Writer jailed for breaking holocaust denial law.

[javafiend]

Flechette wrote:

I don't want a Ministry of Truth. Let the people decide who the wackos are, and leave it at that.

Flechette, my man, you are absolutely 100% correct. Let the marketplace of ideas sort it out, even though that means that there will always be crazy people offering crazy opinions.

Chomsky does indeed defend his association with Neo-Nazis as simply his acting in defense of freedom of speech. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt; however, his association with Holocaust deniers is not fictional, just mischaracterized, from what I can tell.

Ridiculous. Chomsky has no "association" with neo-Nazis in any meaningful sense of that term. He merely defended the freedom of speech of a Holocaust denier.

Chomsky did, however, deny another Holocaust, perpetrated by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, in part because admitting its existence did not fit his desired worldview.

Pardon me, I've actually read CHomsky's work on the subject of Pol Pot. It's titled After the Cataclysm : The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume II (Political Economy of Human Rights). He never denied the genocide in Cambodia.

See Noam Chomsky on Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc. and The Cynical Farce about Cambodia by Noam Chomsky in Dissent, June 26, 1978.

A dispute about the numbers killed in a genocide does not mean that one denies the genocide.

My opinion is that Chomsky and Herman got some things wrong in 1979 about the Cambodian genocide. That doesn't mean that they lied, or that they denied the Camboadian genocide.

I'm not sure that this is a "freedom of speech" question at all. The point at issue is the accuracy or truth of the speech in question. "Free speech" is fine as long as it's over points that don't affect issues of fact, but when the truth about something is known, to deny that truth may (depending on the subject matter) open up a whole new can of worms.

I disagree. Even factually inaccurate speech is protected, and should be protected.

It is simply incorrect to claim that First Amendment protection is provided only to those subjects "when the truth about something is known." Religious, political, scientific subjects are frequently disputed. For one party to enlist state power to shut up his opponents is simply totalitarian and incompatible with the vision of a free society as laid out by the Founders.

However, if I proclaim that a given race is genetically inferior to the White race, this is also demonstrably wrong through scientific methods,

Why should you not be allowed to express your *opinion*? If I observe that blacks are by and large better sprinters than whites, is that an offense "against the peace and dignity of the state"? Should I be subject to prosecution for merely pointing out what *everyone* in sports knows to be true?

Spare us the claim that speech "can lead to racial violence and/or other negative responses against the race in question." Remember several years ago when some parents tried to sue Judas Priest for how their kids turned out? Ludicrous.

I would argue that Irving, by making factually inaccurate claims,

Which specific claims? That there is no order signed by der Fuehrer that orders Himmler to carry out the Holocaust? There isn't.

Biker wrote:

Playing the Devil's Advocate, how do we know that he is factually in error until he's allowed to present his argument, rebuttal, counter-rebutall, so forth, in a public forum?

Word!

 

[Preacherman]

Biker, javafiend, with respect, you're missing the point.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, how do we know that he is factually in error until he's allowed to present his argument, rebuttal, counter-rebutall, so forth, in a public forum?

But he - and other Holocaust deniers like him - has/have had the chance to present their arguments and evidence in the public forum. The issue of the Holocaust is no longer in factual or legal dispute. Indeed, Irving himself has been found, by a competent court of law, to be a Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, and other unsavory things, following a defamation action he brought himself against an author who accused him of these things. His speech has been officially (and juridically) found to be both untruthful and damaging. Why should it be protected?

It is simply incorrect to claim that First Amendment protection is provided only to those subjects "when the truth about something is known." Religious, political, scientific subjects are frequently disputed. For one party to enlist state power to shut up his opponents is simply totalitarian and incompatible with the vision of a free society as laid out by the Founders.

Err... I never claimed that ' First Amendment protection is provided only to those subjects "when the truth about something is known" '. First Amendment protection covers all speech, and so it should. 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? I submit that our own Supreme Court answered this in the famous "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" discussion - if the speech is factually incorrect, and (and this is a very important "and") can cause harm through its utterance, it is not protected.

