At least they didn't behead the guy. 

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

Oh, I don't know. Everything has its limits, including free speech, and it's arguable that in Germany and Austria, which were responsible for the Holocaust, the state's rather noble interest in guaranteeing that its citizens retain an accurate view of the history of those states' single most despicable moment supercedes the abstract general interest in freedom of speech. Because the temptation in any country to whitewash the worst episodes from one's past is overwhelming. I'm not sure that a comparison of Germans' views on the Holocaust with Americans' views on slavery would necessarily reflect well on our total-free-speech approach.

Anyway, crying about poor David Irving seems rather like Australians weeping over those Aussi drug runners who periodically get death sentences  in Indonesia. It's not like he didn't know it was illegal. They practically post a sign in the airport.

Matt 

 Many countries in Europe including in Austria and Germany make it a crime to deny the Holocaust.  I am sure Irving's books are available even now with no one suggesting he or his publishers be shot.

 
I am not sure I believe freespeech has its limits.  I will point out that the Irving is stating as fact what is untrue.  The Danish cartoons were expressing opinions.  There is a difference.  However, just as I thought the Nazi's shoud be able to march in Skokie, Ill and I would not suppress the right of expression of the KKK and the other hate groups I am not at all sure Irving should be going to jail for what he wrote or what he thinks.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Eh, I'm not a German, but I am in Germany and I deal with this stuff a lot in my line of work.  As you're no doubt aware, the debate isn't so clear-cut.  In fact, I think it admits of almost no solution because it's part of a very slippery slope.  The NPD and less formal Nazi groups are still walking around doing their deplorable thing in Germany without consequence, merely because they haven't made use of specifically banned language and symbolism.  Yet their language and symbolism, not to mention their ideology and criminal activity, mirror Nazi fascism and do so with conscious intent.  The question in this case is, When does one draw the line on Nazi-related speech bans?  And no good answer has been offered.

I think Matt is as right as a person can be on this, but he even acknowledges not being happy with the resolution.

Would you pls mention, too, that some Nazi groups have been disbanded by our jurisdiction when they went over the top? And I already admitted, it's a compromise, and the question really is "When does one draw the line on Nazi-related speech bans?". Imho our courts have provided good answers.

...there are laws against libel and slander.

True, but ultimately those are really to protect someone's business interests, not as a way to be sensitive to history.

Its not that I don't agree with your points. But if I were to look at American history, I could draw parallels to the KKK, slavery and the massacre of American Indians and note that we have no laws against the denials of such events. The protection of freedom and free speech is bigger than the individual rights of a person to incorrectly identify history. That right extends to all citizens because it is more important than the avoidance of offending people's sensibilities. Including the right to life, the right to freedom caused nations to band together and fight against that Third Reich. Isn't that the most important concept of them all?

I've lived in Germany and now live in America. I think Irving should be in jail for promoting the hateful view that the Holocaust was a fairy tale. This hate speech leads to action against the group. I've seen the counterpart in America. In Texas.


The American counterpart is the way discrimination of blacks is considered a fiction. The claim is considered something to be ignored. The lie that there is no racial discrimination of blacks can be found on local and national U.S. radio. Anyone hear Lars Larsen early this morning or KLBJ Am any morning? This hate speech leads to adverse and sometimes fatal actions against blacks in Texas. It is not unusual for blacks to be denied (state, local and federal) services if they claim discrimination.

Sry for comment spamming, on final point: I challenge you and every other reader who thinks that the right of free speech should have no limits to make a sign with the claim "DON'T CRIMINALIZE OSAMA! HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911!". Carry that in front of the next police station, court house or town hall. I garantee that you will be arrested faster than you can recite the constitution (ok, with ammendments) and I'm not at all convinced that the court would find that your right of free speech isn't restricted by another federal law, like Patriot Act. Pls post the sentence here, I'm curious.

"Hitler broke half the laws on the books during his rise to power. Any reason to believe the future Nazis these laws are aimed at won't?"

