Holocaust denial writer jailed for five years

http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,2014554,00.html ^

[Muentzer2005]

A German neo-Nazi publisher was yesterday sentenced to five years in prison for inciting racial hatred and denying that the Nazis murdered six million Jews.

Ernst Zündel, who was extradited from Canada to face trial in Germany in 2005, received the maximum sentence available for the crime of Holocaust denial after being found guilty on 14 counts ...

"You might as well argue that the sun rises in the west, but you cannot change that the Holocaust has been proven," he said, referring to Zündel's work Did Six Million Really Die? The prosecution accused him of using "pseudo-scientific methods" in an attempt to overturn the accepted facts on the Holocaust.

But campaigners for Zündel, 67, said he was a peaceful advocate of the right to free speech who was being denied that right. His supporters filled the courtroom.

At the close of the trial Zündel - who also wrote The Hitler We Loved and Why, and has described Hitler as "a decent and very peaceful man" - asked the court in Mannheim to set up an international commission of historians to explore the Holocaust. He said he wanted "hard facts" and not just witness statements, and that if the commission could prove Jews were gassed he would "hold a press conference at which I would publicly apologise to Jews, Israelis and the world".

[SALChamps03]

What don't I get?

[gas0linealley]

Regarding your words: "...(of all things)..." concerning slander of a "favorite website".

Those words stunned me because it seems to me that websites are the average person's only opportunity to voice his opinion to a large audience, and are thus of great importance to the preservation of our right of free speech.

You mentioned misinterpreting Holmes' ruling, and, at the time, I thought to ask you about a specific scenario but became involved in other matters.

The specific scenario I had in mind involves a "last minute", but well publicized, slanderous (or libelous) attack on a major political candidate, so timed as to practically prohibit rebuttal and thus adversely affect an election. I envisioned such an attack being made against an internet entity, but one playing a role such as "Swift Boat Veterans" played in the last election.

Reading the following article, this morning,:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787913/posts

prompted me to bring up this matter again.

I wonder if you would change your opinion in such a situation?

[The Pack Knight]

You mentioned misinterpreting Holmes' ruling

I should have said that differently. I didn't mean you misinterpreted Shenk, simply that the scenario is based on a popular misquote of his.

I wonder if you would change your opinion in such a situation?

I read the article. If anything, it reinforces my opinion. There were plenty of people in 2004 that wanted the Swift Boat Veterans sued for slander. What if it had been a criminal prosecution rather than a civil suit? What if the prosecutor was someone like Patrick Fitzgerald, or Ronnie Earle? They would have argued that the Swift Boat Veterans were causing irreparable harm to Kerry's campaign, and, given the right judge, could have had them silenced. Thankfully, the First Amendment prevents that. So long as no one is able to censor it, the internet makes it MORE difficult to mislead people, not less, as Dan Rather learned to his sorrow that very same year.

Off course free speech creates opportunities for people to say things that aren't true. Sometimes those things are even harmful. The same could be said of any other right. The 2nd Amendment does make it easier for irresponsible or criminal individuals to arm themselves. The 4th makes it easier for criminals to hide evidence or contraband from the authorities. None of this make these rights any less valid. Liberty carries with it inherent risks. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The timid man prefers the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."