British Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years In Prison (in Austria)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Finally, free speech is (in most places) limited by a number of laws designed to protect individuals from potential damage of the exercise of "free speech" by others. No right, including that to free speech, is ever absolute.

Which is what I've been saying. Freedom of speech must be used with a degree of personal responsibility. If you absolve all responsibility so you can say what you like (regardless of the consequences) its not really 'free' any more.

As I said before if a person were to shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre and people died in the resulting panic, the instigator would likely be charged with reckless endangerment. In other words, a persons right to shout 'fire' is not sanctioned by their freedom of speech without the exercise of responsibility.

It follows that Jyllands-posten is not free to publish what they please, they are allowed to. Big difference.

The current charge is that sections of the Western media don't appear to have a problem with offending muslims by reprinting cartoons of the Prophet, but a man who offends Jews by denying the Holocaust is carted off to prison. Muslims may view this as a double standard - one rule for the Jews, another for muslims. Do they have a case?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The current charge is that sections of the Western media don't appear to have a problem with offending muslims by reprinting cartoons of the Prophet, but a man who offends Jews by denying the Holocaust is carted off to prison. Muslims may view this as a double standard - one rule for the Jews, another for muslims. Do they have a case?

No, they don't. As I said earlier:

Familiarize yourself with both the roots and the effects that Holocaust denial in Europe has. Make no mistake as to who these people are - they're neo-nazis that go around torching homeless shelters, shelters that house asylum seekers, throw Africans off trains and make it their sport to brutalize anyone looking foreign. Quite obviously, no sane person would ever deny that the Holocaust took place. The evidence is overwhelming. Gotta ask yourself: Does Europe have a right to protect itself from the historically insane?

[mikeize 0]

People should be criminally liable for ACTIONS. Things like writing a book about how great (shudder) hitler (or obl) was/is, criticizing/poking fun at a religion, etc... I don't think any of that should be against the law. Yelling fire in a crowd, or standing in front of a crowd, pointing to someone and saying "hurt/kill them!"... those are different issues.

I hate nazi scumbags too, and granted I am not European, but I don't think they should be outlawed per se. Things like assault, battery, vandalism, endangerment, etc... THOSE are what you are prosecuted for. NOT for your fashion sense, taste in music, political opinions, religious affiliation, or just plain being a stupid @sshole.

Now, I consider myself to be fairly principled, but I also like my principles to be born of some ultimate pragmatism. In this case I truly believe that censoring ideas and speech will tend towards the opposite effect of what was intended.

Most people in Europe are NOT nazis, and have the responsibility to see that public education does a sufficient job of NOT turning out ignorant "chopfucks" like the above 'professor'.

-mike

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A footnote to that last post.

I don't think anyone can reasonably advocate the right for anyone to say what they like without consequence though? If David Irving wants to deny the Holocaust (because he hadn't seen any Nazi-originating evidence supporting it at the time (he seemed to discount personal testamony of survivors of the death camps)) then he can, but if he breaks the law in so doing, then he must accept the consequences.

I think it's important to distinguish between 'the right of free speech' and 'the right to offend'. I'm not opposed to the latter (I don't think people can - or should - claim a 'right not to be offended') - I'm sure that supporters of Aparthied in South Africa were offended by people who called for its abolition, just as supporters of segregation in the US may have been offended by the Civil Rights movement. Some times it is necessary to give offense because the cause you are fighting for (ie female emancipation in the UK in 1918) is 'just'. Sometimes it is necessary to cause offence in order to 'shake up' preconceived ideas. But the giving of offence should not be gratuitous imo since this results in undermining the very thing you may be trying to achieve.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Fishdude