David Irving arrested in Austria

[ZeeGerman]

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=25442&name=Right-wing+extremist+Irving+arrested+in+Austria

One could argue that it violates free speech (it does). But strangely, I don't care

Zee

 

[Psi Baba]

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=25442&name=Right-wing+extremist+Irving+arrested+in+Austria

One could argue that it violates free speech (it does). But strangely, I don't care

Zee

I just saw this and came here looking to start the thread (glad I checked first). I agree with you, it does spur a mixed reaction. Doesn't Germany have a similar law, something about defaming the dead, that they apply to deniers?
(I found the article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4446646.stm )

 

[rebecca]

Wow, not my reaction at all. It made me cringe to think that now this slimeball is going to be a martyr. The beauty of free speech is that we have the freedom to fight it out in public. Shutting someone up for their opinion just makes it look like we have something to fear from them.

 

[Darat]

When you read the article it would appear that this is not a free-speech issue as such.

 

[rebecca]

I read both articles and they both seem to say that there is a law against a person actively denying the holocaust; Irving was on his way to a lecture to do just that and was arrested. How is that not about free speech, I don't follow?

 

[CFLarsen]

I agree (with Darat. Rebecca barged in, as usual... )

It isn't about Irving participating in the meeting. It deals with what happened in 1989 - whatever that was.

 

[rebecca]

Oh, right, a warrant from '89. But according to the articles, the reason was that he violated laws against denying the Holocaust. That sounds anti-free speech-y to me.

 

[Darat]

I read both articles and they both seem to say that there is a law against a person actively denying the holocaust; Irving was on his way to a lecture to do just that and was arrested. How is that not about free speech, I don't follow?

It said: "... breaking Paragraph 3 of Austria's law against Nazi "revivalism"..." which I take to mean he was being investigated for trying to encourage or actively reform the Nazi party in Austria.

 

[Gurdur]

Wow, not my reaction at all. It made me cringe to think that now this slimeball is going to be a martyr.

He will only be a martyr to the Holocaust deniers and to the neonazis. IOW, so what? He already presents himself as a martyr for having lost the libel case.

The beauty of free speech is that we have the freedom to fight it out in public. Shutting someone up for their opinion just makes it look like we have something to fear from them.

Free speech always has its limits. Should shouting out "Fire!" in a crowded cinema be allowed simply because we fear that such behaviour cold cause panio and stampedes with resultant causualties, and fear is bad? No, that is precisely the reason why it is forbidden.
In the case of western Europe, Naziism caused a war and a genocide which left millions dead; as a result of that, and as a result of resultant resurgences in neonazi groups, advocating Naziism is illegal, as is Holocaust denial. Frankly, I do not see any ethical reason at all to defend suchlike as "free speech", and I see good practical reasons not to.

 

[rebecca]

It said: "... breaking Paragraph 3 of Austria's law against Nazi "revivalism"..." which I take to mean he was being investigated for trying to encourage or actively reform the Nazi party in Austria.

Ah, if that's the case, then yeah, hang the bastard. Anybody know for sure?

 

[headscratcher4]

I too fear for freedom of speech.

He is a detestable person and a questionable scholar. However, to my knowlege, nothing he has ever written, published and said has ever gone un-answered or un-contested. Except amongst pre-disposed revisionists, his works have been pretty well picked-over and failed to sway any significant number of historians or others to his position. He is not unlike the ID scientists. I would be concerned if his works were being taught as "history" in the schools or at a university, but making a speech? The handful of people who would be in the room deserve him and will not, likely, have their mind changed by not hearing him.

 

[Jocko]

It said: "... breaking Paragraph 3 of Austria's law against Nazi "revivalism"..." which I take to mean he was being investigated for trying to encourage or actively reform the Nazi party in Austria.

How does denying the Holocaust equate to reviving nazism?

Seems to me that it's not just free speech being curtailed, but political speech. Yeah, that's the ticket, forbid mention of the nazis. That's sure to reduce the mystique.

