David Irving arrested in Austria
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Out of 35,886 possible voters.
Who is saying that?
But trying to form an organisation with the goal of assassinating the president is illegal.
Let's take a minute to examine things. Hate Laws don't recognize the existence of mild or hard hate speech. Hate speech that leads to legal troubles( at least in most countries) is something very specific;advocating murder.
Do you have a transcript that proves that David Irving has ever advocated the murder of jewish or any other group of people?
Nazis for example in their printed material and in their graffities do exacetly that; they advocate the murder of the jews,immigrants and black people.
As you said yourself, neonazis many time resort to violence and most of them have violated the whole of the criminal code of their countries multiple times.
For those who don't know it, in the last edition of his book " Hitler's Wars" Irving doesn't mention the word Holocaust or genocide even once. This hardly constitutes hate speech though.
Last edited:
Because the charges (according to the article) relate to reviving an organisation which is illegal.
The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg
Mark Twain wrote a short story called The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg. Town was renowned for its honesty. Motto was Lead Us Not Into Temptation.
A Hadleyburgian (Hadleyburgite? Hadleyburgundian?) did some unnamed injury to a stranger, who vowed revenge, not just on the person who wronged him, but the entire town. He decided to go for its weakest point. He quickly figured out that Hadleyburg was such an honest town because its citizens never let temptation cross its path. Its honesty had never been really tested.
He then proceeded to get every prominent person in town publicly implicated in a complex swindle, to the mortification of evryone who lived there.
The town is wiser now. It has revised its motto. It has been modifed to read Lead UsNot Into Temptation.
Europeans have learned the lesson of Naziism, apparently. They are apparently so fearful that they'll turn to Naziism again, they forbid anyone to speak favorably of the Nazis, lest they be tempted.
Over here, we let the Nazis have parades and dress up in their silly uniforms and preach their filth to any and all who will listen. I guess we're not concerned that by allowing Nazis in our midst, we'll become like them. We reject Naziism by choice, not by compulsion.
That having been said, if Irving doesn't like the laws of the countries he visits, and can't help breaking them when he does visit, then he has nothing to complain about. Mrs. BPSCG and I like a beer now and then. So it's unlikely we'll ever move to Saudi Arabia (plus she likes to spout off more than the Saudis are willing to tolerate from a woman...). I may think their alcohol laws are stupid, but they're their laws. I may think Austria's anti-Nazi laws are stupid, but they're their laws.
Mark Twain wrote a short story called The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg. Town was renowned for its honesty. Motto was Lead Us Not Into Temptation.
A Hadleyburgian (Hadleyburgite? Hadleyburgundian?) did some unnamed injury to a stranger, who vowed revenge, not just on the person who wronged him, but the entire town. He decided to go for its weakest point. He quickly figured out that Hadleyburg was such an honest town because its citizens never let temptation cross its path. Its honesty had never been really tested.
He then proceeded to get every prominent person in town publicly implicated in a complex swindle, to the mortification of evryone who lived there.
The town is wiser now. It has revised its motto. It has been modifed to read Lead Us
Europeans have learned the lesson of Naziism, apparently. They are apparently so fearful that they'll turn to Naziism again, they forbid anyone to speak favorably of the Nazis, lest they be tempted.
Over here, we let the Nazis have parades and dress up in their silly uniforms and preach their filth to any and all who will listen. I guess we're not concerned that by allowing Nazis in our midst, we'll become like them. We reject Naziism by choice, not by compulsion.
That having been said, if Irving doesn't like the laws of the countries he visits, and can't help breaking them when he does visit, then he has nothing to complain about. Mrs. BPSCG and I like a beer now and then. So it's unlikely we'll ever move to Saudi Arabia (plus she likes to spout off more than the Saudis are willing to tolerate from a woman...). I may think their alcohol laws are stupid, but they're their laws. I may think Austria's anti-Nazi laws are stupid, but they're their laws.
Hmmmm? The actual laws in question are the Austrian laws, followed by the German laws (seeing as to how Irving has been banned from entering Germany), the Canadian laws (seeing as to his legal problems there), the Bristish laws (seeing as to how he lost his libel lawsuit there) and the NZ laws (seeing as to how he was banned from entering NZ).
Those are the actual laws in question, and the ones Irving controvenes. Very very specific to the OP, Irving controvened the law on "revivalism" in Austria and the Holocaust denial laws in Germany.
As to whether this all constitites hate speech: Irving's actual words on Jews would constitute incitement and anti-semtic speech in Germany, so basically his words constitute hate speech there. Which is why, incidentally, he is banned from re-entering Germany.
If you exclude Germany that has really severe laws against any extreme groups what you say if far from accurate. People are not forbidden to talk about nazism,they can't advocate murder.
It depends which European country you are talking about I believe it is only Germany and Austria that have such laws and then I think they are specific to "original Nazis".
I didn't say they were forbidden to speak about Naziism. I said they were forbidden to speak favorably of it. Or is that also incorrect?
BTW, you have not dealt at all with my points on the limitations to free speech always being there, and you're wrong; it's not so people won't be tempted, it's so those already active cannot advance their agenda. Too bad for them.
I don't understand how you think that you will manage to build an argument by moving the goal posts but since we talk about a matter of constitutional principle you can move the goalposts to the moon and still lose the game. 
Let's have a closer look though.
So, are you trying to persuade me about my own claims? This is what I have been trying to explain to you that societies do try to define what is not protected by the free speech. As I posted previously, Germany has an exceptional and particular status and are you sure that he wasn't just named as a "persona non grata" in the other countries?
Let's have a closer look though.
So, are you trying to persuade me about my own claims?
This is what I have been trying to explain to you that societies do try to define what is not protected by the free speech. As I posted previously, Germany has an exceptional and particular status and are you sure that he wasn't just named as a "persona non grata" in the other countries? You can keep bringing the example of Germany. What does it prove? That Germans are more sensitive towards Nazis. In Germany even the Protocols are illegal.
You are also wrong here in your implied argument. The laws of Germany and Austria were decided by the people; therefore they rejected Naziism and allowance of revivalism or Holocaust denial by choice, not compulsion.
The fact that some will break laws is simply a human universal. Or would you like to try claiming that in the USA people reject murder and burglary by choice, not by compulsion? Silly argument. Once the laws are democratically made, as in Germany or in Austria, they are there by choice of the electorate.
Nope, I pointed out your own definition of "hate speech" simply does not apply. What I pointed out to you was that a different definition applied to David Irving in those countries.
It proves the point of what laws actually apply and what definitions of hate speech are relevant.
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
One could argue that it violates free speech (it does). But strangely, I don't care
Zee
You should. Being persecuted for his beliefs allows this guy paint himself a martyr. I say it's better to let trash like this speak loudly and clearly so they can be publicly denounced just as loud and clear.
Honestly,I can't give you a "yes" or " no" answer to that and I will explain why. You can publish an essay claiming ( careful, I am just bringing an example here!!!) that Nazism contributed vastly in the invention of new drugs and in the biological and anthropological studies.
As a proud american you must know how american pharmaceuticals industries made millions out of Bayer's patents by not allowing Bayer and other German companies to secure their patents...
If you publish that nothing bad will happen to you.
If you claim that the genocides of the jews,gypsies,handicapped and others was a good deed then, you might get in legal trouble but it depends on the wording and the content.
This makes the mistake of thinking that Irving's claims are not discussed in the countries which forbid advocation of Holocaust denial or revivalism. That is a huge misunderstanding of the situation --- claims such as Irving's are very often discussed very openly and refuted openly.
There is a big difference between discussion and advocation.