What Does This Say For Free Speech?

[pomjim 0]

British "historian" David Irving has been jailed for 3 years in Austria, for denying the Jewish holocaust happened.How does this sit with the West's regard for Free Speech? If we want free speech, should that not include saying what we think, even if it is *BLEEP*? Or does free speech mean only if we agree with what is said?

Edited February 22, 2006 by miCRoSCoPiC^eaRthLinG (see edit history)

[Houdini 0]

British âhistorianâ David Irving has been jailed for 3 years in Austria, for denying the Jewish holocaust happened.
How does this sit with the Westâs regard for Free Speech?

If we want free speech, should that not include saying what we think, even if it is *BLEEP*? Or does free speech mean only if we agree with what is said?

That is because in Germany there is a law against that one particular form of speech and is a jailable offense as you will see by this little snippet of news.

The defendant in the case, Frederick Tben, was found guilty of spreading "Auschwitz lies," denying the historical reality of the Holocaust. Tben, who was born in Germany, operates the Holocaust-denying Adelaide Institute in Australia. In publications and on the Web site of the institute, he has claimed the Holocaust is an invention of Jewish propagandists.
Tben was arrested while visiting Germany in 1999, and sentenced to 10 months in prison on the lesser charge of offending the memory of the dead, because of his printed pamphlets. The lower court found, however, that Germany's laws against incitement to racial hatred could not be enforced against foreign Web sites. He returned to Australia after serving part of his sentence.

If Tben or other similar perpetrators set foot on German soil, they can be arrested, said Hans-Gertz Lange, a spokesman for the Verfassungsschutz, the Federal criminal investigative agency that prosecutes such cases. As long as they remain abroad, however, there's not much German authorities can do.

"When they put something on the Internet that's illegal in Germany but legal by U.S. or Australian law, there's relatively little we can do about it, at least in terms of criminal law," Lange said. He added, however, that Tuesday's ruling strengthens authorities' hand in cases where extremists in Germany use servers abroad to post material that can be accessed in Germany.

"The best chance to fight against right-wing material on the Internet is on an international level. But when I think of the U.S. or Canada, it's extremely unlikely that they'll change their laws in accordance with ours. Their concept of freedom of speech is tied up with their history; our laws against incitement to racial hatred are tied up with ours," Lange said.

The German Government is quite sensitive about the Holocaust and there are laws enacted, it would be akin to the fact that it is against the law in the US to yell fire in a theater when there is not one due to the panic and possible loss of life when a stampede for the exit ensues in a dark theater, sure you can say it but you will go to jail if caught because it is a law.

[abhiram 0]

That's very wierd. Don't the diplomatic relations come into play here? How can an Australian or British citizen be arrested in another country? Of course, freedom of speech is just an idea, but not meant to be taken too literally. For example, in India, freedom of speech is a fundamental right for all the citizens. But that doesn't mean you can go about yelling on the streets that you think so and so politician is a drinking, no-good, SOB. Chances are that you'll be in so much trouble that it'll be difficult to get out of. It's the same with newspapers. Occasionally they publish something that some section of the public doesn't like. The editor doesn't get arrested because of this, but it can lead to pickets and shouting slogans right in front of the newspaper's office.Besides, why do these guys worry about the Jewish Holocaust? There's nothing to disprove it nor to prove it. Maybe the killing of 3 million Jews by Hitler was a fable to begin with, but we can't deny the fact that he persecuted Jews viciously. Why not just give them the benefit of doubt and get on with our lives now instead of worrying about something that happened 50 years ago?

[saga 0]

Besides, why do these guys worry about the Jewish Holocaust? There's nothing to disprove it nor to prove it. Maybe the killing of 3 million Jews by Hitler was a fable to begin with, but we can't deny the fact that he persecuted Jews viciously. Why not just give them the benefit of doubt and get on with our lives now instead of worrying about something that happened 50 years ago?

its there way of apologizing. Germany still couldnt accecpt the truth that it was not just Hitler who murdered those millions of people but of course with the help of Hitler's army and the citizens of Germany who cheered Hitler and encouraged him. The truth is lots of Germans participated in the naming of jews which were eventualy brought to concentration camp. The whole blame must not be cast upon on Hitler only but to also to the society which give Hitler the power and the army.

