Holocaust denier is jailed

[Sirius]

Not that I agree with this guy but damn! I think this is going a bit too far.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

I guess freedom of speech is arbitrary.

[sid]

Reminds me of Salman Rushdie although his case was different.

[Balton]

what harm is done when one idiot spouts such rubbish?
The judge who sentenced him was obviously on a vicious combo of meth acid and crack : /

[Breadtruck]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/GOG1MAC/lolowl.jpg

[Evil_Cope]

what harm is done when one idiot spouts such rubbish?
The judge who sentenced him was obviously on a vicious combo of meth acid and crack : /

Thoughtcrime? :o

[Zxanphorian]

Heh, I got a printout of this in History class today

[Sirius]

I just think it's bloody ridiculous that a man gets jail time for an opinion.

Comics piss off the muslims now opinions piss off the jews.

What next I wonder?

[Airmoran]

Holocaust denial is illegal in many, many countries. Not saying that it's a good or bad thing, but to quote Wikipedia:

"In addition, most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the current mainstream understanding of the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy created to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other nations. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Because of this, Holocaust denial is also illegal in a number of European countries, as their governments hold that it is motivated by an antisemitic and anti-democratic agenda."

It's more or less a hate crime. I think you have to go farther than just saying "oh, the holocaust? Exaggeration." This dude spent his life spreading, uhh... yeah, an anti-semetic agenda. Sensitive stuff, particularily in Europe.

Also from wikipedia, "While a few Holocaust deniers have training as historians, some of their most prominent representatives have been shown in court to have a pattern of falsifying historical documents (David Irving)."

Either way, it's obviously a sensitive issue and I'm not sure if holocaust denial alone is worth 3 years in prison, but I think the law itself is a little more concrete than a violation of American "free speech above EVERYTHING else" ideals. He got jailed for more than just having an opinion.

[Evil_Cope]

Yeah, he got jailed for sharing it. Years ago.
It's not even an opinion he even still holds! The warrent dates from 1989 for gods sake.

The more i think about it, the more this case disgusts me.

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

Speech being a hate crime is a very very uncomfortable idea for me. Same with the new laws in the UK against 'glorifying terrorism'. And people being investigated for saying homophobic things. Freedom of speech is taking a kicking atm.

[Rambowjo]

****ing bull**** retarded poop sock

[BobCobb]

This is a load of crap. Saying the holocause never happened is retarded, but you don't jail people for speech. **** the PC bleeding heart pussies behind this. People willing to throw away freedom so easily do not deserve it.

[Selerox]

What's even more ridiculous is that Holocaust Denial laws are utterly useless at combating hate groups, because the hardcore anti-semetic organisations are fully accepting that the Holocaust occured, because they think it was a great idea. Which total bypasses the whole point of the Denial laws...

[Sam_The_Man]

Really, Austria probably just figures that if it locks up the odd Englishman it can keep voting for raving native-born loonies like Jörg Haider without people doing the John Cleese walk whenever they mention the country.

[Zarkazm]

Bah, he's an attention-seeker who loved to flaunt the fact that he visited Austria repeatedly despite the arrest warrant.
He asked for it, he got it.

That he is supposed to have changed his opinion is a joke. He's built an entire career as pseudo-historian catering to a right-wing crowd and is still trying hard to not alienate his target audience while defending himself, so now he claims to not be an expert on a subject he's written books on to avoid making a clear statement either denouncing his theories or proving him unapologetic.

I disapprove of the nazi- and holocaust-related censorship, but seriosuly, get a grip on yourself. He loves playing the agent provocateur, and went too far. Boo-f***ing-hoo.
Heck, he even brought his Hitler biography to the trial and showed it around. I guess he thought the whole thing was a great publicity stunt.

[Iron Archer]

just when I think the US has gone to crap, Europe goes and redeems itself :)

[Rambowjo]

Your sig is too big! TO JAIL YOU GO!

[K]

Holocaust Denial underminds education as well. Big Brother cant have people spreading false truths around. I agree with the outcome.

[Zarkazm]

We should make evolution denial a crime, too. We can outlaw religious symbols later on.

Man, I'm loving this.

[BobCobb]

We should make TimeCube denial illegal as well. Preferably punishable by death.

Accept the truth you fools!

[Bean316]

I do look at this as anti-Semitism. I'm all for free speech, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to follow someone around and tell them I'm going to kill them. Free speech is one thing, but promoting hate is another. I do think the jail sentence is a little harsh, a fine would have seemed for suitable...but...I'm not Austrian.

[totalloser]

what I don't get about this case is how is his statement considered holocaust denial. what if there really wasn't any gas chambers in Auschwitz, you still can't take away the fact that millions of jews were stripped of their basic natural rigths, emaciated and tortured to death simply because they believed on a different religon that in the end worships the same freaking god as cristhianity.

