Cosmoline
Member
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?