I'm all against racism and holocaust-denial, but JAILING a guy for it?

[Rabrrrrrr]

David Irving, ignorant "historian" who denies the holocaust happened, is imprisoned in Austria for three years for the sole reason that he denies the holocaust. Not because he did anything criminal or illegal (except that in Austria, apparently some thoughts ARE illegal). Disgusting.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060221.EIRVING21/TPStory/Comment

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article346727.ece

The 67-year-old was sentenced to three years in jail by an Austrian judge for denying, in two speeches he made 16 years ago, the existence of the gas chambers of the Second World War and the murder of six million Jews.

Irving was not wearing his £2,700 pinstripe Savile Row suit as he had promised. The shabby navy blazer he did choose only reinforced the fact that this was a day when nothing would go right for him.

With a P G Wodehouse novel stuffed in his pocket to stave off boredom, he brandished a copy of his book, Hitler's War, for the ruck of photographers and television crews outside the court. "I've learnt a lot during the last 17 years," he declared to the reporters. "I've changed my views."

Seriously, this is awful. Sure, he's a shitbag - and I don't how serious or honest he is about his "change of mind", but putting the guy in jail? Sheesh. And yes, he had been told by Austria before that if he entered the country he would go to trial, but there is a serious amount of irony in jailing someone for a "thought crime" because he denies something that the Nazi's did. How the circle goes round and round.

[thinkingwoman]

1. he didn't THINK something illegal

He wrote books AS A HISTORIAN claiming the Holocaust didn't happen, which lends credebility and authority to the bullshit delusional beliefs of neo-nazis and other "shitbags."

You can debate whether or not that should be a crime all you want, but don't pretend that it's "thought" crime, cause that's total bs.


edited to add: 's (no caffeine yet).

[bryant69]

20. So you can think whatever you want

But the government has the right to control what you express?

By this standard thought crimes are pretty much impossible to committ by the way, until they recruit Jean Grey to go around reading our minds.

Bryant
Check it out -> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[northzax]

33. the only country I know of with unabridged freedom of speech is the US

no one else. it makes us exceptional, not the norm.

[thinkingwoman]

39. Many, many governments control what people express

Heard of Soviet Russia? China? North Korea?

Freedom of expression was a UNIQUE concept when the U.S. was formed.

But all of that is off topic, frankly.

My post certainly did not DEFEND such practices. I merely corrected a false statement--that he was convicted of a thought crime.

[petronius]

50. It sounds as though your definition of "thought crime"

only covers what people think inside their own heads - and as soon as they express those thoughts it becomes some other sort of crime. Personally, I think that is a really dangerous way of thinking, since basically any statement that the ruling party doesn't like can then be considered a crime (call it "incitement", for example). The logic that people are free to believe what they want, but can be punished for even vague, abstract, and indirect consequences of expressing those thoughts is chilling...

This guy was definitely convicted of a "thought crime" in the sense that that phrase is generally understood - he expressed a (stupid) idea, and was punished for it by the government...

[lukasahero]

52. He broke the law in Austria

Austria has a specific law against denying, minimizing and trivializing the Holocaust in writing or in speech. Regardless of what "we" (as in Americans) think of freedom of speech, this is Austria's law and he broke it - not by thinking what he thinks but by expressing it clearly in violation of the law.

[petronius]

55. Of course - I don't think anyone is disputing that.

The law in Austria seems pretty clear, and Austrians can have any laws they want. However, there's no reason why people the world over shouldn't have opinions on the law, and this is the perfect place to discuss and debate those opinions...

My opinion: this law sucks, if I was Austrian I wouldn't like it, and he was convicted of a 'thought crime'. YMMV...

[Texacrat]

83. So if Sudan or Rwanda kills millions of people, we should just ignore it?

n/t

[thinkingwoman]

53. Whatever. nt.

[petronius]

56. Yep... (nt)

[RazzleDazzle]

79. and the U.S. has its own sanctions on what gets expressed

There are several categories of speech that are forbidden:

* yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
* inciting to riot
* conspiracy to commit crime
* revealing (leaking) classified information
* false advertising
* libel and
* slander

and probably several others I'm not thinking about.

I support all these and favor one more: hate crime legislation which despite its detractors' complaints isn't about thought crimes at all, but rather motivation when a member of an oppressed group is assaulted or treated violently BECAUSE they are members of that oppressed group.

[thinkingwoman]

86. good points

I completely agree!

[blue2helix]

89. Examples are misleading

First, you can distinguish between criminal and civil law. Several of your examples are civil law violations which result in fines and provable damages, they do not entail throwing a man in jail and truth is a defense to such allegations which can be demonstrated in court.

Secondly, those examples which result in criminal sanction are criminal not because some political belief system has decided what constitutes palatable versus acceptable expression of speech, rather, they are criminal because either, they incite immediate (time and place - instantaneous) threat to safety, or are made in furtherance of a crime other than a conspiracy (like conspiracy to murder).

Your examples are misleading because they do not constitute examples of expressing one's political or sociological opinion (in this case an opinion regarding historical fact).

[Iris]

84. If you want to express something that is untrue, then call it fiction

and be done with it.

Although, I, too, am uncomfortable with the idea of a prison term.

[thinkingwoman]

109. P.S. It's not my standard

It's Orwell's.

Take it up with him.

edited to correct subject line...not enough caffeine. sorry.

[Rabrrrrrr]

88. You have a very empty notion of freedom of thought and expression

And yes, even though his shit was published, it's still a "thought crime."

And granted, yes, in Austria it IS illegal, so he did break the law; but the law is bullshit.

[thinkingwoman]

90. no, actually, I don't

My notion of the definition of thought crime comes from a strict interpretation of 1984. It's not narrow or wide. It is standard literary interpretation.

Thought crime is a very specific concept, regardless of how stretched beyond 1984 it has become.

I have not actually posted anything in this thread about my thoughts, beliefs, or "notions" of freedom of thought and expression. Your imaginings and suppositions about my beliefs are simply that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

92. So define your term, then

It's been a while since reading 1984, and I didn't realize that it was being used as a basis of law, and lo these many years later, I have no idea what it states in terms of defining a "thought crime". I really should read it again - last time I read it was, in fact, in 1984.

How does 1984 define a "thought crime", and how are you nuancing it (if at all)?

[thinkingwoman]

105. it's not my term

It's Orwell's.