[m&ms]

I do look at this as anti-Semitism. I'm all for free speech, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to follow someone around and tell them I'm going to kill them. Free speech is one thing, but promoting hate is another. I do think the jail sentence is a little harsh, a fine would have seemed for suitable...but...I'm not Austrian.
You couldn't follow a person around and tell them that you're going to kill them, because that is harassment and a threat. However, if he didn't threaten anyone, and didn't harass any specific person, then he should not have been jailed. If I said that Christianity is BS, Jesus wasn't the savior, and the Jews enslaved in Egypt weren't actually in such a bad situation and blew the whole thing out of proportion in order to gain followers, should I be arrested? How about if I said that Allah wasn't real and that people in the middle east just made it up as a means to spread terrorism?

[Bean316]

You couldn't follow a person around and tell them that you're going to kill them, because that is harassment and a threat. However, if he didn't threaten anyone, and didn't harass any specific person, then he should not have been jailed. If I said that Christianity is BS, Jesus wasn't the savior, and the Jews enslaved in Egypt weren't actually in such a bad situation and blew the whole thing out of proportion in order to gain followers, should I be arrested? How about if I said that Allah wasn't real and that people in the middle east just made it up as a means to spread terrorism?
I'd say on the first no. On the second, if you were saying it with the intent to incite violence, you know, maybe so. It wasn't that he just said it. That's not the problem. He said it with a history propogating lies and trying to stir up trouble, just like had been doing before.

It's a terribly gray area, and I'm just as minimally qualified as anyone to determine what falls on what side of that area. But this guy is a grade-A *******. I've heard of this guy before. He's an outright racist, sexist, and liar. And he's a punkass. He didn't get in trouble JUST for the comment. The reason this charge was from the 80s was because he was BANNED from Austria, but he still decided to go there to show what a badass he is. He's banned from plenty of countries as far as I understand, and I think even the US wasn't too kind to letting him in.

If anything, he's trying to make himself out to be a martyr, when really, he was just being a harasser and pain in the ass, and this is what happens. He certainly doesn't represent free speech, as much as he tries to skew it.

[Sam_The_Man]

If I said that Christianity is BS, Jesus wasn't the savior, and the Jews enslaved in Egypt weren't actually in such a bad situation and blew the whole thing out of proportion in order to gain followers, should I be arrested?

Yes. Don't you know there's a war on?

How about if I said that Allah wasn't real and that people in the middle east just made it up as a means to spread terrorism?

You get a medal and a job tending to Ann Coulter's ingrowing eyelashes.

[Zarkazm]

what I don't get about this case is how is his statement considered holocaust denial.
I suggest you inform yourself lest people think Homer Simpson was smarter than you.

[sid]

This is a load of crap. Saying the holocause never happened is retarded, but you don't jail people for speech. **** the PC bleeding heart pussies behind this. People willing to throw away freedom so easily do not deserve it.
Yes.....its like denying the existence of Area 51

[Big-Al]

:o so area 51 does exist :p

[GotBeer?]

Yes, but only to keep people's attention diverted from "Area 52".

[Selerox]

If I said that Christianity is BS, Jesus wasn't the savior, and the Jews enslaved in Egypt weren't actually in such a bad situation and blew the whole thing out of proportion in order to gain followers, should I be arrested?

In the UK, you soon might be. There are new "laws" to help prevent people bashing religious. Which I find pretty offensive, because it stamps on free speech and killing religion is exactly what we should be doing. Anything that helps religions crumble is a good thing in my opinion. But that's a whole new arguement...

[Rambowjo]

Holocaust never happend, and I am not afraid to say it while in Austria

[Sirius]

Although my original view still stands: That he was jailed for being a Holocaust Denier is extreem and smacks of censorship.

I will add that after doing a bit of Googling on him I find find this hack to be less than worthy of anyone's respect. While I agree that people should be allowed to express their POV this guy is in the same catagory as hate groups AFAIAC and as such does things to prevoke hatred. In other words he is a P.O.S.

Now from what I understand he has not been jailed for being an H.D. but because he was banned from Austria (and several other countries including Canada) for being an H.D. and returned there illigally.

I guess my initial response to this was a knee-jerk response to what I view as an erosion of basic freedoms all over the world.

[Bean316]

Although my original view still stands: That he was jailed for being a Holocaust Denier is extreem and smacks of censorship.

I will add that after doing a bit of Googling on him I find find this hack to be less than worthy of anyone's respect. While I agree that people should be allowed to express their POV this guy is in the same catagory as hate groups AFAIAC and as such does things to prevoke hatred. In other words he is a P.O.S.

Now from what I understand he has not been jailed for being an H.D. but because he was banned from Austria (and several other countries including Canada) for being an H.D. and returned there illigally.

