Holocasut Trial in Austria

[Kou123]

Hey I just wanted to see people's Take on this story.

Irving Found Guilty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm)

Personally i find it deeply disturbing to jail someone for there thoughts no matter how misguided they may be.

[OliveButtercup]

I agree that the guy shouldn't have to be punished either, but maybe he should have thought twice before opening his mouth. After all, it's against the law in Austria to say what he said. It's not like the U.S. where he could voice his daft theories and people would justifiably dismiss him as a joke.

[shimanotaka]

A country without freedom of speach is not a free country.

His life has already been devastated by his nutty beliefs. He has suffered enough and should be set free.

[Ineluki]

A country without freedom of speach is not a free country.

His life has already been devastated by his nutty beliefs. He has suffered enough and should be set free.

What do you think? How long can an arabic looking person stand in front of the White House and scream "We will kill you GWB!"? It`s always a question about which topic you talk and in which situation you are...

[shimanotaka]

What do you think? How long can an arabic looking person stand in front of the White House and scream "We will kill you GWB!"? It`s always a question about which topic you talk and in which situation you are...

Yeah, but Irving didn't threaten anyone. He stood trial for declaring his belief, 17 years ago, about a historical event. And he was sentenced to three years in jail for that. In my opinion, I would commit a bigger crime by saying that my belief is that God does not exist.

[Ineluki]

Yeah, but Irving didn't threaten anyone. He stood trial for declaring his belief, 17 years ago, about a historical event. And he was sentenced to three years in jail for that. In my opinion, I would commit a bigger crime by saying that my belief is that God does not exist.

Yes, he did not threaten anyone. But this is a special topic in many countries in Europe...i don`t think you can understand this and your analogy proves me that. God does not exist? I have no problem with this statement...you can`t prove it anyway. And you can`t prove he exists...so it`s just opinion based on your beliefs. It may hurt someones feelings...but they can`t prove you are wrong with that. So it`s just not nice, but nothing criminal.

On the other hand, saying that ~6 million people weren`t killed by a machinery, which was just build for this reason...that`s ugly. Escpecially when you try to convince other people that this never existed and you do this over years with scientific methods...i think this punishment is hard, but in a way it`s justified from my point of view.

[sgt. pepper]

What do you think? How long can an arabic looking person stand in front of the White House and scream "We will kill you GWB!"? It`s always a question about which topic you talk and in which situation you are...

USA isn't really the best example of free countries. It seems pretty restricted to me.

[shimanotaka]

Yes, he did not threaten anyone. But this is a special topic in many countries in Europe...i don`t think you can understand this and your analogy proves me that. God does not exist? I have no problem with this statement...you can`t prove it anyway. And you can`t prove he exists...so it`s just opinion based on your beliefs. It may hurt someones feelings...but they can`t prove you are wrong with that. So it`s just not nice, but nothing criminal.

On the other hand, saying that ~6 million people weren`t killed by a machinery, which was just build for this reason...that`s ugly. Escpecially when you try to convince other people that this never existed and you do this over years with scientific methods...i think this punishment is hard, but in a way it`s justified from my point of view.

Well, a lot of people thinks that there is proof that God exists and a lot of people think there is proof that he doesn't exist, just as Irving thought that there was proof that the holocaust didn't exist. It is very hard to change what a person is convinced of, and I think it's very questionable if it is justified for throwing sombody in jail for expressing their opinion as long as they are not threatening someone or agitating against someone.

Ben Macintyre said it well at the Times Online:
Irving’s opinions are indefensible; his right to hold them, however, must be defended. For reasons of both principle and expediency, he should go free. Freedom of speech includes the right to be hopelessly, demonstrably and repeatedly wrong. It is not to be applied selectively, depending on the nature of the speech in question, but universally and consistently. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is unequivocal: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1068-2000977,00.html

[Dead Sexy Vocab]

Why not show him the documentary papers of the chief organiser of the Holocaust instead, just to show him IN THE FIRST PLACE, instead of throwing him in jail?

Gee, I guess freedom of speech isn't such of a good thing.

"POWER TO THE PUSSY!"

[shimanotaka]

Why not show him the documentary papers of the chief organiser of the Holocaust instead, just to show him IN THE FIRST PLACE, instead of throwing him in jail?

Gee, I guess freedom of speech isn't such of a good thing.

"POWER TO THE PUSSY!"

1989 he made the statement. 1991 he saw these documents, and he said in court that he had changed his opinion after seeing them. It didn't help. He still got three years even though he admitted that he had been wrong and that he did believe that the holocaust had happened.

[Dead Sexy Vocab]

I read that already, but I was saying that instead of convicting him an anti-semitic and cuffing him first thing when he did the statement, why not just show him the documents in the first place?

But yeah, thanks for that insight.

[shimanotaka]

I read that already, but I was saying that instead of convicting him an anti-semitic and cuffing him first thing when he did the statement, why not just show him the documents in the first place?

But yeah, thanks for that insight.
They didn't convict him first thing when he made the statement. They did it 17 years later, long time after he had seen the documents and changed his mind.

How many people remember and stand by what they said 17 years ago anyway? I was probably saying stuff like "Transformers and G.I. Joe rule!" and "Girls suck!". The first statement is still true (except for that sucky Transformers series with crappy CGI) but I've definitely changed my mind about the second one...

