Don't Agree With Us?

I agree... this is a very interesting case. Freedom of speech is apperently not as widley spread in europe as here (as can be seen by this law). I think this will go before a lot of courts, let's hope he doesn't have to spend time in jail while waiting for "final" decision. The law is from just after the 2nd war, maybe it made sense then but now?

 

Freedom of speech is one thing. Denying the Holocaust is a crime. It's too bad you haven't learned this from our previous 'discussion', and even more unfortunate you can't leave well enough alone.

 

How are we to rank the heinousness of beliefs? Is denying the Holocaust more or less odious than donning a white sheet and delcaring White Supremacy? Are either worse than providing links to "democracy" sites to Chinese people?

I agree with MS, ideas and the expression of ideas must remain free. -- no matter how objectionable you find someone's speech. The answer to objectionable speech is MORE speech -- and the truth will win out.

 

imagine if all countries jailed people for idiocy...

 

Because of the "special case" of the Jews, going back more than 2,000 years, and particularly because of the Holocaust, this particular "belief" should indeed by a punishable offense. Why? Simply because when mere belief, privately held, is translated into speaking in public and writing books, it has crossed a threshhold into the public realm. And, with anit-Semitism still alive among us, and attempts to revive Nazi orthodoxy on the upswing, particularly in Germany and Austria (no surprise there), going public can and is viewed as very close to "incitement to riot" and/or to perpetrate other crimes anti-Semitic in nature (e.g., "kill all Jews" graffiti as compared with other graffiti).

Given the history of those European countries with strong anti-Semitic affliction, it's reasonable for their governments to try to prevent a Nazi revival.

It's obviously not as simple as "the State telling you what to think", although braying zealots, anti-Semitic and otherwise, will claim it is. The State is simply saying that if you make this particular belief "actionable" by bringing it into the public arena, you should be stopped and reprimanded.

In our country, freedom of speech is not spelled out, nor can or should it be. Justice Holmes gave us a rule of thumb, and it illustrates what I've said above. Your right to free speech ends when you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In this light, public anti-Semitism meets the threshhold.

Like it or not, there are no absolute freedoms, here or anywhere. Why? Because in the past people have abused every known kind of freedom to cause mayhem, death and destruction. That is why it's cliche, when teaching about liberty and democracy, to note that "freedom carries with it a concomitant responsibility to use that freedom wisely."

What's hard about that?

 

The first is a reasonable, good question.

The second is wishful thinking.

 

jbarnhart -- you are not European, do not live in Europe, and do not have their experiences but a generation old. Do not presume to judge their local customs and dictates based on your insular American experience. Try to understand that this is a country trying to cope with an internally felt burden to to bear responsibility for, and prevent future acts, of genocide. The Brit could have spouted whatever garbage he felt like in his books or in Britain; his mistake was making Austria his pulpit.

Jumping to a conclusion that Austria has less freedom of speech based on a unique exception is stupid.

Americans do not have a ready corollary to relate to, because there is no collective guilt over mass murders that the country has been part of. But presumably you do not defend hate speech as just another opionion ?

 

It is just another opinion. Is the nonsense that Fred Phelps spews hate speech? I'd say it is.

Is it constitutionally protected speech in the United States? Yup.
Is Mr. Phelps still a grade A Moron? You bet.

He has the right to speak. I have the right to not listen.

(That said, I would support limiting the ability to protest at funerals. Some things you Just Don't Do.)

 

I don't presume to say what other countries should or should not do. However, one of the things that makes me proud to live in the US is how strong the freedom of speech rights are. Don't get me wrong; there are lots of things that I don't like about the US (particuarly these days), but I think that we're really on the "right side" of the free speech debate.

I find it the pinnicle of irony that many European countries (including Austria) defend "free speech" rights when it comes to the Muhammad cartoon, but at the same time feel they have the right to prosecute someone because of what they wrote. Don't get me wrong; I think that Irving is an idiot and a Grade-A a**hole, but one of the things that's great about truly free speech is that it doesn't limit speech based on what a person/government/group of people think is "right."