Here in the States, the nazis march, the Holocaust deniers blog, and chuckleheads of every stripe hit the airwaves daily. Strangely, the republic endures and these people are more marginalized for it... by public opnion, not censorship. That's how to keep the loonies in their box without stomping on their rights.

But whatever... it's their country.

 

[rebecca]

He will only be a martyr to the Holocaust deniers and to the neonazis. IOW, so what? He already presents himself as a martyr for having lost the libel case.

Free speech always has its limits. Should shouting out "Fire!" in a crowded cinema be allowed simply because we fear that such behaviour cold cause panio and stampedes with resultant causualties, and fear is bad? No, that is precisely the reason why it is forbidden.
.

There's a fine line between free speech and speech that is focused on inciting a dangerous or illegal activity, that's for sure.

 

[Jocko]

There's a fine line between free speech and speech that is focused on inciting a dangerous or illegal activity, that's for sure.

Here in the States at least, that's determined by the message's delivery more than the subject matter. A significant difference.

 

[Gurdur]

Seems to me that it's not just free speech being curtailed, but political speech.

So what? see my post above.

That's the ticket, forbid mention of the nazis. That's sure to reduce the mystique.

Would you be claiming that such limits actually encourage their mystique? If so, I would like to see evidence. So often implicitly or explicity claimed by people, that not allowing such public neonaziism or Holocaust denial will only increase say the "mystique", but I've never seen evidence of that.

...Strangely, the republic endures and these people are more marginalized for it...

Strangely, in the Weimar Republic the Nazis marched, and were not the more marginalized for it. I guess your rhetoric may be simplistic?

by public opnion, not censorship. That's how to keep the loonies in their box without stomping on their rights.

Strangely enough, Europe lost millions of people because of Naziism, which is a problem the USA has not (yet) had. That means a certain lack of tolerance of advocating it in public.

 

[Gurdur]

Here in the States at least, that's determined by the message's delivery more than the subject matter. A significant difference.

No, that is simply not true. Try saying anywhere publically in the USA you plan to assassinate the President of the USA, and see how long till you're picked up for content, not delivery.

 

[rebecca]

No, that is simply not true. Try saying anywhere publically in the USA you plan to assassinate the President of the USA, and see how long till you're picked up for content, not delivery.

Situation 1: My friend asks what I'm doing tomorrow, and I laugh and say, "Oh, you know, assassinating the president."

Situation 2: My friend asks what I'm thinking about when I have that wild look in my eyes while I'm polishing my gun, and I yell, "Oh, you know, assassinating the president!"

 

[rebecca]

Strangely enough, Europe lost millions of people because of Naziism, which is a problem the USA has not (yet) had. That means a certain lack of tolerance of advocating it in public.

I don't know that arresting people who promote the idea is the way to prevent it from happening in the future . . . I think shining a light on the arguments and educating people on the failures of that line of thinking is the only way to do it.

 

[Gurdur]

I don't know that arresting people who promote the idea is the way to prevent it from happening in the future . . . I think shining a light on the arguments and educating people on the failures of that line of thinking is the only way to do it.

In fat, both avenues are used extensively in continental Western Europe; you make it sound like an either-or choice, but it isn't.

Holocaust denial is very firmly linked in the majority of cases to neonaziism, and the neonazis have not only tried advocating their cause right in the middle of communities directly affected by Naziism in WW2, but also are most often preparing for incitement of violence against the handicapped, blacks, "leftists" and foreigners.

The fact is, Europe suffered very badly in a way the USA never did; the USA may have the luxury of allowing neonazis to promote their cause, and the Holocaust deniers to scream abuse; as far as the French, Germans and Austrians are concerned, enough is enough, and public advocation of Holocaust denial and/or Naziism is forbidden. Too bad for the wingnuts, but there always is a stage when enough is enough.

 

[Mycroft]

It said: "... breaking Paragraph 3 of Austria's law against Nazi "revivalism"..." which I take to mean he was being investigated for trying to encourage or actively reform the Nazi party in Austria.

As much as I dislike David Irving, how is that not about free speech?