oooohh...if we ever get back the white house and congress, we're so imposing jail time for Republicans...and life sentences for Bush/Cheney apologists!!

What's that phrase about 'if'?

Heh.

If only it was as simple a case as you try to make it.

It is simple. Did he kill anyone? No. Did he hurt anyone? No. Did he say dumb, vile things? Yes. Should that be a crime. Not in any society that would like to call itself 'free'.

And for anyone just joining this blog already in session, I'm both Russian and Jewish so I know the holocaust happened as it happened to my family. Still, denying the holocaust shouldn't be cause for jailtime any more than denying any other historical fact should be.

So it doesn't bother you that this man has called holocaust survivors liars, or that they faked their tatoos to make money, or that his supporters are active nazis who feel that the only mistake made in the holocaust was that they didn't finish the job.

And if we are staking claims to victim status, in order to legitimise out claims to have an opinion, I am both gay and mentally ill. And it should be borne in mind that the holocaust on both of those groups started long before it began on either the slavs of the Jews. In point of fact the gas that eventually killed the Jews was perfected on the mentally ill.

And you cannot say who has been killed because of the activites of Irving. It doesn't take much of a search to discover groups to whom he is attached or are using his words to further their own ends. Or that he was on the guest list for the Holocaust conference being held in Tehran.

It is one thing to talk about freedom and free speech being paramount but it is hollow when that same liberty comes home to bite you.

And it has to be said, that Irving would not now be in jail had he taken the hint that Austria does not want him stirring up trouble in their country. He had already been deported twice, and was subject to a banning order. Yet despite a warrent for his arrest, they did not try to extradite him.

"Did he hurt anyone? No."

Umm ... I would beg to differ.

So it doesn't bother you that this man has called holocaust survivors liars....

It bothers me, sure, but the way Dawn Summers dresses also bothers me and yet I don't feel we should lock her up for it. Lots of things bother me but they still shouldn't be criminal offenses. Words shouldn't mean jail time, no matter how much you may disagree with what is being said.

Joe, who did he hurt?

The Austrians felt they had a problem with Jews, so they came up with a government solution for it.

Now the Austrians feel they have a problem with Holocaust denial, so they came up with a government solution for that.

I think there's an important lesson to be drawn here about Austrians and government solutions.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the Western tradition and its political pursuit of liberty. Jailing someone for their opinions, no matter how vile or idiotic or wrong, is tyranny.

Have just been discussing this with my German housemate. His perspective (it is long so please bear with me)was thus (note I agree with Von Beck and Karol).

1. Irving is a historian and therefore a type of scientist. He is also in a similar position to a newspaper or a news presenter in that his role is to provide information to the public. In that sense he is theoretically bound by the same rules as a person testifying under oath who is subject to criminal proceedings if he/she lies or provides false information. Equivalent would be the New York Times publishing on Septmber 12th 2001 (or the Times for July 8th 2005) that nothing had happend.

2. The European Charter on Human Rights Article 10 Section 2. "The excersise of these freedoms,...,may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preveneting the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

3. Not 100% sure if this applies entirely to Austria but for Germany the Federal Constitution contains articles and provisions such as article 18 that if you use any of your rights (including freedom of expression) in order to assault the democratic system you lose the right concerned. Within Germany and Austria denying the holocaust is perceived as an assault on the democratic system therefore criminal proceedings against it is legally acceptable. David Irving in publishing his works and in making speeches on the same topic in Germany at least is seen as having assaulted the democratic system by denying an event that is seen as justification for the necessity of democracy. The holocaust is seen as the result of an authoritarian system. In order to prevent a reoccurence of the Holocaust a pluralistic, democratic system has to prevail.

Note Austria to the best of my housemates knowledge operates along a similar line because of the shared history of the holocaust and nazism.

Lastly by denying the holocaust you are denying the existence of some 6 million people that were slaughtered. The holocaust in that sense would ultimately have suceeded if Irving is allowed to deny it publically.

I'm fairly sure that anyone uttering threats against the life of the President of the United States of America automatically qualifies for a prison sentence in that country, wether they are joking or not. Many persons have been incarcerated because of this, some just fools.

I agree with Yaron that government solutions are rarely the answer and I further agree with Von Bek that free nations shouldn't by tyrannical in shutting down unpopular thought.

Fisch, denying that the holocaust occurred does not incite hate. It's a wackadoo opinion that most people acknowledge as such. And, the fact is, even if it did 'incite hate', unless that hate manifest itself in violence, free nations should not curb freedom of thought, even very very bad thought. You write How long do you think a man in America would get away with new orleans-hurricane-denying in public, laughing at the victims, before the government shut him up in confinement? The answer is forever and ever. Check out Lyndon Larouche and know that that guy runs for president! Whether the issue is cartoonists drawing Mohammad or Irving denying the holocaust, I'm always going to side with free speech and expression. Convicting people for improper thought is something that we fight in developing countries, not something we should expect from the free world.

We should also reprint his work, to support free speech, even though its offensive. Like that guy you posted about who put the cartoons on shirts. I'm gonna go buy a copy of that book and give it to all my friends. I might even send a copy to Andrew Sullivan.

Fisch, it's not about pity. I don't have to pity someone to acknowledge that they have rights. The people at Guantanamo are terrorists, people who want to physically harm others. This guy is merely a writer who says dumb things.

Sam, I would just like to point out that I thought reprinting the cartoon in some kind of solidarity move was dumb. I think your idea is equally dumb. Acknowledging that free speech is good doesn't mean encouraging said speech.