There's a good definition at http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

Here are some key definitions they provide:

Thoughtcrime - see crimethink

crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

crimethinker - One who engages in crimethink

crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."


There's nothing nuanced about it. Thoughtcrime is the thought itself, long before it is ever expressed verbally, in written form, or even with body language.

Here's an additional definition to really drive the point home:

facecrime - Orwell's definition : "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."


Therefore, unless Austria is arresting, convicting and jailing people for THINKING that the Holocaust didn't happen but keeping that thought to themselves, they are NOT jailing people for thoughtcrimes.

Thinking it, and writing a book about it and giving speeches about it, are VERY different things.


Edited to add the facecrime definition.

[Rabrrrrrr]

106. Umm...okay, first, I never said it was your term

Which is why I asked you to define how Orwell used it, since that's the defnition you were using, and then, out of curiosity, I asked if you were using a nuanced version of it; I did not ask if Orwell nuanced it. That would have been an ignorant question.

Second, thanks for posting the definitions - very helpful. Makes me want even more to re-read the book.

Thirdly, I think your use of a definition of something from a work of fiction, set in a dystopian future, is unhelpful, specious, and irrelevant, especially since these definitions are the ones being used by an oppressive, awful government that believes that thinking something against the party line is even worse than doing something against the party line.

And fourthly, I think you are reading Orwell wrong, anyway - according to the definition, the thoughtcrime, as the definition says, "does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

And thus it is the meta-crime. And so even a punishment for publishing an opinion - a thought - however erroneous and ignorant it is - is still a punishment for a thought crime, yes?

But, since I disagree with Orwell's need to draw a distinction between thinking something and saying something, I wouldn't go with his definition anyway - to me, whether one thinks something, says something, or writes something, are all the same thing; excepting the few occasions when there is a difference due to immediate danger, such as yelling fire in a movie house, conspiracy to commit murder, lying under oath, calling 9-11 with a false emergency, etc.

I do not draw a distinction - freedom of expression, which in my opinion all human beings deserve - between freedom of thought and freedom of voice and freedom of publishing an opinion. Even if it's a goddamn lie. What next? We start jailing the Intelligent Design people for pushing a fiction as a truth? Jailing Republicans for publishing books of lie-based opinions?

And if we allow that, then how soon before the tables turn, and they start jailing liberals for "lying about the Iraq War" or "Being unpatriotic"?

If we want to protect ourselves, we need also to protect the legal and moral rights of those with whom we disagree.

[thinkingwoman]

108. I call major BS

You wrote:

"Umm...okay, first, I never said it was your term"

Sure you did. Your previous post began with the subject line: "So define your term, then"

Your latest post gets sillier after that.

You write:

"out of curiosity, I asked if you were using a nuanced version of it; I did not ask if Orwell nuanced it. That would have been an ignorant question."

I understood your question and answered it directly. I'm not using a "nuanced" version of it. I never dreamed you would be asking if Orwell nuanced it, as that would go beyond ignorant and into lmfaoland.

You then write:

"Thirdly, I think your use of a definition of something from a work of fiction, set in a dystopian future, is unhelpful, specious, and irrelevant, especially since these definitions are the ones being used by an oppressive, awful government that believes that thinking something against the party line is even worse than doing something against the party line."

Here's where we go right on into lmfaoland with you at the helm, because YOU introduced the term to the thread in your OP...the last line of your OP is: "there is a serious amount of irony in jailing someone for a "thought crime" because he denies something that the Nazi's did. How the circle goes round and round."

The work of fiction, set in a dystopian future, is the source of the term YOU used. If you don't like its meaning...too bad.

My first post to you simply pointed out that you had misapplied a term. My words were clear, unambiguous, and direct:

"he didn't THINK something illegal. He wrote books AS A HISTORIAN claiming the Holocaust didn't happen, which lends credebility and authority to the bullshit delusional beliefs of neo-nazis and other "shitbags. You can debate whether or not that should be a crime all you want, but don't pretend that it's "thought" crime, cause that's total bs."

Now, way down the thread when you begin to catch on that I may be right and ask for a definition I provide you with one. Do you have the decency to admit you misused the term or simply let it drop? Of course not. You procede to berate me with crap like me using a definition that is "unhelpful" and post this little rant:

"But, since I disagree with Orwell's need to draw a distinction between thinking something and saying something, I wouldn't go with his definition anyway - to me, whether one thinks something, says something, or writes something, are all the same thing; excepting the few occasions when there is a difference due to immediate danger, such as yelling fire in a movie house, conspiracy to commit murder, lying under oath, calling 9-11 with a false emergency, etc."

Um, bully for you. You don't like Orwell's definition for a word he made up? I'm sure he cares little for your approval of his word. But you don't get to choose whether or not to "go with his definition" anyway. His definition is what the word means, and it is ALL the word means.

Continue misusing it if you want. I can't stop you, and besides, I rather enjoy :rofl: at such nonsense.


As for the rest of your lecture that is completely irrelevant to our discussion about the definition of a word, none of that is worth the effort to reply to. Unlike so many on these boards, I have ceased to feel the need to defend myself for things I never said, proposed, or argued with.

Have a nice day, however you may decide to define it.

[nickinSTL]

2. Germany and Austria

are a bit touchy on WWII history...still.

I don't really agree with it, either, especially as the guy now says that he was wrong. (which means he was apparently a complete idiot previously)

As he now admits that the Holocaust happened...I really don't think they should jail him. Not that I'm in favor of jailing someone for their opinions, regardless, of course.

[MadHound]

3. I have to agree with you, this is BS

I don't agree with what he has said in the past, and I have serious doubts about his contrition now, but irregardless I have to condemn putting somebody on trial for something that they said.

[leveymg]

4. Isn't this kinda giving the guy some sort of martyr status?

Not a really smart move by the Austrian gov't.

[atreides1]

5. That's Austrian Law

And only Austrians have the right to decide what their laws are going to be. Personally, I think he'll be made into a martyr for others who also deny that the holocaust happened, some of which are probably right here in the US.

But as long as it's Austrian law, and the Austrian's have accepted it, I don't have a problem with it.

[beyurslf]

21. And in many countries women are stoned to death for alleged adultery.

Is this acceptable since it is the law of their land?

[MrBenchley]

24. And Irving being a fascist imbecile is JUST LIKE that?

Ho-kay.

