Should David Irving go to jail for holocaust denial?

I can see merit both sides of the debate. In favour of punishing him, the strongest argument is that he should have respected the laws and sensibilities of the Austrian people. However punishing him so severely means he will no longer be seen as a fool or villain, but a martyr for freedom of speech. It seems to me that making holocaust denial illegal makes it look as if we can't argue the point based on historical evidence, and the best way to attack these pernicious ideas is to present the evidence that shows they are wrong.

Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4734648.stm

No it's rediculous. Why shouldn't you be allowed to denie it, freedom of speech if you ask me. Who takes it seriously anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

In favour of punishing him, the strongest argument is that he should have respected the laws and sesnsibilities of the Austrian people.

---

The strongest argument would be that by denying the Holocaust, Irving offends the victims both dead and alive. But I agree with your conclusion. An added argument for it would be that free debate of historical events is in the interest of all. Without it, we would not be able to determine which ideas are 'pernicious', as you put it, and which are not.

One things for sure. This will only promote the idea that the west is 'run' by international Jewry, with all the crap that entails.

A list of the countries that have Holocaust denial laws: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel,
Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland.

I knew about Austria, Germany and Israel, but I have to say that I'm surprised at extent of the list.

The mans an idiot anti-semite, this will only enhance his reputation with the far right looneys. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

The strongest argument would be that by denying the Holocaust, Irving offends the victims both dead and alive.

---

This is the strongest argument for his not saying the things in the first place and then being vilified when he did, but I don’t think we should send people to jail for being offensive, even if they are really offensive.

A massive fine to be spent on Holocaust memorial charities.

Locking him up is pointless. Best bankrupt the bastard...

~:smoking:

did he basically just say that most of the jewish people who died in the Holocaust died of disease and not the gas-chambers... or something like that?
but i think that if he said the holocaust never happened then it is no wonder austrians are annoyed by him... but i think 3 years is a little harsh

Quote:

---

Best bankrupt the bastard..

---

Too late, someone's beat you too it.

Quote:

---

In 2000 Irving was forced into bankruptcy when he unsuccessfully sued Deborah Lipstadt, an American academic who had called him a Holocaust denier. He was ordered to pay £3 million in legal costs and had to sell his Mayfair home.

---

Serves him right. :laugh4:

Well, I guess many of the people of those countries still feel it is necessary to forcibly quiet those whom they disagree with.

No, he should not be put in jail. Laws against denying the Holocaust are unjust and should all be repealed.

What happens if you say that WWII never happened? Is that Holocaust denial by proxy? Is it legal to say 44,000,000 "others" did not die but illegal to say 6,000,000 Jews didn't die either? How would that work, do you only get half the jail term?

The Ministry of Truth's jurisdiction is best left in novels.

Goofy, you sig-ed me! ~:eek:

i say make it legal, no a requirement that every time a person apears on TV or in a picture in the news while or just after denying the holocaust that he be forced to don (or it be drawn on) the trademark mustache of hitler, just so there is absoluteley no doubt what his views are.

less then that i say imprison him for defacing the entire jewish peoples and force him to explain how the jewish population of the world dropped by 11 million people in 4 years. you could also ask the slavs who were killed by nazis, and the disabled, and the russians.

He should be jailed. No tolerance for nazi propaganda, whether it disguises itself as history or not.

Freedom of Speech is such a wonderful thing. So many want the Freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Did David Irving words incite violence?

Did David Irving advocate the killing of another human being in his speech?

An individual informed the public about what David Irving. This is how you deal with individuals who are irresponsible in their Freedom of Speech. It forces them into futher stupidity or forces them to review their words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Insane's information

In 2000 Irving was forced into bankruptcy when he unsuccessfully sued Deborah Lipstadt, an American academic who had called him a Holocaust denier. He was ordered to pay £3 million in legal costs and had to sell his Mayfair home.

---

Like InsaneApache stated it serves him right.

The man, and others like him that deny the holocaust, are cockroaches. And the best way to deal with cockroaches is not trying to catch them and lock them up, but subjecting them to light and air. And the best way to deal with holocaust deniers is to expose the fallacy of their ideas. Tossing this impotent wanker into prison gives him and his ideas a legitimacy that is not merited. As others have said, it makes him into a free speech martyr, when in truth, he's a pathetic clown who has ruined his intellectual reputation by allowing his pathological hatred to cloud his views.