Fisch - you are certainly one (logically consistent) evil bastard - i would disagree strenuously thouw with the idea that rights have to be earned (that whole inalienable thing), but that is a discussion for another forum...

as numerous folk other tham me have suggested, I think the timing of this decision is almost bad as the utter stupidity of it - if countries are going to punish people for speech based purely on the content of the speech, why won't they be able to punish people for purported blasphemy? i think the sentence demonstrates more than anything else that freedom of speech as we understand it isn't so much a western conception as it is a peculiarly british one

BUT their whole argument is that they never had trial so who says they are guilty of any acts in the first place?

fisch, there's a flaw in your logic - for regular citizens, it's true that you're innocent until a trial proves otherwise. But for others, the burden of proof is much laxer - like say, people found on a battlefield with a gun in their hand where U.S. soldiers are fighting. That's a general standard, and it's nothing new to the current war.

Sam L. - maybe you intended that to be a devil's advocate statement, but I say, you know what, if it pisses off the Austrians and/or Germans, maybe it's worth doing.

Fisch, the men at Guantanamo were captured during war. As they are enemy combatants, they are not entitled to a trial, they have no such 'right'. In fact, most of these men are from places where they would never expect such a right, it just doesn't exist where they live. Irving is a free man, living in a free country. Freedom of speech is central to the western idea of liberty. We should expect that free nations like Germany and Austria would not jail anyone for unpopular opinions. It's not comparable to jailing enemy combatants who seek to destroy America. It just isn't the same thing.

Obviously, I have no personal affinity for Irving but I do believe that jailing someone for thought crimes is not something a free society should ever be doing. A free society grows stronger when people feel free to express even the most absurd opinions. What is Austria afraid of? That people will hear Irving’s opinions and decide ‘yes, that sounds reasonable, now let’s kill some Jews?’ Speech should be free. Words never killed anyone.

Karol,
Some of these people were turned in by warlords in order to generate reward money. 80 year olds, 12 year old kids. Many have been released without publicity; this says wrongful imprisonment to me. The fact that their gov is bad does not mean we should lower our standards to accommodate them.

However, I just cannot find it in myself to pity a man who has devoted his life to the denial of others' suffering and brutal slaying.

What does that have to do with whether or not such denials should be grounds for imprisonment? I'm usually not one for slippery-slope arguments, but conflating "offensive" with "criminal" is really, really asking for trouble. And a hallmark of liberals, particularly of the college-aged variety. And you accuse Karol of sounding like a Democrat?

okay, so first of all girl, you have to be pretty imperialistic to say that he didn't do anything wrong if that country's law says this is illegal.

It's not imperialistic. "Imperialistic" would be if she wanted to send in the Marines to break Irving out of jail and then annex the country. What she's doing here is called "criticism." A lot of southern states used to have anti-miscegenation laws; was it "imperialistic" of people to criticize those laws as racist and wrong? Even if you conclude that it was, wasn't that the correct position to take notwithstanding? She's not claiming that he didn't break the law, she's saying that there shouldn't be a law to begin with. Prescriptive, not descriptive.

He is jail because he break a german law forbit denying the holocaust, which he know about so his sentence should not be a shock to anybody. I believed the law an ill advise attempt to address the horror of the past. The law imply that simply by haveing the law, the thought that the law outlaw would not exist, and if it exist, jailing the person having that idea will prevent it from occurring. Since its in Germany, I am not really sure how strongly I feel about the issue.

Relating this issue to the US, the string of hate-speech law is not different. There is hate speech and there is incitement to break the law. I don't think we should waste the time to arrest lunatic spuring that craps, but if he conspire to break the laws that he should be arrest. Telling a couple of follower that they should go out and kill someone would be incitement to commit murder - which is not a free speech issue. There is alot of disagree thing that people do and say, that one may not like personally but it do not amount to a crime. Each society have to balances the idiosy of people vs the damages to society to determine if force is need to prevent the idiosy.

What a crap do the Guantanamo have to do with this discussion? It cost more for the US to keep prisoner then to just kill them in the field. It would be more effect for morale if officers on the field are allowed to determine who live and who die in their area of control. The fact that they are alive at all mean that the US military give them more consideration then they deserve.

I think American mistake US norm as the world wide norm. The procedure and practice of US courts are set up to protect American, and residents under protection of the Constitution. It assume that a Citizen or residents is protect by the constitution unless by a jury conflicted of crime. Due process only apply to American. We do not have to be reasonable or humane about dealing our enemy or for that matter our friends - that what passport are for. Terrorists do not have a passport so they are not due any protection due a citizens we have an agreement to honor. Only by kill these terrorists will their be justice. Terrorists do not have any right or deserve any humane consideration. By give righs and human value to these animal we are all deminish to just another common pirates. The President should close Guantanamo per UN request be hangging every terrorists we have now and through them into the sea . We should in the future publicly executing any terrorists and their supporters if they don't have any useful information.

I don't think we have a 'human right' to free speech which is why I note that it's a western tradition. The fact that it is a western tradition means that westerners can, and do, expect that western countries will follow this tradition. Whereas enemy combatants who fight for countries that have no tradition of a fair justice system can not suddenly expect that American traditions will apply to them.

-Karol the clarifier

I wonder what would happen if Holocaust denier/Iranian Nutjob President Ahmadinejad paid a state visit to Austria. Think he'd be prosecuted for spouting the same sh*t? Somehow I doubt it.

No as by visiting the country he would not have committed a crime.

Irving gave holocaust denial speeches IN Austria contravening that countrys law.