[beyurslf]

27. I am responding to the post above mine that says he is okay with

this because it is Austrian law. Just because it is the law of that country and the people there support the law, doesn't make the law good or right.

[MrBenchley]

29. No, otehr considerations make the law good and right....

In this case, the history of the region and the wish of decent folks to keep hate speech out of acceptable public discourse certainly makes the law that Irving broke both just and right.

[NoPasaran]

61. .

responded to wrong post

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. I don't think that attitude works

Because it could be used to justify any law. If the Austrians passed a law making it illegal to claim that the holocaust happened, or to reinstitude slavery or expel all the non-whites or make wearing the colour purple a capital offence, surely you would have a problem with that?

You may be right not to have a problem with this specific law (I definately do, but I think it's not completely absurd not to) but you need to justify not doing so more rigorously than just saying "The Austrians have a right to make their own laws, therefor any law made by the Austrians is right", I think.

[Rabrrrrrr]

87. So you will accept any unjust and silly law, since it's another

country doing it?

So, we're only allowed to criticize at home?

Sorry, don't buy it - bullshit is bullshit, no matter who's country it's in, or what culture is doing it.

We - as human beings - have the right, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY, to critique and point out flawed laws, no matter where they are.

Once we define something as "uncriticizable", we have made a god of it. And we should be making gods of nothing.

[TInCanCommunications]

99. I have a big problem with Austrian Law then

Just like I have big problems with laws in countries where women can't go to school or where Children age 10 can work 60 hour weeks, or where companies can pollute watersupplies with toxins.

[populistdriven]

6. careful, in Iran being against holocaust-denial is a crime

:wtf: I need coffee

[Richard Steele]

7. Our 1st amendment is one of the best ideas in human history.

Yeah, this guy is a hateful asshat; of that there can be no doubt.

But, when all is said and done, he is being sent
to prison just for BELIEVING AN UNPOPULAR IDEA.
(which he may not even believe any longer).

As Rabrrrrrr noted, the circle goes 'round.

[tocqueville]

28. PLEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASE

1) "you" didn't invent it and weren't first (Jesus, it's fucking amazing that even progressive people can buy that jingoism). Here is a short timeline :

399BC Socrates speaks to jury at his trial: 'If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you."'

1215 Magna Carta, wrung from the unwilling King John by his rebellious barons, is signed. It will later be regarded as the cornerstone of liberty in England.

1516 The Education of a Christian Prince by Erasmus. 'In a free state, tongues too should be free.'

1633 Galileo Galilei hauled before the Inquisition after claiming the sun does not revolve around the earth.

1644 'Areopagitica', a pamphlet by the poet John Milton, argues against restrictions of freedom of the press. 'He who destroys a good book, kills reason itself.'

1689 Bill of Rights grants 'freedom of speech in Parliament' after James II is overthrown and William and Mary installed as co-rulers.

1770 Voltaire writes in a letter: 'Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.'

1789 'The Declaration of the Rights of Man', a fundamental document of the French Revolution, provides for freedom of speech .

1791 The First Amend-ment of the US Bill of Rights guarantees four freedoms: of religion, speech, the press and the right to assemble.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702539,00.html


2) Freedom of speech in the US has always been very relative....

Throughout the 19th century and much of the 20th, federal and state
sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used repeatedly
to suppress expression by slavery abolitionists, religious minorities, early
feminists, labor organizers, pacifists and left-wing political radicals.
For example, prior to the Civil War every Southern state passed laws
limiting speech in an attempt to stifle criticism of slavery. In Virginia,
anyone who "by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of
property in slaves" was subject to a one-year prison sentence.

In 1929, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth
control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted
employers' requests for injunctions that prohibited strikes and other labor
protest. Protest against U.S. entry into World War I was widely suppressed,
and dissenters were jailed for their pronouncements and writings. In the
early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols
of communism and anarchism. In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for
trying to read the First Amendment at a union rally. Many people were
arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as radical by the
government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU
was born in 1920.... Add Mc Carthy to that...

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con01.htm

besides :

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."


3) regarding the current issue :

it's a question of definition. Is hate-speech (and Irving's statements can be considered falling in that category by providing "arguments") "free-speech" ? there is a debate on it :

"Proponents of limitations on hate speech argue that repeated instances of hate speech do more than express ideas or expresses dissent; rather, hate speech often promotes and results in fear, intimidation and harassment of individuals, and may result in murder and even genocide of those it is targeted against. As such, historical revisionism is thought to be a form of propaganda which, deleting memory of real events, allows them to repeat themselves (as in the: "Never more!", following World War I... and then the Holocaust)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

so you can ask yourself, specially in the actual US context : what is the biggest threat to free speech today ? the deafening silence of the US (and other Western media) over the US administration's deeds - or - the condemnation of a hate mongerer ?

[Richard Steele]

31. Never claimed I "invented" it.

And as far as your last question, what's your point?
That a threat should be ignored because a larger threat exists?

I don't understand.

[Warpy]

8. People get jailed over bad laws every day

and yes, this is a bad law.

If we jailed everybody for being wrong about something, we'd all be sitting in jug.

What Irving is saying is utterly reprehensible. He should be ridiculed and shunned, not jailed. He should be sued into homelessness, not jailed. He should be sitting on the dungheap of irrelevancy and his publisher should be run out of business, but his stupidity should be its own punishment.

[cantstandbush]

9. There is NO free speech or thought UNLESS you say and think

what those in power want you to say and think. Did you read Orwell's "1984?"

[blue2helix]

10. This sets a bad precedent/ double standard

We (The West) criticize Muslims for freaking out about the caricatures and then convict a guy for talking shit about the how the Holocaust didn't exist. I believe that in both instances freedom of speech wins out.

[NoPasaran]

19. We (The West) didn't do this

The Austrians did. But the didn't freak out, they tried him in a court of law, convicted and sentenced him. I'm not a real fan of this law, especially since my understanding is that he was tried for a couple of speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 and the law was passed in 1992. (It certainly makes one appreciate some of the freedoms we are still guaranteed by the Constitution.) But I cannot deny that this all took place following the law in Austria. And no mob burned down the British embassy or started boycotting fish'n'chips.

