David Irving

[Nymphomanic]

They jailed the idiot, I'm sort of glad actually although this could cause a lot of freedom of speech debates. Are people free to deny something which obviously happened if they genuinely believe that, or is the offence and pain they cause to big.

[hr]

I read most of the night and go south in winter - wasteland

[the reason for the word w]

I guess the freedom of speech-debate is a fair one, but one has to remember that these laws in Austria and Germany against denying the Holocaust were not introduced to suppress an oppinion, but a dangerous lie. A lot of people seem to think that this law is outdated, but just about a month ago there were demonstration all over Germany run by numerous Nazi "Kameradschaften" (fellowships) demonstrating against this law. If the law was abolished, it would become very easy for these organisations, who are on very thin legal ice at the moment, to recruit members and advertise their cause agressively, since one legal measure against them would be lost. I suppose it comes down to personal oppinion if one agrees with these measures or not. Denial of the holocaust however is not an oppinion, it is either a delusion or simply a lie.

[hr]

Are you a terrorist?
- Depends! Are you terrified?

[novium]

he's been writing a book called "irving's war" while in prison.

unoriginal, tasteless, and disturbing.

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[novium]

If this were in the united states, I'd be worried and upset. However, it's not, and given recent (in the grand scheme of things) history, it is completely understandable. Besides, they are free countries, if this one infringement really bothered a majority of the people, it would be changed.

Maybe the law won't be necessary in another 60 years. Probably more (heck, there are still neo-confederates apparently here in the states!), but you can always hope.

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[Guest]

Quoting novium from 19:41, 20th Feb 2006
If this were in the united states, I'd be worried and upset. However, it's not, and given recent (in the grand scheme of things) history, it is completely understandable. Besides, they are free countries, if this one infringement really bothered a majority of the people, it would be changed.

If freedom of speech is a principle you believe in, you must believe in a universal right to it. Or do you only care about freedom of speech when you happen to agree when someone says something you agree with?

[daduffster]

[quote]Quoting the reason for the word witch from 19:17, 20th Feb 2006
Denial of the holocaust however is not an oppinion, it is either a delusion or simply a lie.[quote]

Agreed. Freedom of speech is wonderful and I am totally in its favour and anyone is entitled to opinion. However, such is life, there are times where one should just keep their mouth shut. I believe if one is of the opinion that the Holocaust did not occur and is giving a speech in Austria, then this is one such scenario where it would be - at least - of common sense not to voice said opinion.

For Germany, which has spent years apologising for the Holocaust, and the Jewish, it must be a real kick in the teeth for some "educated" Briton to voice such an ignorant and offensive opinion. It just brings the subject to the forefront of debate again for the wrong reasons. Notably, the horrors of the holocaust should be remembered so it does not to happen again, not exploited by a historian to advance his/her career and standing.

[Smith]

There are examples where a lot of things, although not openly denied, are very carefully covered up, so that generations of today do not think about it.

The most prominent example of this is eugenics.

[hr]

We're not drunk, we're multi-millionaires...
IMAGE:img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/ryanlewisjones/burlyman.jpg

[neener]

There is ALOT of disturbing examples of freedom of speech though, and most of it falls under the guise of personal freedom. i find it shocking that stupid ideas from a stupid man can be deserving of a jail sentance.
I think its appalling that this is the kind of thing that makes people re-think freedom of speech.

[Jono]

To be honest, if he was stupid enough to enter a country where there's an outstanding warrant for his arrest, he should be prepared to face the consequences.

Freedom of speech aside, He knowingly violated the law in Austria over holocaust denial. He then re-enters the country in full knowledge that he'll be arrested and tried for this crime? I don't know how he feels about nazi ideology, but the social darwinism, survival of the fittest part obvioulsy passed him by!

[neener]

Quoting Jono from 22:50, 20th Feb 2006
To be honest, if he was stupid enough to enter a country where there's an outstanding warrant for his arrest, he should be prepared to face the consequences.

Freedom of speech aside, He knowingly violated the law in Austria over holocaust denial. He then re-enters the country in full knowledge that he'll be arrested and tried for this crime? I don't know how he feels about nazi ideology, but the social darwinism, survival of the fittest part obvioulsy passed him by!

this i agree with, but thats not the point being made by others is it?

[novium]

Oh, please. You're not allowed to shout "fire!" into a crowded theater, free speech didn't extend to selling nuclear secrets to the communists. Libel and slander are illegal as well.
If a populace decides that denying one of the most horrific events/acts in their history should be illegal, they can do that.I may not agree with it in *principle* but as I practical person, and respecting their right to decide their own government etc, i'm not going to kick up a fuss.

Quoting from 20:41, 20th Feb 2006

Quoting novium from 19:41, 20th Feb 2006
If this were in the united states, I'd be worried and upset. However, it's not, and given recent (in the grand scheme of things) history, it is completely understandable. Besides, they are free countries, if this one infringement really bothered a majority of the people, it would be changed.

If freedom of speech is a principle you believe in, you must believe in a universal right to it. Or do you only care about freedom of speech when you happen to agree when someone says something you agree with?

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[novium]

very true.

Quoting Smith from 22:25, 20th Feb 2006
There are examples where a lot of things, although not openly denied, are very carefully covered up, so that generations of today do not think about it.

The most prominent example of this is eugenics.

[hr]

We're not drunk, we're multi-millionaires...
IMAGE:img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/ryanlewisjones/burlyman.jpg

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[Humphrey]

Isn't it great how anyone can become an 'expert' nowadays, despite a complete lack of training or knowledge. Irving has a savage intellect but he suffers from intellectual dishonesty and deliberatly ignores or distorts evidence to fit with his preconcieved view of World War II. The remedy isn't to lock him up in jail but rather to prove that his books are utter twaddle. The trouble is that this has been done innumerate times but he is still held to be the 'pope of holocaust denial'; some people will believe anything.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Jono]

Unfortunatly this couldn't have come at a worse time. Right when the majority of europe's press are banging the drum of freedom of expression and publishing the Muhammed cartoons, someone's jailed for 3 years for anti-semitism.