I guess my initial response to this was a knee-jerk response to what I view as an erosion of basic freedoms all over the world.

That is what I was talking about. He isn't some guy being oppressed. He's an a-hole who provoked the Austrian government into arresting him, and when he got in trouble, he tried to make it a matter of free speech, when he was just trying to be a punk.

[Sam_The_Man]

That is what I was talking about. He isn't some guy being oppressed. He's an a-hole who provoked the Austrian government into arresting him, and when he got in trouble, he tried to make it a matter of free speech, when he was just trying to be a punk.

So if someone who says stuff you agree with, and they get locked up, they're being oppressed. But if someone says stuff you disagree with, and they get locked up, they're being a punk.

Let freedom f*cking ring.

(He was banned from countries for his opinions on the Holocaust, btw, so whether he was arrested for speechcrime or returning to somewhere where he was banned is utterly irrelevant).

[Sirius]

So if someone who says stuff you agree with, and they get locked up, they're being oppressed. But if someone says stuff you disagree with, and they get locked up, they're being a punk.

Let freedom f*cking ring.

(He was banned from countries for his opinions on the Holocaust, btw, so whether he was arrested for speechcrime or returning to somewhere where he was banned is utterly irrelevant).

While I agree to some extent what you are saying I do not believe you have the right to stir up hate and insite violence against anybody. This guy is an attention whore and nothing more. Saying you hate someone is one thing (hell, I do that everyday) but writting books and giving speeches about how the jews are trying to take over the world and that nazi's are somehow innocent of atrocities is another.

Everyone has the right to voice an opinion but when you try to get a group of people to hate and act violently towards another group you've gone too far.

Freedom of speech is a huge responsibility and unfortunately there are people who don't know how to act responsibly.

[Airmoran]

I've been reading up on this whole deal a bit, and as a foreigner I've obviously got a umm... different perspective... than what the court probably has, but one thing's for sure: publicity helped drive his conviction.

I can't say I'm a big fan of that. Being a tiny dick or a huge ass cock should net you the same treatment. But as the linked article puts it, this case is mostly a "message trial." Scary stuff.

The side that disapproves the whole deal calls it a violation of uhh... certain expectations. "Freedom of Speech", from what I'm gathering, tends to be a term used more in the 'states than in most places. Instead, the buzzword is mostly "censorship." I guess there's a difference, however subtle.

The other side is well, treating holocaust denial rather similarily to how the US deals with libel and slander. Censorship is one thing, outright lying (which this guy has been proven to do) in an attempt to attack someone in a public manner is another.

Anyways, one side thinks that "freedom of speech" doesn't have that much to do with it. The courts probably couldn't do anything if they simply disagreed with the man. The law was created under the intention to do more than just keep unpopular opinions out of play, and right now it's being used as either a method of censorship or as a fair preventative measure against possible racially-motivated crimes.

Sure, you are free to say what you want, but if I get my house trashed and my ass beaten after you published an article falsely accusing me of being a neo-nazi child molestor who targets disabled children, well, the courts will try to safegaurd against that. Holocaust denial's somewhat a variation of that idea. Inferencing on what I've read (admittantly, it's mostly Wikipedia articles), this guy, at one point or another, wouldn't be surprised if his books caused hate crimes.

[BobCobb]

While I agree to some extent what you are saying I do not believe you have the right to stir up hate and insite violence against anybody. This guy is an attention whore and nothing more. Saying you hate someone is one thing (hell, I do that everyday) but writting books and giving speeches about how the jews are trying to take over the world and that nazi's are somehow innocent of atrocities is another.

Everyone has the right to voice an opinion but when you try to get a group of people to hate and act violently towards another group you've gone too far.

Freedom of speech is a huge responsibility and unfortunately there are people who don't know how to act responsibly.

I would say he has gotten more attention by being jailed. You don't jail people that try and stir up hate, you ignore them. When someone says something you don't like, you ignore it. There are no other alternatives, regardless of the magnitude of the "hate speech".

When they write books, don't buy them. When they have speeches, don't go. It is as simple as that.

[Sirius]

I would say he has gotten more attention by being jailed. You don't jail people that try and stir up hate, you ignore them. When someone says something you don't like, you ignore it. There are no other alternatives, regardless of the magnitude of the "hate speech".

When they write books, don't buy them. When they have speeches, don't go. It is as simple as that.

The problem with that is there are too many people that let sh*t-as*ses like this influence them. That is why I said that freedom of speech is a huge responsibility. ;)

[BobCobb]

Yes. And the way to stop idiots from influencing people is by giving those that might be influenced a good education. Almost all educated people don't subscribe to this kind of thought. The money spent on jail time could be put to better use, like educating the next generation against this kind of thought.