Hmm, interesting point, though missing the real issue here. In fact, those german and austrian laws aim at preventing Nazis from getting into a position of power where they would implement an administrattion that could break the laws.

And I don't know if historians really endorse your statement about Hitlers Rise to power. After all, Hitler was authorized by the parliament to implement all measures necessary to win the war against terror (Notstandsgesetze) after the arson of the Reichstag (German Capitol), which was believed to be the work of leftist terrorists. Btw, even today, it is not clear who really set the building on fire. I guess the lawmakers were quite surprised when the anti-terrorist measures included arresting members of parliament and politicians of the opposition and union members. But still, it can be argued that all this was legalized by law. Only after Hitler established his dictatory power, he didn't bother to provide legal arguments for his state based terror anymore...

OK, back to your claim that the Austrian law that's discussed here is "crap". Again, I challenge you to prove that there are no limits for free speech in the US by demonstrating with the sign "DON'T CRIMINALIZE OSAMA! HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911!". Godspeed.

Sry, another point:

"But if I were to look at American history, I could draw parallels to the KKK, slavery and the massacre of American Indians and note that we have no laws against the denials of such events."

Hmm, afaik the main facts of all those examples aren't controversial among serious historians. Would it be so bad to protect those sad facts from being denied by populists? Imho this would rise the awareness of the american people for their historical debts and this surely would be desirable cause, sry, imho there is no common agreement in your nation today that maybe some wrongs of the past have still to be made up for.

I hate it that americans always use their own nation as the sole standard on which others are measured. Just to show that this is a futile approach,  let's compare the german attitude towards history with yours. Germany still supports Israel with billions, because of a common feeling we owe that to the sibblings of the jews we killed in concentration camps. In the US, affirmative action is a huge controversy and the indian tribes still fight at court over the ridiculous  contracts that  were forced on them in the past...

I like the US (great landscape, and about 50% nice people) so I don't want to let this descend into a "holier than thou" competition. Fact is, the main ideals in our countries are the same. We shouldn't fight over the differences. Without differences, the whole world would lack its main engine for progress and improvement.

Even in the US, free speech has its boundaries, there are laws against libel and slander.

Libel  and slander are civil offenses, not criminal ones.  You may have to pay damages, but you don't go to jail.

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

OK, if libel and slander aren't appropriate examples, what about criminal prohibitions against images of child pornography?  Any photograph of a child engaged in intercourse with an adult constitutes an image of rape, since children are by definition incapable of consenting to sex; therefore any such image is criminal.  But since it isn't trivial to distinguish between a genuine photo and one which has been created or modified with imaging software, such prohibition extends to all such images with similar content, even drawings (after all, the drawing could have been based on an actual event, and we cannot take the chance). Das Grauen is correct, there are limits on free speech even in the US, and most of us accept such limits in principle, when we recognize them as such.

It is perhaps an open question why denial of atrocities against Native Americans are less controversial than denials of the Holocaust; some have argued that the controversy would be heightened and the denials would attract more attention and defenders if they were illegal, but I am not so sure. Anyway, it frustrates me that the more common response here to Irving's books are to hold one's nose and argue that he has the right to publish his opinion, as opposed to shouting from the rooftops that he is lying.

"Witness the riots in Fracne that resulted from ultra-loose immigration and citizenship laws bringing in huge numbers of unassimilable immigrants a few decades back."

Maybe this isn't taught in US schools, but Algeria once was part of France. Just like Hawaii still is part of the US. Those Algerians that settled in France before their home country became independent are french citizen. That they and their sibblings are "unassimilable" is imho a prejudice. There's no scientific data supporting this.

Those of the readers who are proficient with the german language may be interested in this interview of german weekly Der Spiegel with historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler on the Irving sentence.

I wasn't aware of the scientific data supporting that all of the rioters were of Algerian descent. Indeed, from photos I've seen, it looks like a large number are from sub-Sahara Africa.

I suspect the number of immigrants (whether rioting or otherwise) that are from Algerian descent and have been in France since before Algerian independence to be rather small.