On a side note, I guess if holocaust denial laws are evidence of 'international jewry' running things, so much for the argument that the US is run by Jews. It's perfectly legal to deny the holocaust over here, and all sorts of kooks do. I actually refused to work with a guy at my old company because he used to go on about this stuff. I'm not Jewish, and I wasn't so much offended by it, as I seriously questioned his judgement and his intellect and I didn't see why I should waste my time and effort working on a project that had an utter moron in such a key role.

austria is allowed to have the laws as they see fit. if they prove to be unpopular or ineffective, these laws can be voted out. austria is a democracy, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Freedom of Speech is such a wonderful thing. So many want the Freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Did David Irving words incite violence?

Did David Irving advocate the killing of another human being in his speech?

An individual informed the public about what David Irving. This is how you deal with individuals who are irresponsible in their Freedom of Speech. It forces them into futher stupidity or forces them to review their words.

---

No and no. He said something along the lines of "There were no gas chambers in Auschwitz". Being put in gaol is a too extreme. Perhaps some Holocaust charity ought to sue him, but no imprisonment...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

austria is allowed to have the laws as they see fit. if they prove to be unpopular or ineffective, these laws can be voted out. austria is a democracy, right?

---

You're absolutely right. Austria is a sovereign nation and well within their rights to imprison people for making false, foolish and offensive statements. The thread topic was a question of should.

I'm finding however, that even my seemingly limitless respect for national sovereignty (and I think I have a higher degree of it than most in the backroom of all flavors) is being challenged these days. Technically speaking, China is well within their rights to require Google & Yahoo to supply them with any records they require. But you're not going to see me defending the PRC for this policy, or Google and Yahoo for prostituting themselves by complying with it.

Not all at all. There are burglars, rapists and some murderers sentenced to less, while other real offenders get off scott free.

I'd have to say I am against imprisoning him.

As a Yank, I am opposed to all but the most minimal and absolutely necessary restrictions on the freedom of speech. I do not believe in a listener's "right to not be offended" though I do agree that it is their right NOT to listen. Freedom of speech must, as a by product of protecting speech that furthers the community, put up with aspects of self expression that are wrong, utterly stupid, and occasionally offensive.

If any sentence is to be imposed under such a law, it would be to force the offender to attend a class wherein they had to confront the real evidence of that massive crime -- education, after all, is largely a public good. Incarceration or any other punitive measure would not, IMO, fit.

Here's a thought, by making debate on the issue illegal you are preventing anyone from trying to prove it didn't happen which has the perverse effect of preventing anyone from proving it did happen because you cant look at the (very weak) counter arguement.

Imprisoning him is not correct. Just let him go and speech his hatred, the idiot.

send him to jail and fine him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

No and no. He said something along the lines of "There were no gas chambers in Auschwitz". Being put in gaol is a too extreme. Perhaps some Holocaust charity ought to sue him, but no imprisonment...

---

Yep I agree.

Now to compare this situation to the Muslim's who are offended by the cartoons of the prophet would be in order.

It shows the contrast on the application of Free Speech by different societies in a very subtle way.

Unless its a direct example of obvious incitement -- which this was not -- jailing someone because of speech or any other form of intellectual thought is plain wrong. Stupid people make themselves look bad enough by saying stupid things, no need for jail. If they gain some stupid followers, so be it, adults can make up their own minds. This is overkill by a country trying to make up for past crimes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

austria is allowed to have the laws as they see fit. if they prove to be unpopular or ineffective, these laws can be voted out. austria is a democracy, right?

---

It is, but in this case it's an issue of democracy versus minority rights. If Austria passed a law declaring that it would eject all people under 5'2" from it's country it might well be democractic, but it's not just.

Also, there is the fact that what Austria is doing to Irving is a blatant violation of the EU Charter of Fudenmental Rights. Article 11, section 1 is pretty clear on this:

Quote:

---

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the right to hold opinions and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

---

Emphasis mine.

It doesn't seem like there is a lot of room for argument here. It pretty much undermines this one completely:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

In favour of punishing him, the strongest argument is that he should have respected the laws and sesnsibilities of the Austrian people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Imprisoning him is not correct. Just let him go and speech his hatred, the idiot.

---

that english imam was send to jail for speeching hatred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leonin Khan

that english imam was send to jail for speeching hatred

---

I guess he was inciting to violence/murder, then, which is not ok. I don`t believe in absolute freedom of speech.

Holocaust denial is the verbal equivalent of pissing on a mass grave. Irving is not in the business of writing history, he's in the business of gross slander and defamation. Just because Irving can read and write doesn't make him any better than a bunch of neo-nazi's who desecrate a Jewish cemetery.

Are these graffiti artists merely excercising their right to freedom of expression too? :
https://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3789/grave5os.jpg