Now if the offending cartoons were produced on the soil of, for example, Pakistan, and printed in a newspaper in that country, I could understand if those involved ended up in a court if they committed offenses under the law. And once again while I might not approve of whatever sentence was meted out, I could not deny that the laws of the country were being followed.

Like you, I actually believe that neither of these "offenses" should be illegal, and I am glad to live in a country where we are free to express ourselves even if some of us are bigoted, hateful idiots. But beyond that I believe that the rule of law, even if some of the laws are bad laws, is infinitely preferable to mob violence in the streets.

[blue2helix]

25. both are unacceptable responses

The "Rule of Law" is not a sign of civilization when the Law is unjust. Incarcerating a man for expressing an unpopular and inaccurate viewpoint is hardly civilized, no matter the finery and dressings of a "trial." The outrageous point is that a man has been thrown in jail for freely expressing his opinion.

As a blogger, tolerating this Austrian Law is unwise. You look away now because you don't like the guy and you feel that the matter is localized to Austria. But such a permissive attitude allows for the possibility that later it will be you or me being prosecuted for calling Republicans a bunch of Nazi's on this blog site here in the United States.

In my opinion, turning a blind eye to this Law is a step towards those scenes of mob violence as opposed to a civilized step away from such an intolerant attitude. Also, pointing to the "Mobs" of outraged Muslims doesn't make me feel any better about the Austrian Law, and actually does a disservice to those Muslims who disagree with the caricatures in a nonviolent way. Freedom of speech, for me, is to be respected universally.

Your "Rule of Law" is someone else's tool of oppression.

[distantearlywarning]

26. I agree.

Thanks for saying this.

[NoPasaran]

62. As a non-Austrian, tolerating this Austrian law is all I can do

I suppose if I really wanted to express my disgust, I could boycott Vienna sausages and Mozart.

And for all the crimes of Bush and the rest of the repubs, they are not Nazis.

[blue2helix]

69. Freedom of speech is a philosophy first and foremost

I never advocated interfering with Austrian affairs. For what it's worth, freedom of speech is a philosophy which happens to be codified as law here in the US. My impression was that as a philosophy and as part of the discourse between nations, the US should not support such a law. Even if it is only a gesture. No one advocated invading Austria, recalling ambassadors or boycotting goods over the incident.

A permissive attitude about restricting free speech for those we deem to be despicable is dangerous as an attitude in general. Respect for the philosophy of free speech is what gives power and credence to our free speech laws here in the U.S. A philosophical erosion of the free speech concept in the U.S. eventually leads to a legal erosion of free speech for the U.S.

[Devlzown]

11. I agree.

That would be like passing a law over here making it illegal to say that American slavery never existed. Anyone making such a claim would be considered a fool and wouldn't gain to many followers. In fact, he probably wouldn't have much of a social life at all. People like that are their own worst enemies -- why bother clogging up the court system and the jails with them.

[MsUnderstood]

12. it is like yelling fire in a crowded theater

Freedom of speech is not a blank check do to whatever you want with. If you abuse your power you should be convicted.

Freedom comes with responsibility and he should be held accountable (including jail time) for abusing this freedom.

HE LIED About a historic event in order to incite violence and hatred to another race. Taht is not freedom of speech that is an exercise of hate.

It is similar to the Swiftboaters telling lies about Kerry and rather than go after them we sat back and squaked "freedom of speech, let them lie".

[Igel]

15. If you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, you're both

setting up a stampede in which people will get hurt, and reducing the chances that the next time somebody yells 'fire' people will respond.

If you deny the Holocaust, and say nothing more, you've denied a historical event. Nothing more. One shouldn't abuse free speech, but this isn't a biggy, unless there's something sacred about the Holocaust. But that gets into freedom of religion.

We could go for a "true speech" law: saying anything false is punishable, even if it's a reasoned untruth that the person believes. But then my 2nd grade teacher, who didn't want to deal with negative numbers and so said 2-1 = ... is an impossible arithmetic problem was a criminal; my 3rd grade teacher, who taught a wrong theory about electron orbits in atoms was also wrong (even though it was probably state of the art when she was an undergrad). I don't think the government should be in charge of defining truth, or that non-government folk should be in law enforcement. "Truth in speech" laws are always selectively enforced, and typically just enforce things to benefit the enforcers.

If he's inciting to violence, that's another issue. And for that, he should be punished. Inciting to hatred ... that's a toughie. If I say repubs are Neandertals ... is that inciting to hatred?

[MsUnderstood]

22. thinking more about this

*Arguing a "what if this was america perspective*

I recall reading about a case where 2 guys gave a hate rally full of nazi symbols, anti black/jew/non white talk and from that rally 2 other guys went out and killed a person. The government attempted to charge the 2 guys giving the speech. That was a tough call related to the rally speakers' freedom of speech vs. fire in a crowded theater.

Regardless, once he published his book, didn't this become freedom of the press rather than freedom of speech?

And wouldn't that come with even more responsibility than freedom of speech? Should we allow journalists to lie then say "its okay cause they have the first amendment?" Where historically has America allowed that? (and I don't mean recent events where journalists ignore the truth I mean a court case where a judge said "his book/article lies but he has the right to publish it).

Teh problem is if you put down a lie as a historical fact, people then cite that lie to produce more "historical fact" and it confuses the truth. No one is allowed to lie based on the constitution. They are allowed to make mistakes as your teachers have done, but what if one of your teachers used this book publised to teach you the "truth" about the holocaust? Do you think that is promoting the constitutional rights?

[Igel]

58. I think I understand your point.

But freedom of the press is just freedom of speech on paper. The real question is, Who's going to be in charge of making sure journalists don't lie, and how big a lie is important enough to trigger punishment or shutting the newspaper? And are blogs and websites print or speech?

And do we go with penalizing falseness, even if believed? By my understanding of the word 'lie', some Holocaust deniers really really believe the Holocaust didn't happen, or didn't happen to the extent claimed, and so aren't lying; they're just misinformed, whether because they're naive, tinfoil-hatters, or pernicious. Estimates of deaths at at least one camp have been revised down a bit in some mainstream thought, so disputing the currently accepted figures isn't completely outrageous.

Newspapers print falsehoods all the time. Most are by accident; some are simply reported falsehoods. Some are probably de facto lies because it's unlikely the reporter or editor is unaware of some evidence, but they only present one side: it leads the readers to predictably come to incorrect inferences. But there's nothing I'm aware of (except libel and slander laws) that compel accuracy, and then somebody has to take the NYT to court to enforce them.