[Sirius]

But, herein lies the rub:
This guy is well edjucated. So in theory you'd be correct but alas I know too many edjucated idiots :)

[Bean316]

So if someone who says stuff you agree with, and they get locked up, they're being oppressed. But if someone says stuff you disagree with, and they get locked up, they're being a punk.

Let freedom f*cking ring.

(He was banned from countries for his opinions on the Holocaust, btw, so whether he was arrested for speechcrime or returning to somewhere where he was banned is utterly irrelevant).

No, he wasn't just banned for these opinions. He was banned because he was being a pain in the ass, and suing everyone who said he was wrong. He lost those cases and got embarassed, and those governments didn't feel like wasting money on him to process trials. And that still doesn't excuse the fact that he was banned, and STILL decided to get into the country. You don't think he remembered he was banned? He got completely humiliated and debunked in a trial. C'mon...this is not about free speech in the least. He provoked them, they responded.

That being said, BobCobb brought up a good point that jailing him may make him look better than he actually is. But even if they didn't jail him on that count, they'd have jailed him on something, at least for trying to enter the country illegally.

[DesolationUSA]

Thoughtcrime? :o

going on with that theory. Then technically everytime you look at a married woman and imagine doing *cough* 'certain' things with her. You commiting adultry, so how many times would you be in prison, or how many times have you thought about stealing something? Just because he was unlucky enough to get his bull**** ramble cought on an interview doesnt mean he should go to jail for it.

[totalloser]

I suggest you inform yourself lest people think Homer Simpson was smarter than you.
did you read the rest of my post?, it's pretty clear to everyone that he is trying to say that tere was no holocaust because there were no gas chambers in that place he mentioned. what I was trying to say is that the evidence agaisnt him is enough to ignore him, plsu coupled with the other acts against jews in concentration camps and test labs cannot be denied by simply saying "there were no gas chambers in this place".

[Whiskey&Jack]

There is no middle ground to freedom of speech, you either have it or you don't and Austria doesn't. If you don't like what someone has to say, then you don't have to listen or read it.

[Airmoran]

The US has laws against libel and slander. That is, you are not "free" to say certain things without fear of prosecution.

Based on your "you are either for us or against us" stance on uhh... freedom of speech, I'd say the US has been compromised.

Sure, you don't have to listen or read it, but it won't stop others from doing so. Take my hypothetical situation: say my house was vandalized and I myself left with half my bones broken after someone published an article falsely accusing me of a child molestor who eats the eyeballs of disabled children. Sure, "they" should be allowed to say and write whatever they want, but they've also just used the same freedom to beat my ass up, albeit rather indirectly.

In this hypothetical situation, they know it's a lie and they know that I'd, more likely than not, get beaten up as a result, but they did it anyways. It turns out the whole "freedom of speech" thing isn't a flawless ideal.

The idea is, the issue of the "free speech" is not so cut and dry. There's gonna have to be a middle ground if, to indulge in a bit of jingoism here, the government decides that the written word should not cause fear. That applies to both the writers and the innocent bystanders.

[Sam_The_Man]

Unless I'm missing something, while he may have been a racist Irving never told anyone to go out and kill Jews. So the "you can't shout fire in a crowded building omg" argument also seems to hold no water. The people accusing him of inciting people seem to be rather confused - why would someone who approved of killing Jews try to make the Nazis look better by saying they didn't do it?

[Airmoran]

It attempts to "disarm" and possibly muddle Jewish communities (theoretically leaving them vulnerable to "attack") and basically trivializes one of the largest bloodsheds every committed.

Needless to say, the whole "holocaust" thing is pretty bad publicity for those that aren't exactly dating Jews. They aren't saying that Nazis didn't hate Jews, they just want to cover up this bad press the Nazis got over the whole incident.

Imagine if this transfered over to the KKK, and someone claimed that the KKK never killed a black dude. If that's true, well then, guess that goes a huge chunk of arguments people had against the KKK. It's also trivializing the deaths of many innocent people by, well, denying it ever happened. Bad mojo all around. Basically, it supports the KKK by somewhat trying to "cover," or at least muddle, their actions. Then it also incites hate from those who disagree, quite possibly giving the KKK material to work with. Hate, with more hate, and you've got problems.

It's also similar to why many Chinese are pissed at Japan for "denying" the various WW2-era experiments on Chinese POWs, etc. It's a great way of pissing people off, and maybe even convince a couple bystanders that it's all just innocent theorizing and nothing more. You don't have to explicitly say "kill all black people" to, well, say it.

...at least that's the idea. Needless to say, there's a huge group of people who believe that holocaust/whatever denial is mostly just annoys people and doesn't lead any any statistical change in hate crimes. Personally, it doesn't have to be a bonified hate crime (isn't a crime just a crime to begin with?) before you start running into social problems and general degregation.