Holocaust denier jailed

[bigburpco]

I voted no, although I think that he's an idiot. 'Wee, the Holocaust didn't happen!' It is just stupid the deny the existence of the Holocaust. I mean like, 'Whatever happened to Anne Frank then?' Stupid.

 

[Yuri]

You know, there are some Holocaust denyers on this forum.

Yet they could not be banned for that simple fact.


Which may or may not say something.

 

[Direwolf]

I think it mostly says that the people who run this site have realized that people on the internet will say any stupid thing.

 

[Laivasse]

You know, there are some Holocaust denyers on this forum.

Yet they could not be banned for that simple fact.


Which may or may not say something.

Um, I don't think it was that they couldn't be banned. After all this is a privately owned forum and Munro could choose to go off and ban everyone apart from himself if he wanted to, just on a whim.

That said, I think the mods did the wise thing. Let a person's idiocy speak for itself. I think the same principle should apply to this guy, too. So he denied the Holocaust, so what? The facts are there - rebut what he's said. Show him up as a bullshitter. 3 years in prison for mere words (not even really incitement, either) is massive overkill, and it does no harm to those bigots pumping out rubbish about a big Zionist conspiracy. Some dangerous people who've done serious physical crimes get less than that. A crap and unjust law IMO.

 

[15357]

I have read some of the posts here and I would like to say that the 'freedom of speech' is not a naturally given right. It is a previleage of sorts that is given to the citizen in accordance with the regional government and laws. There is no 'naturally given riught', however nice it may sound. Of course, the arrest and sentence was stupid. But if it complied with the laws of that nation, it's not really a problem (unless you go and throw molotov cocktails and beat up police with iron sticks).

It seems, btw, that stupidity is a crime there.

----------Cpt.Stern, and some other posters please ignore above as you may think it incredible(y [something]) :E---------

[/end of 'fascist' post of the day]

 

[Icarusintel]

I have read some of the posts here and I would like to say that the 'freedom of speech' is not a naturally given right. It is a previleage of sorts that is given to the citizen in accordance with the regional government and laws. There is no 'naturally given riught', however nice it may sound. Of course, the arrest and sentence was stupid. But if it complied with the laws of that nation, it's not really a problem (unless you go and throw molotov cocktails and beat up police with iron sticks).

It seems, btw, that stupidity is a crime there.

----------Cpt.Stern, and some other posters please ignore above as you may think it incredible(y [something]) :E---------

[/end of 'fascist' post of the day]

This post is hardly fascist. It's just the plain truth, which many people can;t seem to grasp. Good post, I agree with it in full.

 

[15357]

This post is hardly fascist. It's just the plain truth, which many people can;t seem to grasp. Good post, I agree with it in full.

Finally, somebody who agrees with my views. :cheers:

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I have to agree, you're probably right. If there's a law in a country stating you can't say something, then you're incredibly stupid saying it in that country.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Solaris]

I don't like it one bit.

Someone can go to jail for disputing history? Now thats not right. However what he's saying is pretty dangerous stuff. Couldn't they just have a law where if you say something about history that is blatently unsubstanciated and could incite violence and can be proven wrong in court. Then you go to jail.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I think you should be incarcerated for inciting violence.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hahaha, that's a good point.

EDIT: Hang on a moment!

HIT HIM FFS!
If your problem isn't being solved by violence, you're not using enough violence, or you're using it in the wrong way. FACT.

Incitement to violence! D:

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I believe David Irving has a right to express his viewpoints. Does'nt everyone?

 

[Yuri]

I have read some of the posts here and I would like to say that the 'freedom of speech' is not a naturally given right. It is a previleage of sorts that is given to the citizen in accordance with the regional government and laws. There is no 'naturally given riught', however nice it may sound. Of course, the arrest and sentence was stupid. But if it complied with the laws of that nation, it's not really a problem (unless you go and throw molotov cocktails and beat up police with iron sticks).

It seems, btw, that stupidity is a crime there.

----------Cpt.Stern, and some other posters please ignore above as you may think it incredible(y [something]) :E---------

[/end of 'fascist' post of the day]

Well, have fun living thinking that you don't deserve the right to free speech unless your country gives it to you. I mean, it sure is cool when governments oppress their citizens under the guise of keeping order. :|

This case can only be disputed because he is inciting violence and is, most likely, a neo-Nazi who may be punished for other crimes which are not naturally given rights.

