David Irving jailed for 3 years for holocaust denial

[Sarah_Jayne]

in Austria - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

[gangbangjoe]

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

in Austria - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

And people talk about BUSH taking away freedom of speech???

Hell, the bookstores are piled up with books about how he is the anti-christ, a murderer for oil, and he engineered 911, etc...

Meanwhile in the EU....


(which of course doesn't mean that I don't think the holocast happened. My great grand parents were in Buchanwald)

[Libertine]

What a bunch of fucking fascists. And yes, prohibiting debate on certain issues for political reasons is fascism.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

And people talk about BUSH taking away freedom of speech???

Hell, the bookstores are piled up with books about how he is the anti-christ, a murderer for oil, and he engineered 911, etc...

Meanwhile in the EU....


(which of course doesn't mean that I don't think the holocast happened. My great grand parents were in Buchanwald)

The one has nothing to do with the other. Even if the EU prohibited the use of the word "the", that still wouldn't say anything about whether or not Bush uses cooked muslim babies for breakfast.

[sluttypink]

If I'm ever down on my luck & homeless, I'm going to go into a mall an start screaming "the holocaust never happened!"

= 3 year$ free accomodation & food.

[polish_aristocrat]

many countries have such laws in Europe, thats why some people were shocked when pimpdog posted here that Holocaus didnt exist, heh

[Drake]

I think Denmark's policy is best. Let people say what they want. Idiots will be laughed at and truth will prevail.

[MacDaddyPlaya]

Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by punkworld

The one has nothing to do with the other. Even if the EU prohibited the use of the word "the", that still wouldn't say anything about whether or not Bush uses cooked muslim babies for breakfast.

If you don't see the contrast in how political debate in the EU is a jailable offence, and the things that Bush is accused of in stifling politcal debate, then I can't help you here.

...and by the way, everyone knows that Bush eats his muslim babies country-fried with grits, biskets and gravy on the side. Get it right!

[pr0]

Try screaming "JESUS DIDN'T EXIST" in the southern states in america.

Same thing, people say they support free speech, but they support popular free speech.

It's all good

[GlydeGirl]

Hmmmm... not so sure what I think of this one. I agree that the Holocaust occurred, but I also agree with free speech. The big question is where to draw the line.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by pr0

Try screaming "JESUS DIDN'T EXIST" in the southern states in america.

Same thing, people say they support free speech, but they support popular free speech.

It's all good

You CAN scream that in southern states... Nobody can put you in jail for it, and if anyone beats you up for it, THEY will go to jail for assault and battery.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

If you don't see the contrast in how political debate in the EU is a jailable offence, and the things that Bush is accused of in stifling politcal debate, then I can't help you here.

...and by the way, everyone knows that Bush eats his muslim babies country-fried with grits, biskets and gravy on the side. Get it right!

To say political debate in the EU is a jailable offense is an absurd generalization.

The truth is that both the US and EU countries stifle free speech in certain ways, EU countries notably through prohibition of "hate speech" (which includes Holocaust denial), the US notably through institutions like the FCC, censorship, obscenity laws and extremely broad copyright laws.

I disagree with both forms myself, obviously.

[Brujah]

Fucking unreal. Just .. wow.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by MaskTVMaura

Hmmmm... not so sure what I think of this one. I agree that the Holocaust occurred, but I also agree with free speech. The big question is where to draw the line.

YES, where Do you draw the line ???

[Sly]

Originally Posted by pr0

Try screaming "JESUS DIDN'T EXIST" in the southern states in america.

Same thing, people say they support free speech, but they support popular free speech.

It's all good

They'll look at you funny and call you a hippy faggot. Maybe some bucktooth Willie will spit some chaw your way. That is hardly the "same thing".

The Iranian President repeatedly denies the Holocaust. Let's lynch him!

[Kenko]

Wow, this is a bad decision
Especially after the cartoon row. It makes Europeans look like hypocrites.

[Sly]

Holy shit.

After reading that article I see the speech in question took place in 1989! He later on read documents that CHANGED his opinion. So this guy is being jailed for an OPINION he held over 15 years ago.

Wow. Just wow.

[Mr. Soul]

Originally Posted by MaskTVMaura

Hmmmm... not so sure what I think of this one. I agree that the Holocaust occurred, but I also agree with free speech. The big question is where to draw the line.