Your point that "Religious, political, scientific subjects are frequently disputed" is perfectly correct, and absolutely valid. Where no certainty can be obtained about an issue (e.g. a matter of religious belief, which depends on faith rather than science for its acceptance), or where scientific inquiry has not yet produced certainty of knowledge (e.g. ongoing scientific investigations into the nature of an element, or historical debate about whether or not something happened, and if so, what), free discussion of all the issues is essential in order to arrive at the truth, as far as we're able to ascertain it. If we can't ascertain it, either because the object of inquiry isn't amenable to scientific analysis, or because science and knowledge don't yet have the tools to properly evaluate it, then the debate remains open. When scientific knowledge is definitive, or historical analysis has proven the truth (or otherwise) of an occurrence beyond doubt, then there is no need for debate on the facts of the issue, and I submit that those opposing the facts cannot claim "free speech" as a defence for their denial of something that can be objectively proven.

I agree that "For one party to enlist state power to shut up his opponents is simply totalitarian and incompatible with the vision of a free society as laid out by the Founders". However, in the case under discussion, we're not talking about any "party" enlisting "state power" - we're talking about historical fact, actual on-the-ground reality, being denied, and the negative consequences - i.e. the potential for damage - of those denials. This is neither totalitarian or incompatible with a free society. Given the absence of any potential for damage, a false claim (e.g. "The moon is made of green cheese") can be allowed to go unrestrained. However, I respectfully submit that a false claim that can cause damage (e.g. "This race is genetically inferior to that race"), and that could be used to incite racism, discrimination, etc., can and should be legally restrained (as in the "Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" scenario). Since Holocaust deniers typically (and, in Irving's case, demonstrably) support anti-Semitic causes and incite anti-Jewish behavior, I submit that they can't claim "free speech" as a defense.

 

[Biker]

Now, I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but from what little I've read, he isn't denying the holocaust ever happened, just the numbers. Although I see little difference between 1 million, and 6 million (it's too much either way), it appears that there may be cause for discourse there. Then again, maybe this argument isn't relevant since the case isn't in US courts. I'd sure hate to see it happen here, because if *they* can be silenced, so can *we*.
Biker

 

[Cosmoline]

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.

 

[javafiend]

His speech has been officially (and juridically) found to be both untruthful and damaging. Why should it be protected?

Because the alternative - allowing the state to promulgate an Unquestionable Official Version of events, and to silence anyone who asks the "wrong" questions - is so much worse.

Since Holocaust deniers typically (and, in Irving's case, demonstrably) support anti-Semitic causes and incite anti-Jewish behavior, I submit that they can't claim "free speech" as a defense.

So anti-Semites and people who support anti-Semitic causes should not be afforded free speech protection. Why is that?
And what about people who are anti-Islamic and support anti-Islamic causes? Or people who denounce all religions as mere fairy tales and bedtime stories?

Censorship laws are inevitably used against legitimate scholars. In Germany 1971, for example, atheist historian Karlheinz Deschner, author of The Criminal History of Christianity, was hailed into court in Nuremberg and charged with "insulting a religion" for describing the Catholic Church as an "on-going criminal enterprise." He ultimately beat the rap, but after he had to hire a lawyer. No free society should ever tolerate such totalitarian laws.

The issue of the Holocaust is no longer in factual or legal dispute.

There are unresolved Holocause issues. See Hitler's Willing Executioners : Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust by Daniel J. Goldhagen. Can you imagine true historical research taking place under the shadow of possible prosecution by the state?

If we can't ascertain it, either because the object of inquiry isn't amenable to scientific analysis, or because science and knowledge don't yet have the tools to properly evaluate it, then the debate remains open.

Such debates should be debated and decided in the marketplace of ideas, without fear of prosecution by the state.

historical fact, actual on-the-ground reality, being denied, and the negative consequences - i.e. the potential for damage - of those denials.

It is a fact that the US government sponsored terrorist wars against Central America in the 1980s. Now suppose that we adopt censorship laws that punish people for denying history. Who do you suppose would be indicted? People who deny the US government's role in sponsoring terrorism? Or those who call attention to the role of the US gov in sponsoring terrorism?

Censorhip laws just give the powerful just one more lever to push around the powerless.