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

 

It's not like the US hasn't jailed people for their speech or beliefs before. Still today we hold citizens without trial or access to attorney or family (Jose Padilla, for example). Our country certainly isn't an example of freedoms or rights, we have no business pretending otherwise.

Our rights might be guaranteed by the Constitution, but if no one upholds or defends them, the Constitution is only a piece of paper. Easiest way to dispese of citizen rights is to yell "War!" - it's worked every time before. The advantage to the "War on Terror" is there is no power to make peace with ... it can go on indefinately. You can't defeat every terrorist in the world.

It's unfair to say Jews have a monopoly on suffering from the Holocost. It was a crime against humanity. Jews were persecuted in greatest numbers, but Nazi hate didn't stop there. Had they eliminated the Jews, would they stop hating and close the camps or just expand their campaign?

I find it strange anyone has a hard time believing the Holocost happened, considering the mass atrocities that continue today, just in less powerful areas than Europe (Rwanda, Sudan, ...) The Holocost is a lesson about hate, and that exists whether people acknowldge it or not.

 

Freedom of Speech and freedom in general has different interpretation within different societies. Freedom is based and evolves within cultural and historical sensibilities.
In Austrian case ease toward nationalistic tendency (Nazism) is well-documented historically, hence current applicable laws.
I wonder whether Irving’s imprisonment will open a massive debate in Austria and what constitutes freedom of speech in an open society, as the Danish cartoon debacle dominates heated discussions.

Current historical representation of past atrocities is unevenly presented in different societies and their historical evaluations.
Gschoen makes an excellent point. In sporadic conversations about Holocaust in general when one mentions Leopold II there is very little recognition and acknowledgement.

 

For you to compare the Holocaust to individual murders only reinforces how clueless you really are.

Compare:

* The 14-century "Black Death" with 10 million individual deaths from unspecified causes.

Would we not attempt to study the Black Death, the way it spread, its etymology and ways to prevent its recurrence?

* The Crusades, over a period of, say, 75 years, with the deaths of a similar number of people killed, but for unspecified reasons. No reason to distinguish?

* The deaths of the total number of Japanese civilians killed by the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a similar number of civilian deaths, even as "collateral damage", in several wars considered in the aggregate.

 

I'm in two minds about this case. I'm in favour of freedom of speech, but should there be an unlimited freedom to lie? We have libel laws to protect individuals against lies, so why not laws to protect society against lies?

I think if a democratic society decides that certain lies are beyond the pale, due to the harm they do to society as a whole, then it's probably reasonable to allow people spreading that lie to be punished.

He had the right to a trial, where his specific claims would be analysed and rebutted, as they have been in court in the past.

And he knew exactly what he was doing. He was a repeat offender. It wasn't a vindictive prosecution. And Austria didn't extradite him to face charges - they only took action when he came back to the country, daring them to charge him.

And this isn't about "beliefs", "religion", or anything like that. Don't make the mistake of conflating this with white supremacy, offending muslims or anything like that. This is lying about historical facts.

Clearly America thinks freedom of speech means unlimited freedom to lie. And from the outside it seems pretty clear to me the damage this is doing, now that certain people in power have realised there's no penalty for even the most bare-faced lies.

 

Hear hear, KMO

 

Of course the freedom of speech grants also the freedom to lie. That is obvious, and is not only acceptable, it is ESSENTIAL. Because what "everyone knows" as a lie today might be revealed as truth later.

One example is the notion that the world is flat. Another "lie" was that the Earth was NOT the center of the solar system, and that it actually orbited the Sun rather than vice versa. These were KNOWN FACTS at the time. It was considered blatant lying, even religious heresy, to even speak these ideas.

Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee only speech you like. It doesn't gurantee that all speech is true. But it guarantees that everyone has the right to voice their ideas and opinions without being thrown in jail.

Thank the founding fathers we have a document like the Bill of Rights to establish our freedoms and limit the powers of our government. (Although I wish the courts would follow the Constitution more literally and stop "interpreting" it to mean what they want it to... today.)

 

Religious dogma is not fact.

Sorry