As we all know only too well, free speech is something of a hot topic in the news at the moment with all of the controversy about the Danish Mohammed cartoons.
I find it interesting that it’s in the midst of this crisis that British historian David Irving is jailed for three years in Austria for Holocaust denial. According to that article, such statements are also illegal in Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland. Out of those, papers in at least France and Germany have reprinted the cartoons in the name of Free Speech since the violence has flared up.
I’m aware, of course, that these newpapers are entirely separate from the governments of their respective countries, but isn’t this the very definition of hypocrisy? How can a society which recognises free speech as a basic human right make it illegal to express a certain point of view about a historical event?
Of course, denial of the Holocaust is ridiculous and stupid but IMHO that’s not a good reason to make something illegal. I’d compare it to proponents of Intelligent Design (not I want to start another debate on that topic). Believers in this particular point of view are either unaware or misunderstanding of the facts of the matter but that calls for information and education, not punishment.
The holocaust denial laws are an ass. Just to underline their absurdity in this case, Irving now believes that millions of Jews died in gas chambers, but his conviction was on the basis of a speech he gave twenty frigging years ago.
It is not at all comparable to ID, ID is based on a religious belief, Holocaust denial is based on a racist viewpoint. If you believe in God you think he is the Creator. Holocaust denial is a denial of what many people SAW with their very own eyes. It is stupidity. I do agree that it shouldn’t be illegal, and that it is rediculous that he is in prison for it.
Hell, I’m a Jew and I think that laws making it illegal to deny the holocaust are crap. Either we believe in our ideals or we don’t.
It’s a tricky issue. Although I’m a supporter (who here isn’t?) of free speech in general, I find it difficult to have any sympathy for Mr Irving, and I must admit that I do see a case for restriction of absolute free speech in some cases.
I must also say that I’m not convinced by the doctrine of “human rights” in general, certainly not as some sort of abstract moral principle that stands above any actual, concrete code of law. Bentham’s phrase “nonsense on stilts” may be a bit harsh, but it does express my view that “rights” are something more-or-less arbitary, granted by a particular government to its citizens in the same way as any other law, rather than something we can determine a priori. Of course, we may agree that there are certain laws that a - “civilized”, for want of a better word - society should enact, and certain forms of behaviour by governments that can be described as immoral, but I don’t think we need a seperate concept of “rights” standing between ethics in general and lawmaking to have meaningful discussions on the subject.
To the specific issue. The two main arguments in favour of holocaust denial being made illegal are:
- It constitutes “incitement to racial hatred” - in particular, anti-Semitism. It may be argued that querying the received opinion about the Holocaust doesn’t necessarily have any racial motive, but this argument is as disingenuous as saying that querying the received opinion of evolution doesn’t necessarily have any religious motive. A Zionist holocaust-denier may be as theoretically possible as an atheist ID proponent, but I doubt if there are any extant examples of either species.
It may also be argued that incitement to racial hatred isn’t an adequate ground to supress free speech - certainly, the ACLU takes this view, along with (I would assume) most of “liberal” America. I personally would disagree with this position, as I don’t accept that there are such a thing as “basic human rights”, and that supression of racially inflammatory material is a reasonable step for a society to take to ensure the peace and safety of its (racial minority) citizens. I’m sure that there are good arguments to be made on the other side, though.
- It constitutes glorification of Hitler and the Third Reich. This seems to me a rather contradictory position, on the face of it; on a naive view, a devotee of Hitler would want to champion the Holocaust rather than deny it - consider the Army Surplus store owner from Falling Down as a fictional, but still credible, example. However, it’s undeniable that, like anti-Semitism, the two are very strongly correlated in real life. I think we can all agree that a new rise of Nazism is something to be actively resisted, especially in these times of increased racial tension. Whether supression of “positive images” of Nazism is an effective or a just step to take towards this end is a matter for debate; I personally feel that the laws of some European countries, notably Germany, do go too far in this direction at the moment, and could have been relaxed some time ago without adverse effect. Whether that could happen now is unfortunately less certain.
While such legislation is in my opinion wrong and counterproductive, a few things need to be clarified.
As I understand it, these laws were set up not to curb bigotry per se, but to target a major underpinning of Fascist ideology. Nations that had suffered vast destruction and tens of millions of deaths wished to take steps to ensure that such ideologies would not arise again. Promotion of ethnic hatred is a major tool of neo-Nazis.