It's a tough call with a hate-rally, in which scurrilous things are said that can lead fairly directly to hate, and then to violence. I flip and flop on that call, glad I'm not law enforcement on or the jury. But just saying the Holocaust didn't happened doesn't necessarily imply that Jews should be hated or killed, any more than saying it did happen implies that all Germans alive today should be held accountable. Jew-haters may use the evidence to stir up hate, and the authors may secretly want their evidence used in that way, but at a minimum I'd expect the laws to stipulate that was the intent.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. I disagree very strongly indeed.

What you appear to be proposing is to make being wrong a criminal offence. I think that would be a very bad thing indeed.

If it can be shown that David Irvine intended his book to endanger people's lifes he should definately be jailed. If it can be shown that he knew that there was a non-trivial chance that it would then he arguably should. However, it's clear that neither of those is the case - it offended a lot of people, and it's bullshit, but it's about as clear an example of something that should be protected by freedom of speech and of the press as you can hope to find.

I agree that writers should choose to behave responsibly. I very strongly disagree that they should be compelled to do so by the law.

[davidinalameda]

94. I do believe that the Holocaust is a bit more than your standard historic

event

over six million men women and childrens died at the hands of the Nazis

it's one thing to say that Washington chopped down the cherry tree but to deny that millions were killed?

when we start trivializing events like that, that's when we start losing our humanity

[BushOut06]

32. I'm sorry, but even "hate speech" must be protected

The problem is who defines what "hate speech" is? Suppose Chimpy decides that WE are guilty of hate speech? We've said some pretty nasty things about his administration and neocons in general.

Now in a case where someone is clearly inciting others to violence - "Go burn down that church" or "Beat up those gay people" - that is a completely separate issue.

[Djinn]

98. I don't even know if that should be criminal

If some bigot tells someone to burn a church and they do it, well that'd be their crime, unless it could be proven that the arson was mentally deficient in some way why would we let then claim "a big boy made me do it"

I'm more on the fence on this one than on plain freedom of speech issues but to my mind no-one could ever make you (by simply telling you or exhorting you to) beat someone up or burn a church unless you actually wanted to do it anyway

[mongo]

59. So according to you

Free speech only means the freedom to say what the government allows you to say.

Wow. If the US followed your rules there would be no DU.

[Djinn]

95. so what if he lied

People lie about history all the time and always have, history is often in the eyes of the beholder (obv saying the Nazi's didn't set out to deliberately murder people is not exactly a interpretation but you know what I mean)

Austraia was founded upon the lie of Terra Nullius, similar to the "A Land Without a People for a People Without a Land" furphy

Lying should not ever be a crime, particularly one punishable by jail time, it is utterly ridiculous and I'm pissed at the Austrian judicial system for making me be on the same side as that fuckwit

[sui generis]

13. Statute of Limitations should apply too

Well, Germany and Austria are full to the brim with anti-authoritarian liberals and hyper-authoritarian freaks. It's no different than here.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

51. Austria is full of Nazis too

That's what kills me off.

Kurt Waldheim used to run the country and is still well loved - Ex-Nazi. We have our own Austrian right here in the US that thinks Hitler wasn't a bad sort and thinks Waldheim got the screws put to him. He's running California. No groups are trying to put him in jail for his past statements.

So, really being a Nazi seems to be OK, it's just that specifics of the Holocaust cannot be questioned. It is written in stone and any deviation is Verboten.

[bunkerbuster1]

14. "Awful"? nah.

More like mildly vexing. I'll put this one down near the bottom of my Top 200 Things I Find Troubling about the World Today list.

[Igel]

16. I could understand this law in the years following the war.

It would serve a valid purpose, and serve an interest at least as big as what free speech serves.

60 years after the fact, it seems to be a bit antiquated. Those responsible for the Holocaust are almost all over 80; most are dead. If another Holocaust occurs in Europe, it's unlikely to be because the Holocaust was denied, but because another Holocaust is wanted.

And while people are free to choose their own laws, I imagine those who think this is always true are few indeed: the death penalty, compelled political conformity, and slavery have been chosen, frequently by majorities. But just because another people or culture chooses laws I find silly or wrong doesn't mean I have to suspend judgment, or, even worse, force my judgment to approve them.

[genie_weenie]

17. Okay a question

What part of this do DUers not like?
1- The Austrian Government jailed someone over a theory he held and propagated.
2- The ruling sends a wrong image from the West over the Free Speech issue.

[EstimatedProphet]

18. It's not my place to disagree

I'm not Austrian. I've never been to Austria.

I wouldn't want to have a similar law in the US, but I have no authority to determine what laws should exist in Austria. We have a tendency in the US to think our view on how countries should treat their citizens should be every nation's view. I admit that the Constitution is a great thing, but it's ours. We don't have the authority to make other countries treat people the way we want them to. That road leads to Iraq.

[MrBenchley]

23. Actually he DID do something criminal and illegal

which is how it is the dreary loony is in the jug. Where he belongs.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. I don't think that's the point.

No-one is debating that he did something illegal; the issue is that it shouldn't have been illegal. Mahatma Ghandi did illegal things.

[MrBenchley]

75. LOL...so Gandhi-like, Irving struggles for Nazis everywhere

[Coexist]

30. I find it sad - but even at the trial, I think this guy is out of line:

<snip from the Guardian article cited above>
"Last week, on the occasion of the Dresden bombing," he said, "I knelt in my cell and prayed to remember the 100,000 civilians killed there."

The accepted historical casualty figure is closer to 35,000. Irving has traditionally exaggerated the numbers of Germans killed in the war and played down the numbers of Holocaust victims. Even yesterday, pleading for his freedom, he stressed "the figure of six million killed Jews is just symbolic".

<snip>
Do you still believe this?" Judge Liebtreu asked. The defendant was silent for a moment. Eventually, he replied: "I regret that formulation."

"Do you take it back?" the judge persevered. "I regret it," Irving replied.

His sentence was the minimal one - 3 years - and he will appeal, but in my opinion, the judge sensed that he was being played, and punished the man for contempt of the process and of the law as much as for breaking the law.
It happens sometimes - someone is made "an example of" by the system.