There is no line, either you believe in free speech or you don't. It's black and white.

[Mr. Soul]

Originally Posted by MacDaddyPlaya

Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such

I love when people form their own thoughs.

But Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust disagreed. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by Mr. Soul

There is no line, either you believe in free speech or you don't. It's black and white.

Actually, it isn't. Should it be legal to yell "fire!" in a full theatre? Should it be legal to encourage a raging mob to lynch a certain person?

[czarina]

Originally Posted by pr0

Try screaming "JESUS DIDN'T EXIST" in the southern states in america.

Same thing, people say they support free speech, but they support popular free speech.

It's all good

Very well said. Home of the free! Land of the brave. MY ASS!

[GregE]

Originally Posted by Mike33

I think Denmark's policy is best. Let people say what they want. Idiots will be laughed at and truth will prevail.

Precisely

What you've just described is genuine free speech. Anything else (regardless of how well meaning the motive) is political censorship pure and simple.

[Mr. Soul]

Originally Posted by punkworld

Actually, it isn't. Should it be legal to yell "fire!" in a full theatre? Should it be legal to encourage a raging mob to lynch a certain person?

Those are esentially actions. It should be legal to publish whatever you want in a book. If you start picking out certain things you don't like and saying that it's not ok to think or say or publish those things, you believe in the opposite of free speech.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by Mr. Soul

Those are esentially actions. It should be legal to publish whatever you want in a book. If you start picking out certain things you don't like and saying that it's not ok to think or say or publish those things, you believe in the opposite of free speech.

They aren't essentially actions, they are speech. A book can encourage people to murder other people, and tell them how to do that - not much unlike a person encouraging a mob to lynch someone. In fact, a book can give clear directions for, say, specifically timed terrorist actions.

[Mr. Soul]

Originally Posted by punkworld

They aren't essentially actions, they are speech. A book can encourage people to murder other people, and tell them how to do that - not much unlike a person encouraging a mob to lynch someone. In fact, a book can give clear directions for, say, specifically timed terrorist actions.

Jesus Christ, I've already had this discussion with my 7 year old. You don't agree with free speech and you're desperatly reaching for excuses.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Soul

Jesus Christ, I've already had this discussion with my 7 year old. You don't agree with free speech and you're desperatly reaching for excuses.

Not really. He agrees with free speech with responsibility, like most people do. Thats where the gray area comes into play. What is responsible and what isn't?

[Manowar]

Originally Posted by sluttypink

If I'm ever down on my luck & homeless, I'm going to go into a mall an start screaming "the holocaust never happened!"

= 3 year$ free accomodation & food.

trollllllll

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by Mr. Soul

Jesus Christ, I've already had this discussion with my 7 year old. You don't agree with free speech and you're desperatly reaching for excuses.

If you want to refrain from having a discussion involving actual arguments, that's fine with me.

You've had this discussion with a 7 year old, I've had this discussion with a fairly large number of university professors specializing in political philosophy, and have spent considerable time studying the works of Tocqueville, J.S. Mill, Kant, Kierkegaard, etc.

As much as you would like it to be, it isn't a clear-cut issue. Anyone with half a brain and even a remote interest in the issue knows this.

[MacDaddyPlaya]

Originally Posted by Mr. Soul

I love when people form their own thoughs.

Sorry for not appropriately citing the reference. I obviously wasn't trying to claim this as my own thought. I was quoting from the article posted assuming it would have been read. I was merely trying to highlight a point. I'll be sure to use proper APA format in the future.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by Sly

Not really. He agrees with free speech with responsibility, like most people do. Thats where the gray area comes into play. What is responsible and what isn't?

Exactly. I am for a maximum of free speech for individuals as is compatible with the free speech, individual liberties and safety of other individuals.

Libel could fall under free speech, yet it can have severe material consequences for individuals and companies. It can ruin businesses as well as lives. For example, if I were to publish a book claiming person X to be a pedophile, that could ruin his life, or even endanger it.

Encouraging violence could fall under free speech, yet it can be a direct cause of, well, violence. Hate campaigns can do serious social damage. And the list, unfortunately, goes on and on.

[INever]

After reading htis thread, all I can say is Einstein was right:

(and I 'paraphrase')

"The human species is smart enough to invent but too stupid to handle nuclear weaponry".