Its not going to take people long to join up the dots.

[Colin]

Quoting Jono from 11:48, 21st Feb 2006
Unfortunatly this couldn't have come at a worse time. Right when the majority of europe's press are banging the drum of freedom of expression and publishing the Muhammed cartoons, someone's jailed for 3 years for anti-semitism.

Its not going to take people long to join up the dots.

Exactly the dots that joined in my mind when I read about this. It is essentially the same argument - does freedom of speach mean that you can say/draw things that offend large amounts of people? What will be interesting is to see how people on various sides of the cartoon debate fall on this one. Will all the freedom of speach supporters in the west agree that it is OK to deny the holocaust and publish anti-semetic materiel if it is OK to insult Muslims? And will radical Muslims agree that holocaust denial and racism against the Jews is wrong on the basis that freedom of speach is no excuse to offend religious groups? Those would be the logical sides of the argument, but for some reason I do not see people taking them...

[Guest]

Quoting novium from 01:11, 21st Feb 2006
Oh, please. You're not allowed to shout "fire!" into a crowded theater, free speech didn't extend to selling nuclear secrets to the communists. Libel and slander are illegal as well.
If a populace decides that denying one of the most horrific events/acts in their history should be illegal, they can do that.I may not agree with it in *principle* but as I practical person, and respecting their right to decide their own government etc, i'm not going to kick up a fuss.

Quoting from 20:41, 20th Feb 2006

Quoting novium from 19:41, 20th Feb 2006
If this were in the united states, I'd be worried and upset. However, it's not, and given recent (in the grand scheme of things) history, it is completely understandable. Besides, they are free countries, if this one infringement really bothered a majority of the people, it would be changed.

I personally dont believe in picking and chosing my principles to suit the time. There is not much point in having them if you do. - I beleive in this because it is Wednesday, oh it is fine for them to do that because its them (afterall we can trust them), ok yes ill make this one exception but i wont for anything else and i absolutely promise that, well two exceptions then because they are ok aren't they? ok three exceptions because they really need that law to sort their country out and it doesnt worry me in the slightest because he was democratically elected so thats alright

[Griggsy]

I agree but only to a certain extent. Denying the holocaust is rather serious anti-semitism. I'm not suggesting for one moment that publishing cartoons insulting Islam isnt, but publicly arguing that millions of people (and not just Jews) died during World War II cannot be compared to a few cartoons published in some european countries.

By the way, if Irving hadn't been jailed because of freedom of speech, I couldn't see large amounts of Jewish people protesting and setting fire to embassies as a result. I also doubt you would see an attempt by Jewish media to stimulate protest against Austria had the decision been different.

Finally there was no law in Denmark stopping
the media from printing cartoons depicting Muhammed, yet there was a law in Austria, aswell as 10 other european countries, against denying the Holocaust.

Quoting Jono from 11:48, 21st Feb 2006
Unfortunatly this couldn't have come at a worse time. Right when the majority of europe's press are banging the drum of freedom of expression and publishing the Muhammed cartoons, someone's jailed for 3 years for anti-semitism.

Its not going to take people long to join up the dots.

[hr]

'I run wild in the shadowy jungle of erotic adventures.'

[tintin]

Many countries especially in Europe are supposed to be pro-free speech and yet when someone exercises his right to it he gets locked up in jail.

I don't agree for one minute with his sentiments that the Holocaust did not happen. What I do agree with is his right to say what he believes in; it is up to the people who listen to him or read what he says to make up their minds. It is obvious that the man is deluded and as such most people can see that; we all know the Holocaust happened.

It is however the same sort of thing as when people put the BNP and e.g. Nick Griffin on trial for inciting racial hatred. If they actually look at what he said they will see he is not a racist per se but against large numbers of immigrants. There is a subtle difference. It was the same with Enoch Powell: he was not a racist but merely forewarned of the problems with uncontrolled and unregulated immigration.

People vote for the BNP because it is there; they vote in a democratic, free and fair election. Denying that there is sufficient sympathy for the BNP is denying reality. I am not nor never will be a BNP supporter myself; what I support is their right to free speech and the right to be heard without condemnation and censorship simply because people cannot be bothered to construct a decent argument against them.

With regards to the Muslim cartoons - again, it is a matter of free speech. Not only this, the fact that it's totally fine for Muslims (albeit the minority) to criticise and poke fun at my faith and my religion, but as soon as I or anyone else starts doing the same to Islam, all Hell breaks loose.

People need to be more accomodating of others' viewpoints. If they don't like the BNP, then get some effective opposition in those areas where BNP members have been elected to office. Similarly with Irving - write in the press etc about how he is wrong and let people make up their own minds.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/mat_salleh

[Anon.]

Quoting Griggsy from 14:22, 21st Feb 2006
Denying the holocaust is rather serious anti-semitism.

How is denying the Holocaust itself anti-Semitic? Denying the Holocaust questions facts ("did it happen?"), not motives ("why did it happen?").

[Guest]

Quoting novium from 01:11, 21st Feb 2006
Oh, please. You're not allowed to shout "fire!" into a crowded theater

Yes, you are. It's only not allowed if you cause panic and so injure people. The act of saying 'fire' is not illegal, you can only be punished if there are consequences - an important difference.

(anyway, you can argue the libertarian option as to why shouting fire isn't allowed - you've entered into a contract on buying a ticket for a play to not interfere with other users and so shouting fire is a breach of contract, not a freedom of speech issue)