Nevertheless...
Posted on 03/05/2006 5:35:53 PM PST by RWR8189
It is easy to dislike David Irving and to wish him good riddance as the British writer/historian begins a three-year prison term in Austria for Holocaust denial.
The challenge in these ultra-sensitive times is to let him and others like him speak freely even as we cover our ears.
The latter option is the American way, a bit of grace we take for granted most days. In Austria, where it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, citizens also do not enjoy a First Amendment. Speak skeptically of certain histories there -- or in other countries where speech and thought are controlled -- and you may wind up in a prison cell.
Irving's sentence comes in the midst of another free speech spectacle -- the publication in Denmark and other European countries of several cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad deemed blasphemous by some Muslims.
Or more accurately, cartoons that were marketed as blasphemous by a few imams who bolstered their case by throwing in some other drawings, allegedly of Muhammad, that had nothing to do with the Danish newspaper that allegedly launched the Muslim world into warp-spasm.
Because I've urged American editors to publish the cartoons -- not to inflame or provoke, but to inform -- I've received several challenges to defend Irving or confess to a double standard. If freedom of expression means that some inevitably will choose to be insulted, then we must allow equal-opportunity offenders to poison the public well.
What's good for Muslims must also be good for Jews, or something like that.
I couldn't agree more and don't think David Irving belongs in jail for telling lies or inflaming passions. I think he deserves to be ignored. As a matter of record, however, the Austrian embassy has not been ringing me up for advice, nor have
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
As always, Kathleen Parker makes a lot of sense.
Perhaps even prison was part of his plan to gain notoriety.
It is impossible to resaonably deny the holocaust just as it is to deny WWII. To do so one must either be engaged in a publicity stunt or suffering from mental illness. In each case they should be ignored but the media won't.
When, as in this case, they purposely break the law, the law should accomodate them with arrest, trial, and punishment. Justice served.
It's up the Austrians, to be sure. But the rest of us get to say they are wrong in this.
We still have a lot of whackos in this country that still deny we ever landed on the moon or assert that Desert Storm was actually "fought" at NTC rather in Iraq.
The mechanism that checks liars and frauds in the marketplace of ideas is called TRUTH. And truth will out, no matter how loud a Chomsky yells or how many lefty pals of his put him on TV.
Free speech is far better left alone than 'checked' by any mechanism other than free speech.
I don't care what he happens to think - or what he says. He isn't inciting anyone to violence. I don't agree with the decision to throw him in prison. In the end, it will only provoke more anti-Semitism.
He has merely changed uniforms.
While that is true, it may take a long time to come out and in the meantime, terrible damage can be wrought.
Nevertheless...
"While that is true, [the truth] may take a long time to come out and in the meantime, terrible damage can be wrought."
Okay, shall I personally appoint a Kommisar to vet all media before any publication is allowed to prevent the possibility that any falsehoods will be disseminated and thus terrible damage be wrought? Or shall we simply suppress all news that might cause terrible damage?
I don't think either is realistic, and far more terrible damage will be done by suppressing free speech than any damage free speech might do.
t is impossible to reasonably deny the holocaust just as it is to deny WWII. To do so one must either be engaged in a publicity stunt or suffering from mental illness. In each case they should be ignored but the media won't.
However, the right to free speech guaranteed in the first amendment is not unabridged. We can be arrested for inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, lying to a police officer, lying under oath in court, etc.
Also, as noted, this arrest happened in Austria where they are a little goosey from recent history.
I'm with you.
Speech which clearly causes major damage is not acceptable -- in our Constitution or in a reasonable society -- and such speech is not free. Libertarians may want to free the individual from all restraints, but most of us do not.
Dealt with the IRS much, lately? ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.