I met an Irish lady the other day who was appalled at Pat Robertson's latest wacky remark, and cited it as proof that the US should adopt laws against hate speech. I told her that if she thought that Pat Robertson would *ever* be indicted for violating laws against "hate speech," then she just didn't understand who's running this country.

However, I respectfully submit that a false claim that can cause damage (e.g. "This race is genetically inferior to that race"),

Coca Cola is inferior to coffee. That's merely my opinion, YMMV.

Biologists should be free to make free inquiry without fearing an indictment for asking the "wrong" questions or for getting the "politically incorrect" answers.

can and should be legally restrained (as in the "Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" scenario).

Incitement. The case is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Have you read the opinion? Do you think that they rendered the correct decision?

 

[CAnnoneer]

I think protecting freedom of speech is far more important than the danger that somebody might exercise their right and make up their own mind in a way contrary to objectivity, based on the assertions of a particular kook.

Silencing the kook to protect the delicate minds of sheeple is socialist censorship that only serves to further smooth the few wrinkles of the sheeple's already quite flat brain tissue.

 

[Preacherman]

<sigh>

Javafiend, it would help the discussion if you would answer the points made, and not go off at a tangent. That's not argument at all - that's setting up straw men, or trying to divert the discussion into areas not at all relevant to the arguments put forward. Let's take a few examples.

Quote:
His speech has been officially (and juridically) found to be both untruthful and damaging. Why should it be protected?

Because the alternative - allowing the state to promulgate an Unquestionable Official Version of events, and to silence anyone who asks the "wrong" questions - is so much worse.

What has this got to do with the point I made? We're not talking about alternatives - we're talking about why untrue and damaging speech should be protected. I'm still waiting to hear reasons. To say that it should be protected because of something that is not on the table at all, such as "allowing the state to promulgate an Unquestionable Official Version of events, and to silence anyone who asks the "wrong" questions" - which is not happening here - begs the question.

Quote:
Since Holocaust deniers typically (and, in Irving's case, demonstrably) support anti-Semitic causes and incite anti-Jewish behavior, I submit that they can't claim "free speech" as a defense.

So anti-Semites and people who support anti-Semitic causes should not be afforded free speech protection. Why is that?
And what about people who are anti-Islamic and support anti-Islamic causes? Or people who denounce all religions as mere fairy tales and bedtime stories?

Again, a "straw man". The point under discussion is not whether people who are anti-anything should, or should not, be afforded protection. The point is that those who deny the Holocaust (which is provably and demonstrably a false, dishonest position) use their rhetoric and falsehoods to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment. It is my position that this falls under the same prohibition as the famous "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" argument - namely, that to state a falsehood in such a way as to cause harm to others is not protected speech. Just as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, can cause panic, a rush for the exits, and consequent injury, so too denying the Holocaust and using this lie as an excuse or justification for anti-Semitic agitation can produce measurable harm in mahy ways. It's my opinion and contention that neither scenario is protected under "right-of-free-speech" provisions. This is not to argue that those who are anti-Semitic, or anti-Islam, or anti-whatever, don't have the right to hold their beliefs and state their justifications for their beliefs. However, if the facts upon which they base their beliefs are wrong, then they should be called to account for this: and if their actions produce harm to others as a result of their falsehoods, they should be held liable. If they persist in putting forward untruths as a foundation for their position, they should not be afforded the same protection for their speech as someone whose position is founded on fact.

Surely you're not suggesting that someone deliberately lying about known facts, who whips up sentiment and promotes aggression against others through his lies, should be allowed to get away with it?

It is a fact that the US government sponsored terrorist wars against Central America in the 1980s. Now suppose that we adopt censorship laws that punish people for denying history. Who do you suppose would be indicted? People who deny the US government's role in sponsoring terrorism? Or those who call attention to the role of the US gov in sponsoring terrorism?

What has this got to do with the point at issue? We're not "adopting censorship laws that punish people for denying history" - we're talking about punishing those whose lies lead to actual damage to, or aggression against, others, on the basis of falsehoods. This is not the same thing at all. To use your example, there would be no problem in those who seek to deny the US Government's role in sponsoring terrorism. Others could point out historical fact and prove their position, thus correcting the error. If, on the other hand, those denying US sponsorship of terrorism were to incite violence against those who proclaim the truth about it, and this led to harm being inflicted, then I would have no problem in their being called to account, because their lies would have given rise to actual harm. It's not the speech that matters so much as the consequences of that speech - again, the "Fire" argument.