 

[john121]

i voted no, he DID say he learned alot since his remarks and that he would not say that now. That's like jailing an adult for a crime he did as a kid... "you stole a shirt from that store in 1978, so we're putting you in jail".... "but it's 2006!"... "you still stole it..."

 

[jondy]

I have to agree, you're probably right. If there's a law in a country stating you can't say something, then you're incredibly stupid saying it in that country.

But you're chasing your tail with that line of debate, we're not talking about whether Austria are justified in arresting him- they clearly are, because he was breaking the law.

It's the validity of the law which is being debated

Well, have fun living thinking that you don't deserve the right to free speech unless your country gives it to you.

QFT :|

 

[Angry Lawyer]

What you declare as "natural rights" are simply illusions our humanity has given us.

Like our right to life. It's not a right, it's a privilige, and the universe can go "BAM! TREE ON YOU! DEAD!" and take your privilige away.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Ome_Vince]

Considering those countries had governments that were responsible for over 50 million deaths, and alot of that generation is still alive i agree with the law, but disagree with the imprisonment.
Simply because that would prove Iran right, and he serves as a martyr (if he likes it or not) for neo-nazi's.
Shutting him up can only be done be dragging his ass onto public TV, setting up a few REAL historians who will bury him with evidence.
Then kick his butt out of the country and send him to Iran where he can have tea with the president there and talk about how the jews invented the holocaust

 

[Yuri]

What you declare as "natural rights" are simply illusions our humanity has given us.

Like our right to life. It's not a right, it's a privilige, and the universe can go "BAM! TREE ON YOU! DEAD!" and take your privilige away.

-Angry Lawyer

Obviously. But that's nature over humanity. Not humanity over humanity. It's in my own opinion, which was obviously formed by my environment, past, and surroundings, that everyone should have natural rights. Nobody can really tell me that I'm wrong about that, either.

You can use that defense about anything. Murder, rape, genocide... these things are only considered punishable by our humanity. Why is it okay to judge those things but not the right of freedom of speech?

 

[Icarusintel]

Obviously. But that's nature over humanity. Not humanity over humanity. It's in my own opinion, which was obviously formed by my environment, past, and surroundings, that everyone should have natural rights. Nobody can really tell me that I'm wrong about that, either.

You can use that defense about anything. Murder, rape, genocide... these things are only considered punishable by our humanity. Why is it okay to judge those things but not the right of freedom of speech?

Have fun trying to claim natural rights in a court of law... they'll love that one :hmph:

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Could someone point out where I said that freedom of speech should be limited? Because I missed that bit.

I said it was right for him to go to jail (because he broke a law), and I agreed that Numbers' post wasn't fascist. I've not stated my opinion on what is right.

And you know what my opinion is?

"Eggs"

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Yuri]

Could someone point out where I said that freedom of speech should be limited? Because I missed that bit.

I said it was right for him to go to jail (because he broke a law), and I agreed that Numbers' post wasn't fascist. I've not stated my opinion on what is right.

And you know what my opinion is?

"Eggs"

-Angry Lawyer

Uhh.

What you declare as "natural rights" are simply illusions our humanity has given us.

I was simply stating my opinion on that statement, and number's statement.

I also would like to point out that I share this opinion. I didn't think I would have to, but I guess I do...

But you're chasing your tail with that line of debate, we're not talking about whether Austria are justified in arresting him- they clearly are, because he was breaking the law.

It's the validity of the law which is being debated

Obviously, he should go to jail. But the law itself is what I disagree with. It would not be that hard to follow him around and wait for him to reveal something else that he did which is rightfully illegal.

 

[jondy]

Obviously, he should go to jail. But the law itself is what I disagree with.

Yes, yes, and I agree.

Irving was discredited a long time ago... his having freedom of speech allowed people to rightfully conclude that he was indeed a waste of everyone's time.

