Repugnant Holocaust denier David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison today in an Austrian court for publishing his views that the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy.
And here I thought that Europe was a golden land of free speech! Where you can say anything you want, no matter how completely offensive it is! I look forward to the inevitable firestorm of protest this decision will set off.
Disclaimer: I do not support violent reactions to exercise of free speech, in any form. I do not support Holocaust denial. (Hello, am a Jew!) I support free speech, and I support not being hypocritical fuckwits.
That was the impression I picked up from certain posts on the SDMB (see gum’s sig file) and the repeated printing of offensive cartoons in various newspapers “just because we can”.
Apologies if my impression was not accurate, and of course it’s not as though everyone agrees on everything, any of the time.
I was about to start this thread, but couldn’t decide whether to put in in GD or here and was ultimately too lazy. I completely agree with everything you say, Kyla; about the best spin I can put on it is that hopefully it’ll spark enough of a debate to trigger a revamp of the laws, but I’m really reaching there. The idea that someone has been put in prison for three years for simply advocating a point of view makes me feel physically queasy. This is not to mention the marvellous timing of the conviction, too. Rather weakens the case of those (rightly) arguing that the Mohammed cartoons are a valid exercise of free speech.
It makes it really difficult, frankly - it’s only a few weeks since repulsive bigots Nick Griffin and Mark Collett of the UK’s BNP were cleared of breaking race hate laws. Marvellous - we compromise ourselves by placing free speech in the dock in the first place, and then when they are acquitted, they gain not only the frisson of persecution, but the stamp of approval of having fought the system and won! These people should be initially debated, then ignored; not placed in the limelight where they can act the martyr and further their own dismal views.
Not sure if you’re being ironic, but what ever gave you that idea?
Many European countries have quite heavy restrictions on freedom of speech compared to the United States, and quite heavy penalties for saying the wrong thing. And this tendency is exacerbated considerably when it comes to holocaust denial or questioning the holocaust.
The decision to jail Irving is, in my opinion, the product of a bad law. Personally, i think holocaust deniers are morons at best, evil people at worst, but their opinions should be tried in the open court of free exchange of ideas, and not summarily penalised by the legal system.
Laws against holocaust denial in Germany, Austria etc. are not only irresponsible curbs on freedom of speech, but they do us a historical disservice by continuing to place the holocaust outside of history, by treating it as sui generis, something completely unique and its own separate category. Personally, awful as it was, i think the holocaust needs to be uinderstood as something that is part of history, that is a particularly blatant and outsized example of the sort of barbarities of which humans are capable.
I guess Germany and Austria have good historical reasons to prohibit Nazi propaganda. But I think it’s completely harebrained stupid. And what’s worse is that they just last year tried to pull it down the whole EU. Nazism = Stupidity. And the best way to combat stupidity is by open debate and information.
btw. holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda is quite legal in Denmark.
It is kind of awful, and one of the reasons America exists. Remember, one of the big differences between Europe and the US is that there, the people, essentially, are, what’s the word, subjects, generally. And here, they’re citizens. The government is not our master, we, at least theoretically, master it.
That said, lots of people like it that way.
By and large, the principle of free speech is respected in Western European countries. (The libel action involving Irving in this country was a case in point; essentially, it concluded that Irving was perfectly free to state his “theories”, and other people - well, Deborah Lipstadt specifically - were equally free to say they were malicious nonsense.)
Unfortunately, the Holocaust and related matters are a very sore point in formerly Nazi countries like Austria (and others which were very badly affected by Nazism, or by the war in general), and anti-Nazi legislation has sprung up accordingly … A lot of these countries have very active extreme-right underground movements (as Dead Badger points out, we’re not by any means free of them in Britain), and some of these laws are specifically tailored to prevent the spreading of neo-Nazi propaganda by these movements. Hence, in Austria and quite a few other countries of continental Europe, Holocaust denial is not just wrong and evil, but actively illegal.
I have to say, I don’t think it should be … the principle of free speech is important, and so long as people are willing to call Irving the lying anti-Semitic git that he unquestionably is, one has to grit one’s teeth and allow that he’s entitled to state his opinion, however dishonest … So, although I can certainly see the Austrians’ point of view here, their law on Holocaust denial, at the end of the day, shouldn’t be on the books.
I wonder if Irving has a legitimate case here to bring before the European Court of Human Rights, or whatever it’s called? Free speech is something they’re supposed to support …
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
Switzerland
Does not equal Europe. Other than that I agree with the OP. Holocaust denial is ignorant and almost certainly based in racist thinking. It should not be illegal however. Deniers should be laughed at not arrested.
Not that it’s necessarily a double standard to only publish cartoons of one religion, but the newspaper have published cartoons making fun of christians icons: Mary and Joseph
On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those.
I don’t know. I think maybe 200 years ago that might have been true, but I think most Europeans would consider themselves citizens of their countries, and not necessarily subjects of the figureheads (that some nations) retain.
I’m not a right-wing isolationist American Europhobe. Farthest thing from it, really. I do, however, find laws limiting free speech distateful and think it is ironic that this case has come up when the big story in the news lately has had to do with Europeans clamoring about freedom of speech. It’s interesting to see two ideals butt up against each other like this. As a First Amendment fan, I’d love to see hate speech decriminalized in Europe, but I hope at the least some kind of useful dialogue comes out of the situation.
I think that’s a total oversimplification. Most Europeans i know consider themselves citizens in very much the same way that Americans do, even in cases where they believe in greater government intervention in the economy and in social policy.
This is not an either/or position; it is possible to believe that citizens master the government and yet also believe that the government can, with the consent of its citizens, take an active role in governing.