The case is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Have you read the opinion? Do you think that they rendered the correct decision?

Yes, I know the case, and I'm not going to get into it in detail here, because it doesn't directly address the point at issue. Some of the arguments presented in that case do, however, address similar issues under discussion here.

I don't have a problem with David Irving being allowed to say whatever he likes. I do have a problem when he lies about historical fact, and then uses those lies to propagate anti-Semitic sentiment, leading to violence against Jews (as he has demonstrably done in the past - this, too, is a matter of record, and is not subject to debate). I also object to his indoctrinating others with falsehoods, which might lead them to wrongful actions in the future (witness his absolutely disgusting song to a child about "being a little Aryan", cited at his trial). I fully support calling him to account for his use of lies to propagate aggression and prejudice against others.

I guess that fundamentally this whole issue boils down to whether rights are completely free and unrestricted, or whether they are subject to regulation. Our Courts have long taken the position that no right is absolute, and that they are all subject to regulation. I agree with this position, provided that the regulation is as light as possible, and does not intrude upon the right to the extent of rendering it meaningless.

 

[ArmedBear]

Ridiculous. Chomsky has no "association" with neo-Nazis in any meaningful sense of that term. He merely defended the freedom of speech of a Holocaust denier.

He wrote the foreword to a book of Holocaust-denial revisionist history. That is association in a meaningful sense of the term. If I wrote a foreword to a book you published, we would have an association. No sane, honest person would deny that.

Chomsky's motivations -- whatever they were, and I tend to agree with the assessment presented here: http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_deniers.asp -- do not change the fact that there was a voluntary, "meaningful", and conscious association.

Pardon me, I've actually read CHomsky's work on the subject of Pol Pot. It's titled After the Cataclysm : The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume II (Political Economy of Human Rights). He never denied the genocide in Cambodia.

Tossing around a few numbers to minimize the reality of a large genocide, under the guise of "scholarship" is EXACTLY what the deniers of the Nazi Holocaust do. The gist, in plain English without Chomsky's verbose and roundabout style, is "yeah, some people died, but not millions, and it was really not the Khmer Rouge's fault given the involvement of the evil United States" is exactly how Holocaust deniers treat the subject of Hitler, except, perhaps, that the evil US might be replaced with some other entity like Britain.

A dispute about the numbers killed in a genocide does not mean that one denies the genocide.

This is false. Genocide implies large numbers and/or entire groups of people. Convince people that it as 50,000 people and that was because of the US involvement in Viet Nam and the resulting civil conflicts (Chomsky's version), rather than it was 1,000,000 people, and they comprised the entire educated Cambodian population who might pose a threat to the Khmer Rouge (the Amnesty International version), and you have denied the genocide. This is exactly what Holocaust denial "historians" do.

My opinion is that Chomsky and Herman got some things wrong in 1979 about the Cambodian genocide. That doesn't mean that they lied, or that they denied the Camboadian genocide.

Your opinion is not widely shared, nor do I share it. If you don't believe that Chomsky is a propagandist who has little interest in the truth, you have not educated yourself about him. He is a seductive writer, if you want to believe what he says, though.

I disagree. Even factually inaccurate speech is protected, and should be protected.

I'm with you there.

 

[c_yeager]

But he - and other Holocaust deniers like him - has/have had the chance to present their arguments and evidence in the public forum. The issue of the Holocaust is no longer in factual or legal dispute. Indeed, Irving himself has been found, by a competent court of law, to be a Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, and other unsavory things, following a defamation action he brought himself against an author who accused him of these things.

Im a little troubled by the idea that the state gets to have the final word on any discussion of facts.

Im also troubled by the notion that one should be unable to say things even if they have been "scientifically deomostrated" to be false. As a person with even a passing religious interest that idea is pretty dangerous. Besides, the 1st amendment protects speech, period. Nowhere does it say that the speech has to be reasoned, intelligent or true. Perhaps that restriction is in the same place as the restriction on machine guns?

