Holocaust Denier Jailed

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

One can almost predict how this will fold into Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric and play in the Muslim world … excerpted from the Beeb:

Holocaust Denier Irving Is Jailed

British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.

He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court in the Austrian capital.

Irving appeared stunned by the sentence, and told reporters: "I'm very shocked and I'm going to appeal."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[miked10270 0]

Personally I'm appalled at the sentence & think it should be increased on appeal. Nazism lasted just over 12 years, and if these camps were so pleasant, then surely Irving, as a historian should hav eno problem living as a Jew or dissident in the regime the Nazis devised!

Yeah... Ithink it's a shame that this cowardly, anti-semitic, racist can't be jailed in a suitable place as a sort of living-history exhibit!

For years this utter shit has denied the holocaust... Then, between his arrest & his trial, he suddenly realises that the holocaust DID in fact take place!!! I sincerely hope that his volte-face was responsible for at least 2 years of his sentence.

Then again, I believe that 12 years, 2 months in a purpose-built replica of Bergen-Belsen should be the mandatory sentence for these bastards... Let's see what they think of their beloved NSDAP then!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[briguy 0]

Any idea what the charge was or is denying the holocaust a crime itself?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Andy9o8 2]

I find it hard reconcile my visceral revulsion at Holocaust deniers and their deliberate (or demented) vicious slander with my lifelong American sensibility (and education and profession) that mere speech, even the most hateful, slanderous or repulsive speech (and no, I’m not including yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, or perjury, or fraud, etc.) should neither be criminalized nor subject to prior restraint by the government. (“Incitement to riot” has always been a troublesome concept under American law, especially when a case is viewed through the lens of history.) Civil penalties for slander? Maybe; but under Anglo-American law, at least, there must be fact-specific provable damages, too. Unlike many other countries, in the US, slander is never a criminal offense.

For example, in the United States, it was once illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. That is no longer the case; for mere “advocacy”, in the US, cannot be criminal; there must be some sort of accompanying deliberate act to put the idea into effect. Personally, I’m rather proud that the United States may very well (in theory, at least) have the broadest standard of freedom of speech of any of the Western-style democracies; generally speaking, mere speech, absent something attached to it to make it criminal (like committing a fraud, or a false report to police), cannot be criminalized.

Being able to weather such things as vicious slander and hateful dissent is a hallmark of a truly healthy and robust democracy. A healthy democracy should never fear letting truth collide with error in the free marketplace of ideas.

Advocates of this kind of hate and falsity deserve scorn, deserve ridicule, and deserve counter-measures to keep the truth at light. The beast in me would like to see them horse-whipped. But the American in me counsels that, as a matter of law – unless there is some deliberate act to translate thought into deed, punishing a “speech crime” with imprisonment is a dangerously slippery slope indeed.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Any idea what the charge was or is denying the holocaust a crime itself?

Yeah. Under Austrian Law (and the law of several other countries including, I think, Canada), "Holocaust-Denial" is a complete crime.

While this may seem an infringement on free speech, it's commonly viewed as the first step of anti-semitic racism and glorification of Nazism... Particularly in those countries which suffered Nazism and it's consequences most.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

While this may seem an infringement on free speech, it's commonly viewed as the first step of anti-semitic racism and glorification of Nazism... Particularly in those countries which suffered Nazism and it's consequences most.

No, it's an infringement on free speech and countries that have such prior restraint are a joke.

It's interesting to look at the other major player on the Axis side, Japan. Their history books try to omit description of their unsavory actions during the war.

Neither is a good way of handling it. You won't silence Holocaust deniers by making jailing those that talk about it in public. That only enhances such people's ability to declare it a coverup by the powers that be.

[billvon 3,070]

>No, it's an infringement on free speech and countries that have such
>prior restraint are a joke.

I have a feeling that if the KKK killed six million americans, we'd outlaw support of them as well. And almost everyone here would support it. Heck, even today a lot of people support blatant violations of the Fourth Amendment in the name of 'security' - and several people on this very board support prior restraint of organizations like NAMBLA. You can get away with a lot when people are scared.

Edited to add - I think in both cases the countries are wrong, but fear is a powerful motivator.

[Nightingale 0]

Better to ignore them, I think, than to give them a soapbox via a trial.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

...several people on this very board support prior restraint of organizations like NAMBLA.

Bill, I’m taking off on this tangent for a moment; and everyone please forgive the slight thread hijack.
Your NAMBLA example caught my eye, so I Googled it to get a sense of its mission statement and methodology.

Upon review, I might be willing to carve out an exception to allow some prior restraint on organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) which, according to its website, “support(s) the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.”