[noonwitch]

34. Other countries don't have a bill of rights

It is a crime in Germany to deny the holocaust, or to engage in pro-nazi speech. My guess is that Austria has similar laws.

I think it's wrong, but we have a bill of rights (for now, at least) to protect against this type of thing. The nazis and KKK are free to say whatever hateful thing they have to say this time, and the rest of us are free to condemn their statements.

Germany and Austria are democracies now. They can change their laws if they want to.

[Posteritatis]

35. The US is not the only country on Earth with enumerated rights. (n/t)

[KingFlorez]

36. Good, he's where he belongs

It's obviously against the law to deny the Holocaust. I think laws like this are good because it puts people in their place.

[Beelzebud]

37. This is why the 1st amendment is important.

What if the things we say about Bush were suddenly deemed illegal?

Yes the man is a shitbag for denying the holocaust, but jail is fucking insane for what amounts to "thought crime".

Any sane person hears these idiots and calls bullshit. No need for jail. But I guess that is one of the few areas where it truely is good to be in America. You can say any off-the-wall shit you can think of here, and it's just fine. And that's how it should be.

If you are never offended, you are not living in a free society.

[distantearlywarning]

42. Careful now.

The DU thought/speech police is out in full force today. They're probably writing your name down on their little lists right now so that when they come to power they know who all the "liars" are that they need to take to jail.

[Karenina]

45. During the Rebublican National Convention

in New York City, HUNDREDS were detained and confined for... :shrug:

These Irving threads are just so amusing! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[distantearlywarning]

46. I'm sorry you think it's funny.

I personally think this is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed both here and abroad. It's wrong for Austria to jail a man for an opinion. The Bush administration would like to do the same thing, and is chipping away at the right to free speech here as well. If they could jail someone for writing something unpopular in a book, they would do so. As progressives and liberals, we shouldn't help them achieve that goal by publicly stating our support for those kinds of actions by other countries.

[Karenina]

63. What you personally think is not germane

to the issue at hand. Austrians are perfectly capable of handling their issues of jurisprudence. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Irving was not expressing an opinion, he was promoting Naziism as the Austrians define it.

"If they could jail someone for writing something unpopular in a book, they would do so."

So far, *they're just putting the names on no-fly lists.

"As progressives and liberals, we shouldn't help them achieve that goal by publicly stating our support for those kinds of actions by other countries."

That has to be the most convoluted crap I've read today. You, who likely have never met an Austrian, been to Austria and clearly have no clue of the history and modern dynamics within that country's society are welcome to pontificate to your heart's content about what "we" should or shouldn't do on this board within the limits defined by the site's administrators.

In the famous words of Tonto, "Who's this "we" white man?" :silly:

I personally am quite neutral on the issue. Irving broke Austria's law and has been sentenced to jail. Not something I'd get my knickers in a twist over.

[Djinn]

100. would your knickers be more prone to twisting

if it were against the law anywhere in the world to claim that the 2000 US presidential election was stolen?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

66. I have to point out that in this situation * et al wouldn't be the

Austrian guvment, but the denier of the holocaust.

If you weren't there, don't live there, or don't know someone who was seriously impacted by the holocaust, it is hard to really understand it.

It seems like a strange law, but in the context of a nation that was a part of the holocaust, I do believe it makes sense.

In my case, much of my family tree on one side ended during WWII and were from Austria.

There is the enormity of the holocaust, the ongoing fallout to this day on many people around the world.

This law is a part of a very strong feeling that "Never again...".

It is a law, has been a law. If this fellow didn't know that, then he must be really out of touch.

I think as Americans we need to clean house at home first, and later if ever try to tell other nations how to operate.

In the meantime genocide in Darfur goes on.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

72. posted in the wrong place

[distantearlywarning]

76. Actually, your first point is exactly what I was trying to get at

"I have to point out that in this situation * et al wouldn't be the Austrian guvment, but the denier of the holocaust."

Nobody knows for sure who the next people deciding which and what individual speech is the problem. In the current case of Austria, their original point is valid: denying the Holocaust is a lie and inappropriate given history. So in this case, the outcome is, in a sense, valid. An asshole got punished for his asshole behavior. Great.

But what if the roles were reversed? So now Bush and his cronies are the people denying the Holocaust. Then they pass a law stating that anyone who says it DID happen is a liar, a terrorist, a threat to national security, anti-patriotic, or whatever. You speak your opinion about the subject anyway, and you get thrown in jail. A whole bunch of people applaud this decision on some random message board because 1) It's American law that Holocaust-accepters are imprisoned and who are we (arrogant, smug, self-centered bastards that we are) to tell another country it sucks, and 2) Holocaust-accepters are assholes and they deserve whatever happens to them. Too bad for you - you're going to jail and opinionated message board people are sneering at you.

Not so great in the second situation, right? You're actually telling the truth, and being oppressed for it, because unfortunately, the people at the top write the laws and decide what's "Truth". It's good when their truth is your truth, but not so good when it's not.

We all want the first situation without the possibility of the second. But it just doesn't work that way. To ensure your right to speak the truth when you need to later, you have to allow other citizens to tell lies. Sucks, but that's the way it is. I guess what you believe about this issue then comes down to whether you think it's more important to stop the lie-tellers or allow the truth-tellers to speak whenever they want. Which of those will cause the greatest good in the world? I vote for the second. It seems like a better strategy in the long run. But I guess we all have to make our own decisions about these kinds of issues. At least until the Thought Police come and take us all away... (that was a joke, for those of you out there who are humor impaired.)

I also wanted to briefly touch on your last comment about Darfur. I think this is the thing that gets me the most too, even though I haven't commented on it in any of my other posts about this subject. This whole board (me included) is bitching and bitching at eachother about this Holocaust denier guy, and Austria is worried about how many Jews he stated publicly were killed, blah blah blah. Never again, right? That's what we've all learned? Well, we're all worried about some stupid idiot and his stupid book, and in the meantime, the killing goes on. Never again, indeed. Never again for unpopular opinions, but that genocide thing? That's just fine...

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

77. All I can say is I disagree with your analysis. There are no

absolutes in this world, in my opinion, and this one doesn't even come close.

Further, again this is the internal state of another country which most people here cannot imagine in its historical perspective. And really have no stake in and no voice in deciding their policies.

Freedom of speech is NOT absolute, ie the "right" to cry fire in a crowded theater is not protected per the SCOTUS, as someone else pointed out.