 

[Cosmoline]

The issue of the Holocaust is no longer in factual or legal dispute

Almost everything about history is subject to debate. Certainly all the important points are subject to debate and interpretation. A state action to quash debate is misguided and deeply troublesome.

Also, you take it as a given that deniers CAUSE violence against Jews. I've never seen any evidence of it. And establishing a causal chain between the words of a denier and any actual attacks is nearly impossible. Establishing a causal chain between shoutin "fire" in a crowded theater and the ensuing injuries from rush to the exits is easy in contrast.

Besides, the Euroscum socialist governments have not enacted anti-denial laws to protect Jews. They could care less about Jews. They put these laws into effect to stop all open debate about what did or did not take place.

 

[c_yeager]

Also, you take it as a given that deniers CAUSE violence against Jews. I've never seen any evidence of it. And establishing a causal chain between the words of a denier and any actual attacks is nearly impossible. Establishing a causal chain between shoutin "fire" in a crowded theater and the ensuing injuries from rush to the exits is easy in contrast.

One could just as easily establish a link between a man who murders people at an abortion clinic, and the teachings of virtually any Christian Church. Even if violence is indirectly incited, it still isnt a crime. Thats like saying that access to weapons incites shootings. Ultimately the responsibility of a violent act rests soley on the person who commited the act, unless that person is somehow incapable of making the decision on their own.

 

[Malice]

So plenty of people "know" that God created men.

Plenty of people "know" that men came forth through millions of years of evolution.

Does that mean that he opinion in the majority can outlaw the other veiwpoint?

No

 

[NickEllis]

Besides, the 1st amendment protects speech, period. Nowhere does it say that the speech has to be reasoned, intelligent or true. Perhaps that restriction is in the same place as the restriction on machine guns?

Ah, finally! I was wondering how this thread could claim to be in any way gun related.

 

[c_yeager]

Ah, finally! I was wondering how this thread could claim to be in any way gun related.

description of this portion of the forum:

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights.

 

[NickEllis]

I stand wholly corrected.

 

[agricola]

Irving is wrong in both fact and morality to deny the existence of the Holocaust; however to prosecute him for that is clearly unjustifiable, he has the right to be wrong after all.

 

[Ellie]

Europe has no freedom of Speech.

Thats why I fear for our freedoms if they ever get control of the internet somehow.

Agreed. So very agreed. I was at that dinner with Armedbear's Austrian cousin. She is an attorney by training and the wife of an international business attorney and constitutional court (Austria's supreme court) judge. She has met and dined with most of our Supreme Court judges. I mention these things because she is a) educated b) educated in legal matters and c) has been exposed to American constitutional law.

When AB said something about freedom of speech being absolute, she said (and I quote):

'Well it's not that simple. For instance, you can't say that the flag is ugly!'

Uh - yeah, actually it is that simple. And actually, I can.

Except that I won't, because the symbol of my freedom makes my heart sing.

Europe would scare me if it weren't so obviously on the brink of total collapse. It's Americans who think this way that scare me.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Preacherman,

We're not talking about alternatives - we're talking about why untrue and damaging speech should be protected. I'm still waiting to hear reasons. To say that it should be protected because of something that is not on the table at all, such as "allowing the state to promulgate an Unquestionable Official Version of events, and to silence anyone who asks the "wrong" questions" - which is not happening here

The issue here is ultimately over thought crime, whether or not you are allowed to think that what the govt does not want you to think, and the possibility that he might change someone’s mind is why you fear him. I find this ironic because I doubt any sane person would want to jail someone for claiming that slavery never existed in America, it is insane beyond belief to think such a thing despite overwhelming evidence, and it’s that evidence that makes a person like that appear a fool, what need is there for a law to silence him? The only reason for that would be because you lack faith in the historical evidence to destroy his position.

The issue of the Holocaust is no longer in factual or legal dispute. Indeed, Irving himself has been found, by a competent court of law, to be a Holocaust denier

According to what was written his position was that there was “"not one shred of evidence" that the Nazis carried out their "Final Solution" on such a scale.”. He questions the official numbers and he questions the manner in that many died, that is a little bit different than saying absolutely nothing ever happened. All you are argueing for is that because a court says he is a holocaust denier, which he obviously doesn’t deny it happened but rather the extent of it, he should not be able to raise questions about the official dogma. I haven’t seen the data that he is basing his claim off of, why not just let people sort out the validity to it in making up their own minds?