My feeling about this is similar to my feeling that it’s OK to tightly regulate advertising specifically directed at juveniles - if the activity and advocacy is directed strictly at adults, that’s one thing - I’d not support prior restraint. But society, as well as American law (since I was speaking from that perspective), reserves to itself both the right and the responsibility to subject juveniles to enhanced protection from jeopardy and risk, including such as the juveniles might willingly embrace.

The law regulates, restricts and/or precludes a juvenile’s ability to consume alcohol and tobacco, to vote, to enter into contracts, to marry, to opt out of compulsory education, to drive, to be employed, to operate certain kinds of machinery while employed, to travel freely without parental consent, to be free of curfews, to engage in high-risk aviation sports, etc. It also places certain restrictions on juveniles’ ability to engage in consensual sexual activity. So, if (as I believe) it is not a violation of the First Amendment to prohibit advertisements for alcohol which are blatantly and directly targeted at juveniles, then perhaps activities designed to encourage juveniles to flaunt age-of-consent laws can properly be prohibited, too.

Now, I realize that NAMBLA is careful to claim not to encourage juveniles to engage in unlawful man-boy sexual relations, and that all it seeks is the repeal of age-of-consent laws through lawful means. And if that’s all it truly does, then no, I wouldn’t support prior restraint on NAMBLA (although I disagree with its mission). But “mission statements” designed for public consumption (and scrutiny) are generally self-serving. And, thus, if it turns out that, beneath the surface, NAMBLA is more than just a mere lobbying group, but really does act as an enabler of juveniles flaunting age-of-consent laws (and adults exploiting impressionable and naive juveniles so inclined) - including active encouragement specifically targeted at a juvenile audience - then (a) it arguably becomes a de facto criminal organization, and (b) it crosses the threshold into where society can regulate otherwise lawful activity for the specific protection of juveniles, and I might support prior restraint upon it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have a feeling that if the KKK killed six million americans, we'd outlaw support of them as well. And almost everyone here would support it.

It's quite possible, but let's stick to what is actually happening. If it did happen, it would be wrong.

The AP story seemed to get some dates screwy, but apparently his 'crime' was committed in 1989. It then suggested the law was enacted in 1992, which would have even more rights issues, but it also said an arrest warrant was put out in 1989.

So a British 'historian' is being jailed for something he said 17 years ago when visiting another country. Clearly Austria hasn't fallen to Nazis in this time, making the justification for the law even flimsier.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

No, it's an infringement on free speech and countries that have such prior restraint are a joke.

Bill puts it very eloquently - in any culture there is a stage where "free-speech" degenerates into abuse. In the case of Germany & Austria any denial or justification for Nazism clearly falls into the category of abuse. Would The US tolerate a white supremacist making a public speech on killing blacks at the place Martin Luther King was assassinated?

Interestingly, between his arrest & the trial, David Irving has recanted the Holocaust-Denial he has maintained for some 30 years! He cites "new research" (PLEASE! Have gas chambers suddenly been discovered at Auschwitz in the last 2 months?)

Austria has free speech! Look at what Hubsi Kramer does in Braunnau! If that isn't confronting the worst of your past, then what is?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Skyrad 0]

You mean that in Britan and Europe there exists blasphmy laws that cover only Christianity, and that people can't go around saying whatevber they like about Jews and their history but it is perfectly legal and the press shout 'acceptable' to insult Islam. Well they've got a point haven't they!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I have a feeling that if the KKK killed six million americans, we'd outlaw support of them as well. And almost everyone here would support it.

Possibly so, but I'd still think it was unconstitutional. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Wilson and F. Roosevelt did similar things (or worse) during WW1 & WW2 (internment camps, etc.) Sedition laws had traction for quite some time in this country. But eventually, all those practices were discredited, repealed or overturned due to their unconstitutionality. And rightly so.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Would The US tolerate a white supremacist making a public speech on killing blacks at the place Martin Luther King was assassinated?

Actually, yes. In fact, it must tolerate it.
Example: In fairly recent history, the Ku Klux Klan has successfully maintained its right to open rallies in the largely-Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois. A highly inflammatory activity, to be sure, but constitutionally-protected speech nevertheless.

True freedom of speech is meaningless if the principle only protects that speech which is popular. The true test of the existence of freedom of speech is in its protection of extremely unpopular, offensive, even inflammatory speech.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

True freedom of speech is meaningless if the principle only protects that speech which is popular acceptable given the history of the place. The true test of the existence of freedom of speech is in its protection of extremely unpopular, offensive, even inflammatory speech.

... And... Ladies & Gentlemen... I give you Osama Bin Laden... Live at The Twin-Towers!

Acceptable? Within the US Constitution? Or would the crowds be justified in tearing his First Amendment rights limb from limb along with the rest of him?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[christelsabine 1]

.....