[Sarah_Jayne]

I can understand in the wake of the the WWII countries like Austria and Germany felt the need to put in holocaust denial laws. I'm not comfortable with laws that supress freedom of speach even if I hate what is being said.

It is however, a mistake to think all of Europe has such laws. He is British and he was free to roam even though most people made it clear he was a bit out there.

[bringer]

Originally Posted by punkworld

They aren't essentially actions, they are speech. A book can encourage people to murder other people, and tell them how to do that - not much unlike a person encouraging a mob to lynch someone. In fact, a book can give clear directions for, say, specifically timed terrorist actions.

thats ridiculous. only if the book gave specifics on something like bomb making should it be regulated. its not tom clancys fault if someone cant tell the difference between fantasy and reality and decides to mimic something from one of his books. would you recommend the cartoonists who caused all the recent violence be arrested?

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by bringer

thats ridiculous. only if the book gave specifics on something like bomb making should it be regulated. its not tom clancys fault if someone cant tell the difference between fantasy and reality and decides to mimic something from one of his books. would you recommend the cartoonists who caused all the recent violence be arrested?

Not all books are fiction.

A book can, literally, say that it is the religious duty of all muslims to murder "fags", and tell the readers the best ways to do it without getting caught. It can do it with the author's express intent being that the readers actually follow those instructions.

I am not talking about Tom Clancy here, nor am I talking about satire. That should be pretty obvious.

[GlydeGirl]

Just like there is debate as to whether or not the lunar landing was real, I can see the reason to debate whether or not the Holocaust was real. To stifle a person for their opinions (albiet very unpopular ones) under ANY guise (even if it's anti-Semetic) is to create the precedent for other topics to be stifled for less honourable reasons.

I'd rather err on the side of people being able to express their opinions on ALL topics rather than let my government decide what I can and cannot form my own opinions on. Maybe that makes for a world where every lunatic with an idea can say what they want, but isn't that how we changed our minds from thinking the world was flat to learning it's round?

For all the hate and ignorance that can come of it, I still think free speech is more important than preventing people from making racist comments.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by bringer

thats ridiculous. only if the book gave specifics on something like bomb making should it be regulated. its not tom clancys fault if someone cant tell the difference between fantasy and reality and decides to mimic something from one of his books. would you recommend the cartoonists who caused all the recent violence be arrested?

You have to admit there's a huge difference between a Tom Clancy thriller novel and the Anarchist's Cookbook.

[Mr Dickovitch]

Originally Posted by pr0

Try screaming "JESUS DIDN'T EXIST" in the southern states in america.

Same thing, people say they support free speech, but they support popular free speech.

It's all good

Have you ever even been to a 'southern state'? Please give examples of court cases where people were put in prison for saying this, or injured by someone, or even ridiculed.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by czarina

Very well said. Home of the free! Land of the brave. MY ASS!

WTF are you talking about??? Do you have any idea?
Please name the person that went to jail for that in the US??? Please name the state where it is a law that you can't yell "Jesus doesn't exist".

Sorry, but that was the 2nd most clueless post on this thread

[bringer]

Originally Posted by punkworld

Not all books are fiction.

A book can, literally, say that it is the religious duty of all muslims to murder "fags", and tell the readers the best ways to do it without getting caught. It can do it with the author's express intent being that the readers actually follow those instructions.

I am not talking about Tom Clancy here, nor am I talking about satire. That should be pretty obvious.

so you want to rely on the court to determine intent? what if i write a book about a guy named omar who believes its a muslims duty to murder all "fags" and i detail how he does it? is that ok? if it comes down to intent, all that needs to be done in your eyes to make it "legal" is to add a fictional character and making it a story instead of a training guide.

Originally Posted by Sly

You have to admit there's a huge difference between a Tom Clancy thriller novel and the Anarchist's Cookbook.

as i said, if the purpose of the book is to detail the construction of illegal devices, then it should be regulated.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by bringer

so you want to rely on the court to determine intent? what if i write a book about a guy named omar who believes its a muslims duty to murder all "fags" and i detail how he does it? is that ok? if it comes down to intent, all that needs to be done in your eyes to make it "legal" is to add a fictional character and making it a story instead of a training guide.

Yes, I do rely on courts to determine intent.

For example, when someone drops a brick from a roof and thereby kills someone else, I rely on the courts to figure out if it was murder or a clumsy construction worker.

There are gray areas, and it's the job of courts to determine what falls into which category.