[Dead Sexy Vocab]

.... Well that was stupid of them.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[Kusoyaro]

As I have stated many time before, the internet is not at all the best medium in which to conduct intellectual discussions, primarily due to the fact that very few peple actually give a shit, and when the do go online, hard debating is the last thing on their minds. And the ones that do want to debate are sadly hindered by the literal mindfucks that spew bullshit and love arguing. When I debate (as in when me and my mates get together and climb on top of our old hs at 2 am and they smoke pot, snort crack, drink [whatever their preference], and we talk about shit [most of us are philosophy majors, and the ones that aren't still know their shit]) I have a stupid shiteater grin (as do they). Not because of the pot though. Because debating is cool.

So when I read about stuff like this, I get very sad. People like simplifiying things, but not in the way they should be.

The Freedom of Speech is one of the most important things a human can hold. We all take it for granted, and people probably always will. I've seen places (been to and lived in) where the people aren't allowed to voice their concerns or beliefs, or else they will get killed. My uncle (mom's younger bro) was jailed for over 10 years in India (if any of you know about post-Operation Blue-Star, that's what it was about), and he was tortured (his right arm is useless, his back is carved, etc), so I got a first-hand look at the lack of such fundamental human rights.

Now, that being said, I think that David Irving is no martyr to the altar of censorship. He took his right to speak his mind freely and perverted it into the right to speak freely. When intellectual censorship makes its appearance, I'll be the man that stands between the tanks of that Orwellian utilitarianism and true progress, but this is not what is happening. This is something quite different.

As a member of society (Plato alert), we, upon being born, sign an unwritten contract with it that we will agree to its tenets and laws. We do not kill, hurt of abuse without warrant, and those that do are punished. While justice has indeed stagnated to the point where it often becomes sympathetic to the criminal, that concept still exists. Where do such laws come from, one may wonder? Early on, the laws were passed from dieties so that their words would be followed, so that the common man would obey them without question (and those that didn't, again, were dealt with). Now, we have governments, dictators and monarchs. The core rules have always been similar, though. They come from humanity and its most valued beliefs. They are things which we know to be inherently true (for reasons both biological and psychological). I'm running away from my point, let me bring it back.

Because of the laws of socety (the laws of man, if you will), which we all abide and know as intrinsically true (for example, killing a person may be justified, but never morally correct), people do not randomly kill, main and steal. While people do occasionally break the law, they are usually minor transgressions and far between (minor transgressions don't matter simply because we know them to be minor, and since we create the law using our own moral code, bla bla bla).
The Freedom of Speech follows this principle in one important way: when a man steals from, maims or kills another man 15 years ago, he is still guilty of the offences today. You're probably thinking "but saying what you believe and that shit are totoally different things, moron," to which I say, damn right.
BUT! WE all know the Holocaust happened. We all know that denying it happened is wrong because that is like pissing on 6 million graves. If I proclaimed that 9/11 never happened, what would be your first reaction? Punch me the mouth, is what. And you'd be right. Human reaction is usually tied to morality and ethics. Anyway, according to society, it's wrong, since the rules and laws are made by society.

Simply because a person holds an opinion or belief never entitles them to skip the consequences. If someone believe that killing people is fun, they'd better be prepared to face a shrink. If they believe that it is ok to have sex with children, then prepare for the police.

Basically, don't hide behind the right to free speech, it completely destroys the value of the effort that other people are making for real causes.

Just what I think. :box:

[shimanotaka]

If I proclaimed that 9/11 never happened, what would be your first reaction? Punch me the mouth, is what.

No, my first reaction would be to make a mental note that you are a nut case and shouldn't be listened to. Would any american actually think that you should go to prison for saying something like that?

Simply because a person holds an opinion or belief never entitles them to skip the consequences. If someone believe that killing people is fun, they'd better be prepared to face a shrink. If they believe that it is ok to have sex with children, then prepare for the police.

There is nothing illegal about thinking that killing is fun or believing that it's OK to have sex with children. It's not even illegal to state it openly. It doesn't become illegal until you actually commit those actions, or in some cases plan them.

[Kusoyaro]

OH shit, you're right. Damnit. Shit, my argument is going to seem stupid since I overlooked something so obvious. Thanks for pointing it out.
On that note, I would like to add that I personally control what I think. I believe that if I wouldn't do something in real life, I will not think it. Incorrect thought is as incorrect action; abstain from incorrectness and obtain perfection. The words of the ancients aren't just shit they made up.
Then comes the wave of idiots who ask "who judges what is bad and not?"
Jeez, I hate people, they are too stupid for me.
Which is why I don't usually reespond to such topics.
Online is hardly the best medium in which to teach.

[Destiny]

This reminds me of an argument I had with one of my professors on the concept of common good infringing on human rights. Many people cant seem to grasp that the freedom of speech or any freedom in that matter does include responsibility for the aftereffects of the action or proclamation. Maybe it is about time we started talking about human rights and responsibilities in one phrase and as one political concept.

[Kou123]

Just as an addition to this here's another example of freedom of speech being criticized although not thrown in jail.

Clarkson in Trouble (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=371720&in_page_id=1773)

[phagan]

Yes, by all means, let us also throw the book at anyone who might be audacious enough to believe in UFO's, magic, the Easter Bunny and so forth.

The very notion of punishing someone for his beliefs, is so wrong in so many ways it's positively scary.