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU. But nothing is black and white.

ACLU supported the right of NeoNazis to march in a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago. Personally I would consider it harassment.

But I am willing to allow for that kind of free expression in the US of A, my country. I'm a first generation American. This nation's history is very different from those of European nations that were fighting or occupied during the second world war.

I'm also the daughter of a holocaust survivor. Some of the fallout, actually a fair amount, passed on from that generation to me and my generation.

If someone in a foreign nation feels so strongly that it should never happen again and believes this law will help, then I say all power to them.

The Holocaust didn't happen in the USA. Again, if we're going to worry about what's going on in other nations, let's look at something that is clearly wrong and should be stopped: Darfur.

As much as we've become a Globalized world, it is erroneous and at times dangerous to presume to comprehend as well as those in the foreign lands life in those foreign lands and societies.

That you think you can do that scares me. Some here in the US believe we can judge how another nation is dealing with a history full of shameful crimes and activities.

Without any perspective or experience or stake or citizenship in the nation, I really don't think it is for us to say.

[Djinn]

101. it wasn't the law though

when the speeches were actually made. Retrospective laws...not progressive, banning opinion not progressive

[PhilipShore]

38. Does the mainstream media print news or infomercials routinely?

This is fundamentally about language; as Americans, our responsibility is to ensure that in a true democracy -- all are allowed the freedom, to express themselves no matter how much it offends the majority (liberty).

I think that the Austrian law is a just law; that would greatly help our democratic experiment, because it would put a check and balance on the uncontrolled power of the media, and the military-industrial-complex's monopoly on the mass communication system in the United States.

The CIA, the PNAC have a long history; of specifically using the mainstream mass media, and other avenues to stifle free speech by creating and atmosphere of fear and ignorance. For example; in the 60s during the civil rights era, the CIA had a cartoon unit specifically for the purpose of writing racist cartoons that would make blacks look foolish, so as to squash civil rights and encourage hate, and violence in society.

Our media system has become a tool of the military and the PNAC to sell the ideas of wars, not to allow the people to express themselves. What good is free speech rights written by some ACLU lawyer, if the Military-industrial-complex has a monopoly on the media?

Language is not babble; and not any idiot that walks down the street should have the right to by their babbling -- be allowed to advocate anti-Semitic or racial language -- so I think we need a similar law to that in Austria -- so as to put a check and balance on the media/government infomercial monopoly, and on the violence that it encourages among people in the United States-- but to also put a check and balance (on that monopoly) that encourages infomercials about the need for wars overseas.

[blue2helix]

40. Perhaps it should be illegal to deny that Saddam was behind 9/11

or to claim that Al Queada has no connection with Saddam Hussein or to question the intentions of the President in a time of war.

Your sword of justice is double edged, it can be swung the other way (to empower totalitarian regimes). Who gets to decide what is criminal???

And yes, you do have the right to babble.

[Coexist]

41. oh - wow - what a thought.

Can you imagine.

[PhilipShore]

44. The Austrian law specially says anti-Semitic speech - not political speech

I am not a lawyer – but the law only says that it is illegal to make anti-Semitic remarks because it is not political speech -- but rather hate speech -- designed to eventually cause violence, and the death and destruction of other human beings.

[blue2helix]

47. And Bush could say my (hypothetical law) is designed to protect Americans

from violence and death and destruction from other human beings. National Security. The term National Security has already been used to label us (progressives who question the war) traitors and enemies of America by some. There are right wing nuts out there, who believe we are traitors for questioning their king and saviour and sincerely think we pose a serious threat to national security for asking questions and challenging the authority of the Presidency. Those same nuts would have no problem seeing us being jailed for the comments we make here on DU.

And I have to disagree with you, the Austrian Law is Highly Political.

American Heritgae Dictionary:

po·lit·i·cal (p-lt-kl) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: "Calling a meeting is a political act in itself" (Daniel Goleman).
Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person.
Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.

[PhilipShore]

54. Bush and his administration are already doing that...

Bush and his administration behind doors create hypothetical laws - and defacto laws that we have to live by, ignoring all rules of law (See Gonzo Wiretapping hearings).

I am not a lawyer, but it seems that your argument; proves my point of why, we need a similar law so as to expose those that advocate laws or violence on nations, based upon false reasons such as National Security to protect us from Islamic terrorists, etc. If there was a law such as the Austrian law here in the States, we could then have checks and balances -- so as to make our society a true democracy.

Bin laden was a product of the NSA, CIA military industrial complex (now PNAC), whom was supported and funded with around a billion dollars, specifically to use the language of hate, ignorance and religion to stifle free speech and human rights so as to in theory win the cold war. But it was liberal movements and ideas -- that brought democracy to the former Soviet Union, not Bin Laden and/or Reagan's Infomercial PR speech at the Berlin Wall.

[blue2helix]

64. Who decides what speech is acceptable?

My point is who decides this restricted speech law? Where does this authority come from?

Who gets to determine which speech is ok and which is criminal? You are failing to ponder the implications of how this "real law" (versus "de facto" or "hypothetical" law) is enacted and enforced, what precedent it sets for future laws, what happens when an administration or political party with different opinions comes into power and inherits the power to determine what is free speech versus illegal speech? Laws are enacted through the political process.

On what authority would your law come from? You are assuming that there is a benign omnipotent all knowing force that will always apply this free speech exemption to a manner of your liking. As well intentioned as you are, that is the path to totalitarianism.

[WinkyDink]

43. Different nation, different war experience---like PARTICIPATION

in the mass murders. They are DETERMINED, to their credit, that people not forget the ENORMITY.
Unlike our very anti-historical country.

[SmokingJacket]

48. Hey, it's their country.

I'm not in favor of jailing people for spreading lies, but my country didn't go what theirs went through, either. At least he was warned...

[Cleita]

49. This remind me of Cindy Sheehan's T-Shirt arrest. Should

dissidents or oppositionists be arrested for what they are thinking? Sometimes in the case of poisoned airways' talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, it would seem to be a good thing. However, this is the reason Rush is not arrested, nor Randi Rhodes for that matter.

[Danny Udoji]

57. maybe

Maybe not jail time but definitely a mental institution. Racism is a disease that needs to be dealt with by therapy.

[Time for change]

60. I think it's a bad law, no matter how much one disagrees with

holocost denial.