EDIT: So long as we have checks regarding incitement of hatred, I don't see why freedom of speech shouldn't exist. It seems to me to be a self regulating system in that stupidity will be judged as such by the people and thus there's no need to filter it out

 

[Direwolf]

You'd think that....and then people go and put men like Hitler in power. (I shy away from 'Hitler' arguments, but its applicable here if its applicable anywhere.)

 

[Yuri]

True, but that would be giving into paranoia. Which is never really good.

I would be more for legislation that allows the government to have reason to search you if you release Holocaust denying bullshit. You shouldn't be jailed for being a moron, but you should be jailed for being a neo-Nazi psycho... which can be assumed if you release such utter crap.

 

[Ome_Vince]

There should be some sort of law or organisation "protecting whats true".
Sounds corny, but i mean usually these schmuckfaces dont even care if they are proven false, they just run around shouting the same thing all over again.
Its a simple personal crusade, and they actually dont care about the real facts.
This is when it gets dangerous for some people will be fueled by this..

Nevertheless, jailing him was stupid.

 

[Icarusintel]

There should be some sort of law or organisation "protecting whats true".
Sounds corny, but i mean usually these schmuckfaces dont even care if they are proven false, they just run around shouting the same thing all over again.
Its a simple personal crusade, and they actually dont care about the real facts.
This is when it gets dangerous for some people will be fueled by this..

Truth is subjective, and most truths will never be known in full. Therefore, an organization to protect such a thing as truth seems pretty pointless.

 

[Ome_Vince]

The fact that millions of jews were gassed i can hardly call subjective dude...

 

[Direwolf]

Yeah, but he's got a point in the fact that much of history is entirely subjective. (The holocaust and other huge events are mostly exempt since they've been studied and analyzed in such detail.)

 

[jondy]

The holocaust and other huge events are mostly exempt since they've been studied and analyzed in such detail

They're exempt because they verifiably happened; saying the holocaust existed is true, because we have the records to prove it.

The ambiguity behind 'truth' comes with the analysis of events rather than the events themselves

 

[ComradeBadger]

In fact, written History owes far more to it's time and the mind of the Historian than most people realise.

"The past is a foreign country"

 

[Ome_Vince]

Yeah, but he's got a point in the fact that much of history is entirely subjective. (The holocaust and other huge events are mostly exempt since they've been studied and analyzed in such detail.)

Ofcourse.. I know "the victorious writes history" and all that stuff.
But there's a difference between "the evil ww2 germans" and "millions were gassed".
Difference: 1 is a "write/wrong" label and the other is an actual fact/number.

Lying about a few deaths is possible, inventing genocide is something else..

 

[jondy]

In fact, written History owes far more to it's time and the mind of the Historian than most people realise.

Post-revisionism, don't remind me D: my history assignment is due in a couple weeks and it's 5000words

 

[XANA]

wow.... i can't believe i'm one of the 9 people who voted that he can't say something like that. look, i don't know of any idiot, that isn't blonde, that could look me straight in the face, and say millions of jews weren't killed during the holocaust. i know all too well about the holocaust. aside from that, his sentence is justifyable. if you break the law, then you should be punished. it doesn't matter whether or not your views have changed or not. and what he did was breaking the law, so obviously, he should be punished. and i'm not saying this because my name is that of the antagonist of my fav show, i'm saying it because it's what i think about the situation.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

wow.... i can't believe i'm one of the 9 people who voted that he can't say something like that. look, i don't know of any idiot, that isn't blonde, that could look me straight in the face, and say millions of jews weren't killed during the holocaust. i know all too well about the holocaust. aside from that, his sentence is justifyable. if you break the law, then you should be punished. it doesn't matter whether or not your views have changed or not. and what he did was breaking the law, so obviously, he should be punished. and i'm not saying this because my name is that of the antagonist of my fav show, i'm saying it because it's what i think about the situation.

No one is defending what he is saying, at all. In fact it's disgusting. But he should have the right to say it.

 

[Jintor]

Yeah.

Unfortunantly, people have the right to believe what he's saying as well. Freedom of speech must go both ways, though...

 

[Laivasse]

Well, that's the thing, innit. If people want to believe a load of crap that is obviously wrong then they're free to do so. You can't legislate the human race into being an intelligent species. It doesn't even look like you can legislate them into a safe species.