You are also incorrect in comparing his claim to shouting “fire”, his claim that the numbers and manner of deaths due to Nazi actions is different from the official stance is not the same as a warning that there is an imminent, proximate, and lethal danger that people must flee from. People might trample over one another if they believe there is a fire but people are not going to start beating Jews to death because someone thinks the numbers are inaccurate. Anyone that would run out and start beating Jews already wanted to do it, and Irving’s essay therefore had no effect on his desire. Blame the criminal, not the gun.

 

[denfoote]

David Irving

Irving is wrong in both fact and morality to deny the existence of the Holocaust; however to prosecute him for that is clearly unjustifiable, he has the right to be wrong after all.

David Erving is an Idiot. He has always been an idiot!!
That is not the point.
It's the way he USES his "wrongness" to spread National Socialist political thought. He is been very careful to couch his statements such that it does not appear to deny that the Holocaust happened. He "questions" the numbers, among other things, like the existence of the gas chambers. However, the Jews were rounded up and put into slave labor camps. They were poorly treated and worked to death. This is a matter of historical fact that not even David can escape or explain away
Even if only ONE Jew died as a result (many more did) then what happened was certainly a holocaust!!!

I've followed him for years. I have even read some of his works ( his biography on Winston Churchill). He is clearly a Nazi. He has always been a Nazi. He hates Jews and wants them all to die. Whenever his stupidity lands him in trouble, he blames...you guessed it...Jews!! The Jew is trying to silence him. The Jew wants to see him dead. The Jew wants to ruin him.

He's just another garden variety Nazi.
Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

David Irving speach would be protected in the USA and should be in Great Britan. However in most of Europe, that either helped or stood by and watched six million Jews go to there deaths, then you should loose some of your rights. Start and loose two world wars that a 100 million people die in and you loose some of your rights. Most Germans and Austrians were in denial right after the war claiming it did not go on or they didn't know it went on. I would not be suprised to find these anti-denial laws were forced upon these countries by the USA because we did not want to hear there lies.

Wait until the last of the WWII gerneration die and watch how fast most of Europe claims the Holocaust never happed. We never forced such laws on Japan and their government is already glossing over their war crimes.

 

[Preacherman]

I'm astonished at how many posters in this thread just don't read arguments, or ignore what has been clearly stated. Let me try to put things as bluntly as possible, in simple words, in the hope that my point can be understood.

1. Free speech, as speech, is protected under all circumstances. However, speech can (and often does) have consequences in the real world. It is the consequences of speech that concern us in this particular case.

2. If true speech leads to negative consequences, there is a defence of truth. For example, if a theater is on fire, and I shout "Fire!" to warn people, and some of them are hurt in the rush for the exits, I have an affirmative defence against being sued because there really was a fire, and they would have been hurt if I hadn't warned them.

3. If false, untrue speech leads to negative consequences, there is NO defence of truth. In the theater example, if there was no fire, yet I shouted "Fire!", and people were hurt in the rush for the exits, I would be legally liable for their injuries, because I abused my right of free speech by lying, they acted on what I had told them, and therefore the consequences of my lying would be (quite properly) laid to my account, not theirs.

4. In Irving's case (as is clearly documented in the historical record), he has lied about the Holocaust in many ways, and has then used his lies to applaud and encourage neo-Nazi groups, spread anti-Semitic views and propaganda, etc. Some of those groups have engaged in illegal activities against Jews, including assault, etc., as part of their campaigns. In other words, Irving has used his "right of free speech" to lie and spread untruths. These untruths have resulted in actual harm to others, and the breaking of the law.

As a result, I maintain that Irving has no right whatsoever to claim "free speech" as a defence for what he has done. I do not believe that the right to "free speech" is a universal, unregulated right - I agree with our Courts, which have consistently held that any right is subject to reasonable regulation.

As I said earlier, I think the real point with many of those posting here is that they do not believe in any regulation of rights. They believe that a right is absolute and unfettered, and that therefore Irving cannot be called to account for his "speech". I don't agree with them (and neither do the US Courts).

