool over there is rarely exposed. But believe me it still exists, waiting.

I aggree. Also, there were no Nuremburg trials for the collaborators and opportunists who preyed on Jews w/in Nazi occupied Europe. It is easy to lay blame for the Holocaust on the Third Reich while ignoring the cowards and criminals who assisted them in their awful tasks.

I say let him speak. If he's free to lie, then I am also free to shout him down. We are innundated w/ disinformation every day, censoring it only makes it appear more credible.

 

[Preacherman]

There is a fundamental, natural right to free expression that cuts across all national borders. All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Cosmo, as I said in a couple of earlier posts, this, to me, is the crux of the problem. You believe that rights such as freedom of speech, RKBA, etc. are by definition "unalienable" and not subject to any restriction. The US courts, from the beginning, and most governments that I know of, have all insisted that rights are subject to regulation, provided that the regulation is not so strict as to infringe the right in essence. In other words, the rights are not without limitation. I agree with the latter perspective, and from that perspective, have no problem with Irving being called to account for the consequences of his lies.

 

[javafiend]

In other words, the rights are not without limitation.

Indeed. Some exceptions to the First Amen include fraud, libel, slander, a pattern of naming the names of covert agents, threatening the president, incitement, obscenity, child pornography, etc.

I can't trace the exact contours of the First Amendment, but it is my opinion that unpopular views of history, science and religion should fall within the protection of the First Amendment.

Denying the Holocaust is atrocious; it is not, however, an "offense against the peace and dignity of the state." Nor should it be.

Other than that, Cosmoline in right on target here.

 

[gc70]

Preacherman, several people have mentioned that there are other existing mechanisms in criminal and civil law (conspiracy, incitement, etc.) to hold people like Irving accountable for the consequences of their speech.

The reservations that have been voiced about this issue involve the fact that government has gotten involved in selectively defining prohibited speech. You made an excellent effort at defining a general rule for drawing the line, but even your definition had some ambiguities. And people are rightfully reluctant to give government too much latitude on so precious a topic as freedom of speech.

 

[Typhoon]

Denying the Holocaust is atrocious; it is not, however, an "offense against the peace and dignity of the state." Nor should it be.

It is if it can be shown to cause demonstrable harm. The Austrians have determined that it does. For them.