[organicbmx 0]

austria used to be part of germany but it isnt any more. austria is a different country. irving was arrested and tried in austria. [just to clear that up]im not too sure what to think about this, but im certainly not particually bothered that a nazi or nazi sypathizer [same thing in my opinion] is in jail.the problem is that he was denying historical fact. there are thousands of documents, photographs, and most obvious people that will testify to the holocaust.if he was expressing an opinion, that he agreed with or disagreed with an opinion, i might feel diferently. but i think it was fair and i think that he needs to be rehabilitated. therefor he should be incarcerated.

[illini319 0]

The idea of free speech takes on many forms depending on the country. It is certainly not surprising that such things happen. No matter how sensitive a country is to its own history (bad or not) should not warrant its current administration from enforcing (or enacting) laws designed to squash any type of speech re-examining history (no matter how inaccurate it may actually be). Such police-state tactics, and the inability of a country's citizens to repeal such laws, is how things went awry in the first place... However, free speech (which shouldn't be 'absolutely' free) is easily abused by those who would seek to eliminate it...

[Houdini 0]

Basically Freeom of speech in the United States actually if you study hard and long and understand how and when and under what conext the ter or Phrase was actually put into the constitution meant "Political Speech" where there are arguments and disagreements. It meant you could say what you wanted about those that governed without fear of being locked up as a political prisoner due to your views, but over the years some people take it to mean that they can say anything they wish with no consequences.Try going to some parts of the southern United States and start insulting some of those people, and the consequences can be that you are run out of town, or beat half to death or shot on the spot. Yep you got you free sppech and you P****d them off, and they showed you their freedom of expression which were the consequences that you suffered.Yep you got that right but if it really incurs the wrath of others then you might not like the consequences of your speech and might be best to keep you thoughts to yourself and those of your ilk.

[dangerdan 0]

In considering free speech regarding the holocaust you are talking about a very marginal, unique occurrence in history that can still be a touchy subject to many, I would say it is up there with drawing a likeness of the Prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) in terms of its taboo.

In general I would advocate freedom of speech to the fullest, except where it could be construed as inciting racial hated.

 

In my opinion it is undeniable that anyone who denies the holocaust is doing so as a direct insult to the Jewish people.

[prashansas 0]

Free speech is expressing one's view in a manner which would not be offensive to anyone maintaining peace and harmony. Though two people might at times agree or disagree but we need to maintain the peace required. But the freedom of speech is being misused for wrong purposes which needs to be realized and stopped that is how peace and harmony can be maintained amongst people.

[Ananya 0]

Free speech does mean that you have right to say anything and everything, But since along with freedom there comes an enormous amount of responsibility.So as responsible citizens we must take into account that the freedom we are being bestowed with doesn't lead us to a position where we are hurting someone by saying something.Simultaneously we can't also be beaten or imprisoned just because we have said something against an authority.If in a democratic system we can't point out a wrong deed done by government officials or wrong justice given by judicial system then we are simply following autocracy.Full democracy doesn't get implemented unless we exercise the right to speech.Freedom perishes if it gets overburdened by rules.But in a society where maintaining harmony amongst various communities and people following different faiths come under question,definitely right to speech must be implemented with utmost care.And that is needed too because freedom to speech leads us to something called zealot's rhetoric and communal harmony gets disrupted. In those cases by playing with the emotions of common mass clever religious leaders manage to chanalise the energy of a vast crowd in a wrong direction and do all sorts of chaos.It takes a couple of hours to attract the attention of common mass towards something that is unwanted but it takes months rather years to get healed from vast destructions made due to communal riot.Even more to restore peace among people belonging to various religions.