 

[Cosmoline]

In Irving's case (as is clearly documented in the historical record), he has lied about the Holocaust in many ways, and has then used his lies to applaud and encourage neo-Nazi groups, spread anti-Semitic views and propaganda, etc. Some of those groups have engaged in illegal activities against Jews, including assault, etc., as part of their campaigns. In other words, Irving has used his "right of free speech" to lie and spread untruths. These untruths have resulted in actual harm to others, and the breaking of the law.

You keep saying this, and I've heard it before. But where is the actual evidence that Irving's words have ever DIRECTLY CAUSED violence? Shouting fire in a crowded theater DIRECTLY CAUSES a panic. Can you show the same direct cause-in-fact from any of Irving's words? Neonazis who engage in violent marches or protests are responsible for their own actions. Words do not cause them to act. Words are not to blame. So you really have no evidence that Irving has caused actual harm to anyone.

The right to spread lies and untruths is an integral part of free expression. If the government gets to decide what is Truth and outlaws "lies," we really have no freedom anymore.

This all goes back to how we view the rise of the nazi state and its crimes. The accepted doctrine holds that HITLER WAS TO BLAME. It puts the blame for all the millions of deaths on HITLERS IDEAS AND WORDS. I've never seen the evidence of that. What I see looking at the history is millions upon millions of Germans, Poles, Frenchmen, Croats and others JUMPING AT THE CHANCE to kill Jews and others. Each was responsible for his or her own actions, completely totally and utterly. To blame an idea for such crimes is really a way of avoiding the truth of the matter. And anti-denial laws are all about BLAMING IDEAS FOR ACTION.

 

[Preacherman]

But where is the actual evidence that Irving's words have ever DIRECTLY CAUSED violence?

Cosmo, please use Google and other search engines to research Irving's long history in the anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi world. For decades, not just months or years, he has visited, spoken to, encouraged, addressed (etc., etc., ad nauseam) neo-Nazi groups across Europe. He has publicly incited pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic attitudes among them. Following such gatherings, and his speeches, there has been anti-Semitic violence and other illegal activity by these groups. This is not a matter of opinion, but of historical fact, and can be easily researched by anybody with the interest to do so.

I therefore maintain that he bears at least some measure of responsibility for the actions that were (at least in part) engendered by his words. The courts in England agree with this position - see the transcript of his court case there (again, easily available to those who will do a little research). I know the Austrian law in question, and he has unquestionably violated that law. I'm afraid I have no sympathy for him as he faces the consequences of his actions.

The right to spread lies and untruths is an integral part of free expression. If the government gets to decide what is Truth and outlaws "lies," we really have no freedom anymore.

Yes, free expression does include this right: but there is also the corollary that one may be held accountable for spreading lies and untruths. Some of these are harmless, and widespread (e.g. telling children about the "tooth fairy" or "Santa Claus"), and are of no particular importance. Others (e.g. anti-Semitic propaganda, or racist attacks) are of much greater importance, because they engender wrong and harmful attitudes at best, and can lead to actual violence and discrimination at worst. Therefore, the right of free speech includes an element of accountability for the truth of that speech, and the effects that such speech can have. Our Courts have always accepted this, and I don't think that any right-minded person would argue that the right of free speech should be so absolute that it offers protection to those who would propagate falsehood in this way.

I don't see this as a matter of "the government" getting involved at all. This seems to be a fear among those who distrust government in all respects. Governments have, from time to time, tried to impose their view of what is "true" on a populace. It's never lasted - in due course, the people get to know the truth, and they take action to get rid of the government that has lied to them. This has been true throughout history, and I don't think it's about to change. Religions have tried to do the same thing (witness the Copernican issue during the Renaissance), with similar long-term lack of success. "Truth will out" - no matter how one tries to prevent this. That's a Good Thing.

 

[Cosmoline]

But this IS ABOUT the government deciding what is true and what is false. It IS ABOUT the state punishing a man for WRONGTHINKING. This is particularly disturbing given that the state in question was the SAME STATE that participated in the genocide, and has absolutely no business shifting blame to an idea or words.

IDEAS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. The same line of thinking that would lead to approval of a state banning certain political ideas will justify the private ownership of firearms. There is no daylight between the doctrines. They are evil twins.