True freedom of speech is meaningless if the principle only protects that speech which is popular. The true test of the existence of freedom of speech is in its protection of extremely unpopular, offensive, even inflammatory speech.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

.....

True freedom of speech is meaningless if the principle only protects that speech which is popular. The true test of the existence of freedom of speech is in its protection of extremely unpopular, offensive, even inflammatory speech.

Crap (if not to say Sch****e). The freedom of speech exactly is reaching its limits the moment when laws are involved/touched. One of them f. e. in Germany is: Denial of Holocaust is punishable. Up to 5 years in jail. Period. Could be up to 30 yrs in Austria.

For me it it's fully acceptable.

[miked10270 0]

Incidentally... I don't know if you have ever read any of Irving's stuff. I assume you haven't been exposed to his rubbish as Europeans have (incidentally, this is the "independent historian" who validated The Hitler Diaries).

But... As a result of his entering Germany as part of the British Military Government at the end of WWII he did have access to excellent first-hand sources. I had to read a couple of his books as sources... Personally, I think he deserves the 3 years in jail just for the suffering I endured due to the politicised $hit he wove into the historical fact!

Mike.

Edited to add: Make no mistake. Irving is a discredited historian. He was found by a British Court to be a Biased, Neo-Faschist Wanker. OK - not the EXACT findings but that about sums it up.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

.....

True freedom of speech is meaningless if the principle only protects that speech which is popular. The true test of the existence of freedom of speech is in its protection of extremely unpopular, offensive, even inflammatory speech.

Crap (if not to say Sch****e). The freedom of speech exactly is reaching its limits the moment when laws are involved/touched. One of them f. e. in Germany is: Denial of Holocaust is punishable. Up to 5 years in jail. Period. Could be up to 30 yrs in Austria.

For me it it's fully acceptable.

The reason why you and I disagree on this is that we are each products of our respective environments. You grew up in a country that was ravaged by Nazism, and laws to prevent that from ever happening again have existed since before you were born. I grew up in the US, where the sanctity of freedom of speech, as embodied in our Constitution, has been virtually a secular religion since long before I was born. So it's logical that you and I would have differing opinions on this subject.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

I grew up in BC/Canada....

Armes unglückliches Kind. Tiefste Sympathien.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

I grew up in BC/Canada....

Armes unglückliches Kind. Tiefste Sympathien.

Mike.

Danke, mein Schatz.

Yep. It's always convenient to blame someone else, and if it's only to blame the Canadians. BTW: Your German is soooo wonderful, holy moly, what to say, I'm just speechless....

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[miked10270 0]

Quote

... I'm just speechless....

Sprachlos? Du? Unwahrscheinlich!

Mike.

PS: Check out my new sig line links. If you stare at them long enough you realise the "Empty-Ones" are to blame!

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And... Ladies & Gentlemen... I give you Osama Bin Laden... Live at The Twin-Towers!

Acceptable? Within the US Constitution? Or would the crowds be justified in tearing his First Amendment rights limb from limb along with the rest of him?

Mike - you seem to have a problem differentiating speech from violence.

Advocating the killing of blacks or Americans in general is a far cry from saying that some people weren't killed 60 years ago. The most prominent example of this in the US has been with the pro-lifers that encouraged the killing of abortion doctors. They have been held accountable.

Free speech is not absolute. But it certainly allows individuals to challenge historical accountings. It's important to think about what happened at the Gulk of Tonkin. Or to the USS Maine. Or My Lai. If the winners' accounting of what the Nazis did can't be challanged, then what else can be so categorized?

And as I said, driving it underground gives it more credence. Out in the open, it can be debunked and mocked.

[billvon 3,070]

>It's quite possible, but let's stick to what is actually happening. If it did happen, it would be wrong.

I agree. But sadly, history seems to support the idea that people prefer temporary security over essential liberties - Ben Franklin notwithstanding. The whole "land of the free and home of the brave" thing falls apart pretty fast when people are scared.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

The criminalization of thought, belief and expression is an abomination.

I don't give a shit what this guy said about the Holocaust:
Only idiots don't believe it happened.
Only idiots pay any attention to those who say it didn't happen.

Plus, if no one is allowed to speak their minds about believing the Holocaust did not happen, that precludes any possibility of having a public dialogue during which such people would be exposed for being ridiculously incorrect in their views!


But the idea of fighting a return of fascism by using the fascist technique of outlawing certain ideologies, thoughts, or statements is just so incredibly stupid and paradoxical that I can't believe enough educated people voted for it that it became a law.

What the fuck are they thinking over there? "Uh, gee, it's dangerous to deny the Holocaust because that could result in the rise of a fascist dictatorship again... so... we'll ban certain speech (*hint*: that's something fascists would do!) to guard against it.


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"