European Hypocrisy? David Irving Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison for Holocaust Denial

[JamesDillon]

According to the Middle East Times, "[r]ight-wing British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison by an Austrian court on Monday for denying the Holocaust 17 years ago...." ( http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060221-080829-7221r ). Many JREF forum members might be familiar with Irving, as I believe he is mentioned in Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, and was the subject of an article by Shermer entitled "Enigma: The Faustian Bargain of David Irving" in Skeptic magazine vol. 12, no. 1 (2005).

Irving may well be a mendacious, bigoted hatemonger, though Shermer seems to have a modicum of intellectual respect for him, and to feel a degree of pity for his wasted potential. It may even be the case that pro-Nazi speech causes a great deal of emotional harm to the survivors of the Holocaust and to all Europeans who wish to put that ugly chapter of human history behind them. This is all beside the point. My understanding is that many EU nations impose criminal sanctions on Holocaust denial; how does one reconcile this with their apparent indignation at the Muslim response to the Danish cartoon incident? Do they value the freedom of speech only when other people's sacred cows are its targets? Granted, Austria is only imprisoning Irving, not calling for his death. Still, this seems only a matter of degree to me; the idea that the state is justified in criminalizing unpopular or offensive speech is one I find very disturbing, particularly in light of recent events.

 

[JamesDillon]

Oops. I see that there's already a 5-page thread on this subject. Somehow I overlooked that. Never mind.

 

[Bjorn]

My understanding is that many EU nations impose criminal sanctions on Holocaust denial; how does one reconcile this with their apparent indignation at the Muslim response to the Danish cartoon incident? Do they value the freedom of speech only when other people's sacred cows are its targets? Granted, Austria is only imprisoning Irving, not calling for his death. Still, this seems only a matter of degree to me; the idea that the state is justified in criminalizing unpopular or offensive speech is one I find very disturbing, particularly in light of recent events.

Agreed.

However, after reading that 5-page thread, would you please change the title of this thread to "American Hypocrisy"? I see too many Americans who defended other free speech cases being luke warm or even opposed to this one.

 

[Mycroft]

Agreed.

However, after reading that 5-page thread, would you please change the title of this thread to "American Hypocrisy"? I see too many Americans who defended other free speech cases being luke warm or even opposed to this one.

Can you name one? I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems to me the consensus is pretty solidly in favor of speech.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Wouldn't a better comparison be between Irving and the people who are lying about the content of the cartoons?

 

[CFLarsen]

Since when did Austria become "Europe"?

 

[tanto]

Since when did Austria become "Europe"?

Exactly, Europe is not a homogeneous mass. Just as America is not bigoted just becouse some states forbid homosexual, oral or anal sex.

 

[a_unique_person]

Since when did Austria become "Europe"?

When it's good, it's that individual country, when it's bad, it's Europe.

 

[David Swidler]

When my son behaves, he's "our son." When he's naughty, the wife suddenly calls him "your son." Go figure.

 

[MRC_Hans]

When my son behaves, he's "our son." When he's naughty, the wife suddenly calls him "your son." Go figure.

Well, it's always nice to have that confirmed .

Yes, it is strange that one particular type of lie should carry a criminal penalty. Doesn't make sense, IMHO.

Hans

 

[zenith-nadir]

Yes, it is strange that one particular type of lie should carry a criminal penalty. Doesn't make sense, IMHO.

Hans

Here's a couple reasons of the top of my head.


Reason #1:

The anti-holocaust denial laws were passed just after WW2 to help de-nazify Germany and Austria because at that time Germany and Austria were full of Nazis who started a World War and perpetrated one of the greatest genocides of our age.

Reason #2:

Holocaust denial inhabits the world of Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. Therefore rehabilitating Nazism and denying an actual genocide to Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists is a form of incitement.

Personally I do not have an issue with making life a difficult as possible for Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.

 

[JamesDillon]

Since when did Austria become "Europe"?

According to Wikipedia, "Holocaust denial is illegal in ten European countries: France (Loi Gayssot), Belgium (Belgian Negationism Law), Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code), Germany, Austria, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Poland...."

It may be Austria enforcing the law this time, but it seems that the hypocrisy is more widespread.

Wouldn't a better comparison be between Irving and the people who are lying about the content of the cartoons?