Irving spreading what you and I think are lies to a group DOES NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE. Each and every man is 100% responsible for ALL OF HIS ACTIONS. NO EXCUSES, NO EXCEPTIONS. Don't you understand that these denial laws are all about keeping the blame on the IDEAS so that the individuals and governments who actually did the deeds can escape responsibility. The accepted doctrine in Europe is that HITLER'S IDEAS caused the violence. Anti denial laws protect this doctrine--they do not protect Jews.

Yes, free expression does include this right: but there is also the corollary that one may be held accountable for spreading lies and untruths.

Only if it can be shown that your words DIRECTLY HARM another. And even then restrictions must be imposed on the right to sue. True defmation may give rise to civil damages. But it's a far cry from this to accepting the idea that THE STATE ITSELF gets to decide the "truth" of a crime that the very same state was absolutely central in organizing. A crime that millions upon millions of Europeans were directly involved in, but have never had to do a day of jail time.

 

[Preacherman]

Cosmo, with the greatest respect, I'm afraid I must completely disagree with you.

But this IS ABOUT the government deciding what is true and what is false.

No, it's not. 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.

It IS ABOUT the state punishing a man for WRONGTHINKING.

No, it's not. Irving is being held accountable for the consequences of his statements - the fact that his lies have caused damage to others. It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that those who deny the Holocaust and "whitewash" Nazi ideology have caused (and continue to cause) unrest, discrimination, agitation, violence against others in thought, word and deed, and so on. This is precisely why the Austrian legislation was passed - to deal with these consequences by attacking the roots of the problem. Those who perpetrate such illegal acts are prosecuted under legislation addressing the act. Those who encourage such illegal acts by way of propagating falsehoods are now also held accountable for propagating the falsehoods that inspire the acts.

IDEAS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. The same line of thinking that would lead to approval of a state banning certain political ideas will justify the private ownership of firearms. There is no daylight between the doctrines. They are evil twins.

Again, I must disagree. Yes, people kill people - but they tend to do so on the basis of ideas, no? They don't simply lash out because they don't like the expression on your face, or your choice of aftershave. There are reasons for their actions - and those reasons can be analyzed, interpreted and understood. There may be good reasons for killing someone (e.g. legitimate self-defence, actions in time of war, etc.). There may also be bad reasons for killing someone (e.g. the commission of a crime, hatred for that person on the grounds of his/her ethnicity, political orientation, religion, etc.). The same argument cannot be used of guns - a gun is an instrument, which has to be used by a wielder, just as a knife, or club, or nuclear weapon, has to be wielded by someone. Guns are simply a tool. Ideas cause the tool to be used (or abused).

But it's a far cry from this to accepting the idea that THE STATE ITSELF gets to decide the "truth" of a crime that the very same state was absolutely central in organizing. A crime that millions upon millions of Europeans were directly involved in, but have never had to do a day of jail time.

Again, this is not true. The State (in this case, Austria) was not central in organizing the Holocaust: remember that Austria was taken over by Germany in 1938, and it was the Nazi occupation government of Austria that collaborated in the Final Solution. This is not to deny that many Austrians supported and participated in that policy, of course - anti-Semitism has been a feature of many European societies for many centuries, as you rightly point out. I suppose one can take this back to the influence of Christianity, which for centuries portrayed Jews as "Christ-killers", and actively stirred up hatred of them.

We must get back to reality on this issue. The Irving case is clearly, unmistakeably, an issue of the consequences of free speech, not the freedom of speech itself. Irving (or anybody else) is free to speak on any subject as he sees fit. However, if his speech has negative consequences, he will be called to account for those consequences. If his speech was true and factually correct, he's unlikely to be made to suffer for it. If his speech was false and factually incorrect, it's likely (and entirely proper) that he should be made to suffer for the consequences that were (at least in part) motivated by his speech.

It's a cause-and-effect situation. If I claim the status of an expert, and assure you that pouring oil onto a highway will cause no harm (when I know full well that I'm lying), and you follow my advice, and others skid and crash as a result, I am liable (along with you) for the damage caused by my false "information" and your actions based on that information. If 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.