It's a slippery slope.

If one can make a case that one should go to jail for holocost denial, then maybe some other country (such as ours) will feel emboldened to make it illegal to deny the legitimacy of a Presidential election.

How would we feel about that?


And in any event it simply adds weight to the holocost denial argument. Someone who knows nothing about history is liable to think, "Gee, if they have to send people to jail for denying it, then it's probably true."

[annofark]

65. Looks Like Austria Hasn't Come too Far

After All...
Taking away civil liberties one person at a time.

[RazzleDazzle]

81. Slippery slope -- that was one of the arguments against

all the other types of forbidden speech we currently think NOTHING about, or so I understand. And we somehow lived and prospered anyway, without any further serious erosion in our free speech (aside from the BUsh administration's assaults on ALL our rights, of course. But that's a different category all together, IMO).

See my post #79 for a short list of forbidden speech.

[Time for change]

85. I agree that certain forms of speech ought to be forbidden

including the ones you mention in post # 79.

But not the expression of an historical opinion.

[mtnester]

70. If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not

believe in it at all

[RazzleDazzle]

80. There's a categorical difference between

ideas and speech we disagree with -- no matter how vehemently -- and speech which is demonstrably harmful to whole categories of people. Our laws recognize personal harm to INDIVIDUALS (libel, slander) and no one thinks that's offensive or wrong. I think it's time for our laws to recognize personal harm via hate speech to GROUPS of individuals.

See Arendt's moving post below.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

73. Let's clean up our own messes at home in the US first.

See my post #66 for my more complete perspective.

[Lucy - Claire]

74. Austria.....

Has a lot of guilt about the its involvement in the Holocaust and because Hitler was Austrian. They have never been
held to account like Germany was after WW2,there is still a feeling by some in Europe that Austria got away with genocide. This may be what has spurred this sentence, the need to show the world that they are facing there past .
Irving is a scumbag but his ideas if nothing else fuel debate and makes it more important that people are taught about the murder of 6 million Jews, so it is undeniable.

[arendt]

78. Nazi agitators belong in jail

The man wrote a book full of lies. Those lies
encourage violent people and confuse young people.

This isn't a book, its an act of violence -
violence against history, violence against the
Jews, violence against common sense.

Since the 6 million dead aren't around to sue
the man for libel, I am glad the Austrians have
a law to speak for them.

This garbage is the worst use of the press.
If they could find the author's of "The Protocols
of the Elders of Zion", would you defend them too?

arendt

[TInCanCommunications]

97. Woop Woop ... Thought Police ... Thought Police ...

nm

[Djinn]

102. absolutely I'd defend them

I'd also defend the rights of filth like Kahane and other bigots to say whatever they wish.

It is NOT an act of violence against history, that's an utterly nonsensical idea, it is NOT violence against Jewish people, speech is NOT violence, it is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE but that's not the same (just like bigoted cartoons depicting Mohammed as a terrorist are offensive but not VIOLENT)

As others have said, if you don't defend the right to freedom of speech for those whose views you despise then you don't actually beleive in free speech, you beleive only in the right of people to say things you agree with

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. Sorry, I Have No Problem With This. Each Country Is Entitled To Its Own

laws. If that is their laws then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Much like I find no fault with indonesia's severe drug penalties. Each nation has a right to make its own laws as long as those laws are able to be followed and they do not cause harm or shortcoming to any individual.

[Katherine Brengle]

91. I agree that this is insane.... but as an aside---

in Austria, this history hits much closer to home than it does for the vast majority of us. I'm not saying that they are right, but I can understand where they are coming from is all...

[Rabrrrrrr]

93. I can empathize, too. And my visceral response is to put him

and all his racist revisionist lying fuck ilk in jail.

But then the sensible part of me tells my more interesting part that doing do is wrong, and that doing so is what made the Nazis such assholes to begin with. :-)

But yeah, I can fully understand why Austria and Germany (assuming Geramny does) would have laws like this on their books; after doing something so evil, I can see why someone would be pretty touchy and ready to prove that they're really, really sorry. Kind of like after I piss off my SO, I'm a little more diligent and careful about the thing that pissed her off...

[TInCanCommunications]

96. Agreed ... this is the kind of political correctness

That dooms race relations.

It's why I'm opposed to affirmative action, no matter how good the intentions.

[Charlie Brown]

103. Those of you supporting this ruling

have just handed Irving a huge soapbox. He'll be playing the victim for the rest of his life, now, and probably write another book about how his conviction "proves" that he is right about the Holocaust. He's already a joke. Why give him more power with this conviction (Hitler made it big after he was jailed in Munich in 1923, and he played the victim every step of the way).

As for all the "Austria is a unique case" arguments, what about other places with tarnished histories. The era of Jim Crow lynchings is still within living memory for many here in the South. There is an entire culture of deceit and fraud that tries to claim that the lynching accounts are exagerated or simply didn't happen. And, of course, these same people claim that slavery was a benign institution where white masters treated slaves kindly and with dignity. It's all bs, and those of us down here who know better have learned to live with it.

I don't want these morons jailed, fined, or persecuted in any form. It would simply give their movement legitimacy and provide them with a podium to shout from. We've accepted them as what they are: a joke. I don't see why Austrians and other Europeans can't do the same with people like Irving. Especially when these same people can still shout the same filth by changing their names to the "Nationalist Party" or "Austria First" or whatever.

[MrSlayer]

104. It is ridiculous.

His saying it didn't happen effects nothing. Jailing someone for saying it is more Nazi-like than the statement itself.

[oasis]

107. Irving's such an idiot that he's being imprisoned for his own protection

Gotta be. :shrug:

[Call Me Wesley]

110. These laws,

both Austrian and German are forcing the whole bunch of neo-nazis and their supporters into the underground. I'd rather see them in the open.

[Tesha]

111. Maybe *WE* ought to be jailing a few *OUTRIGHT LIARS* too!

Maybe *WE* ought to be jailing a few *OUTRIGHT LIARS* too!

There'd be a lot fewer Republican commentators on TV.

I've never understood why we, as a society, allow people
to stand up on their nation-reaching media soapboxes, tell
the most outrageous lies, and *NEVER* be called to account
for their actions. Where is our truth commision? Where are
our media fact checkers? What the Hell is wrong with us
that we put up with this shit?

Tesha