Holocaust denial is not generally due to ignorance or misunderstanding. It’s part of a conscious effort by bigots to erode an enormous stumbling block to their desire to encourage hatred.
There is an element of hypocrisy if someone criticizes Arab reaction to some Danish cartoons but sees nothing wrong with jailing Irving. There’ve been no deaths, assassination bounties, national economic boycotts or mob violence associated with Holocaust deniers that I’m aware of however.
Believing in God is not the same thing as ID. ID is a denial of natural evolution, which, given belief in heredity, seems an inescapable conclusion.
Nevertheless, if you agree holocaust denial shouldn’t be illegal, the point stands - denying people the right to speak about ID would be wrong.
There’s nothing trick about this. Denying the right to free speech involving depictions of Mohammed – fundamentally wrong. Denyng the right to free speech involving holocaust denial – fundamentally wrong. The bullshit I’m hearing from supporters of both brands of censorship is just the usual pro-censorship bullshit in a new guise.
Mainly in reply to Tevildo:
I’d agree that the vast majority of public Holocaust denial is racially motivated. It’s one thing to privately hold distasteful views due to ignorance but if those same views are publicly expressed, the person doing so is bound to be aware of the widely accepted facts. Laws against inciting racial hatred are important but I believe each case should be examined on its own merits. If we have specific laws against denying the Holocaust, should it also be illegal to say that slavery wasn’t so bad? To deny U.S. war crimes in Vietnam? Many people would probably say yes but you just can’t have individual laws for every specific event of this type. In that case, why single out the Holocaust?
I can see why, historically, the laws may have been needed to prevent the resurgence of a virulent evil that had just killed millions and plunged the world into war but that justification has long passed and the laws should be over-turned.
ID is a religious belief, if you don’t believe in a higher power, you don’t believe in ID.
True, but you can believe in a higher power and not believe in ID. They’re not the same thing.
I understand that fascism and the Holocaust was a very bad thing, and the countries where they occurred are rightly concerned with preventing any sort of recurrence of those horrible events. But it is absolutely inexcusable in a democracy to make belief and speech illegal. You can believe the Holocaust didn’t happen, and say so. You can also believe the world is flat, and say so. You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and say so. People will know you by your words, and also know not to take you seriously.
The cure to bad free speech is more speech, not less.
Not according to its supporters…
This is true and an important point.
I too think the time has well past for these laws to be removed. There doesn’t seem to be a major movement in any of the countries in question however. Things may come to a head if Irving appeals this to the European Court of Human Rights but that is still to be seen.
or, as we are hearing with tedious urgency, why not laws against blasphemy?.
It’s a big mistake to go into the speech regulating business, because you might find yourself asked to regulate speech you wanted to speak yourself, as it were…
I don’t see how these laws do any good. If someone’s going to be an anti-semite, they’ll be an anti-semite, laws or no. Holocaust denial literature will flourish in the underground and will become more appealing for being forbidden. (Note to legislatures: there’s a little thing called the “internet” you may want to look into.)
Irving is an ass. I’m not sorry for him. But these laws are pointless and troubling.
Well, I agree that this law stifles free expression but in Irving’s case he was a respected historian who had his own ideas that were contrary to accepted and irrefutable facts. He could influence a lot of people. As a side benefit Irving recently announced to reporters that he had changed some of his views since 1989 and now recognized that gas chambers had indeed existed and that “millions of Jews died, there is no question.” Maybe he’ll do further research and incorporate the findings into a newer edition of his book. 
In recent months, I’ve become more and more convinced of the truth of this statement. That’s the principle side of the issue. I’d like to hear more European Dopers weighing in on the question of whether the time for these laws has passed.
At least in Germany, apparently it hasn’t. The last time the relevant paragraph from the penal code was reviewed by the constitutional court was in 1994 and it was found fully constitutional. Of course the relevant constitutional right differs from its American counterpart.
[quote=Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]
Article 5 [Freedom of expression][ol][li]Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.[/li][li]These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.[/li][li] Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.[/ol][/li][/quote]
The last time the relevant passages were updated and fortified was in 2005. The change was supported by all factions in parliament, both from the governing coalition and the opposition (Social Democrats, Christian Democrats and Greens) except the Libertarians (just below 8% of the seats.)