No, for a couple of reasons. The key issue in both cases is that the speech was deeply offensive to the beliefs of the community that responded to it. Moreover, in the eyes of the Muslims, the Danish cartoons were telling lies about Mohammad, just as Irving was lying about the Holocaust. This is why the truth or falsity of political speech should never be a factor in its legality-- that standard invites the state to become the arbiter of truth, which is precisely what the ideal of freedom of speech seeks to avoid.

Reason #2:

Holocaust denial inhabits the world of Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. Therefore rehabilitating Nazism and denying an actual genocide to Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists is a form of incitement.

"Incitement" is a vague term. In the United States, hate speech may not be subject to criminal sanction "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). I think Brandenburg sets the standard in the right place. Not only must the speech in question incite violence, but the danger must be imminent. Otherwise, the proper remedy for misguided speech is more speech. Certainly, as has been noted in the other Irving thread, his ideas have been thoroughly debunked and rejected by mainstream scholarship.

Personally I do not have an issue with making life a difficult as possible for Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.

How about atheists and skeptics and liberals? Opponents of the war in Iraq? Homosexuals? Feminists? The right of free speech simply must be absolute, or we invite the government to censor any views of which the majority of the nation, and/or the administration in power, disapproves.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Kentucky, home to sprawling Fort Campbell along the Tennessee line, was among the first states to attempt to deal with Phelps legislatively. Its House and Senate have each passed bills that would limit people from protesting within 300 feet of a funeral or memorial service. The Senate version would also keep protesters from being within earshot of grieving friends and family members.

Hmm .. "deal with Phelps legislatively". A law targetted specifically at one man's freedom of expression.

 

[Cleon]

Hmm .. "deal with Phelps legislatively". A law targetted specifically at one man's freedom of expression.

In Phelps' case, it's more "harrassment" than "one man's freedom of expression."

Point taken, though.

 

[drkitten]

Hmm .. "deal with Phelps legislatively". A law targetted specifically at one man's freedom of expression.

No more than a law against burglary is targetted specifically at one man's freedom to break into houses and steal.

It's a law against behavior, behavior that Phelps typifies, but that would be reprehensible if anyone else did it.

 

[JamesDillon]

Hmm .. "deal with Phelps legislatively". A law targetted specifically at one man's freedom of expression.

The Kentucky law is an example of a "time, place, or manner" restriction. It is Constitutionally permissible to place restrictions on the means by which ideas are expressed, so long as those restrictions are content-neutral (i.e., don't favor the expression of some viewpoints over others). This is why your hometown can prevent someone from reading the Bible through a megaphone on a residential block at 3 A.M. Note that the law doesn't say that Phelps can't hold his protest, or can't express his revolting ideas. It simply places limits on the manner in which he can express himself.

 

[drkitten]

"Incitement" is a vague term. In the United States, hate speech may not be subject to criminal sanction "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). I think Brandenburg sets the standard in the right place.

So you would be happy if I stood outside your house, inciting passers-by to burn it down and to murder you "next weekend"?

 

[zenith-nadir]

How about atheists and skeptics and liberals? Opponents of the war in Iraq? Homosexuals? Feminists? The right of free speech simply must be absolute, or we invite the government to censor any views of which the majority of the nation, and/or the administration in power, disapproves.

I rarely give into "slippery slope" arguments because 9 times out of 10 they involve complete hypotheticals. But IMO I would say that atheists and skeptics and liberals are demonstratably less dangerous to a civilized society than hate-mongering racist neo nazis and white supremacists.

 

[JamesDillon]

So you would be happy if I stood outside your house, inciting passers-by to burn it down and to murder you "next weekend"?

Of course I wouldn't be happy; I'm sure the Muslims weren't happy with the depiction of the Prophet in the Danish newspapers, nor were European Jews (or anyone else with a modicum of good taste) happy with Irving's ideas. But the point is that, for the sake of ensuring a stable society and a smoothly functioning democracy, everyone must accept the risk of occasionally hearing speech that they find offensive.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So you would be happy if I stood outside your house, inciting passers-by to burn it down and to murder you "next weekend"?

Obviously that would depend whether you were doing it at 3 AM through a megaphone within 300 feet of a funeral.