Austria To Irving: "Hey Irving! Deny This!"

February 20, 2006 2:49 PM

[Newsfilter] In mid-November last year, David Irving, arguably the world's foremost holocaust-denier (Mel Gibson's dad comes a close second), was arrested in Austria for doing exactly that (previously discussed here). Today he was jailed for it. Should we (read; Austria) be jailing people for their views, however reprehensible or otherwise incorrect they might be? Or is it justifiable in some cases?
posted by Effigy2000 (315 comments total)

People who say ignorant and offensive words shouldn't be locked up or otherwise punished by the state. They should be humiliated and have their ignorance laid bare.
posted by Gator at 2:54 PM on February 20, 2006

From the last link:
"To restrict the expression of any opinion, even if it's a stupid opinion or a disgusting opinion, this restriction should not exist."

I agree. Holocaust-deniers should be publically ridiculed, discredited and shunned by the rest of society, but not put in jail for their moronic beliefs.

It's interesting to note how he really isn't standing up the denying the Holocaust now that he's facing time in prison. I somehow doubt he's seen the error of his ways and now truly realises the horrors of the Holocaust, but rather will say anything to avoid jail.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:57 PM on February 20, 2006

Also, top marks for the post title.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2006

I'm all for freedom of speech, and don't particularly agree that the austrian law is a good one, but as Freedom of Speach issues go surely some idiot geting himself locked up for hate-speach has got to be pretty damn low on the priorities list. Howabout we give our attention to some of the many thousands of legitimate cases that deserve it first?
posted by Artw at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2006

The man is a cancer. Remove him from the body of society.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:00 PM on February 20, 2006

Meh, too little new development to justify a double post.
posted by mischief at 3:00 PM on February 20, 2006

Irving has played this very well. He's only likely to get 1-2 years in the end and the publicity has been great for him.

Free speeh is free speech, either you support it or you don't. It's funny how some people are so eager to deplore the Nazis but so happy to support Nazi tactics.

The evidence for mass deaths and a program of execution is very strong. Why the need to protect it like this?
posted by sien at 3:06 PM on February 20, 2006

It was interesting to see that Nazi apologist David Irving has finally stated that "I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," and "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews"

He claims that he changed his views in 1992 after reading papers written by Eichmann.

Funny that. In March 2000, eight years after this revelation, he was saying:

He leads me into his study. There, he sat directly in front of a large colour overhead photograph of Crematorium Two at Auschwitz: 'That's the holy of holies,' says Irving, jabbing one of his pudgy fingers toward the photo. 'No one was gassed there. The stories from survivors where someone says they used to take off the manhole covers and then the gas poured in, it's all false.'...

...Auschwitz's Crematorium Two, the site of half a million deaths, is 'a mere legend'. 'It is the geocentre of the supposed death factory'

'Look,' he continues. 'Zyklon B may have been used against prisoners. I don't know. But I know crematorium 2 was not an enormous gas chamber.'

Still, the prospect of being banged up for a few years at least made him recant in public.

Three years. It's hardly a tough sentence, for libelling 6 million jews and 4 million other victims of the camps and chambers. Guess he won't make that Iran conference after all.

David Irving is not expressing his opinion. He is deliberately spreading falsehoods in the most offensive way he can.

That's not a free speech issue.

I believe in free speech, but I don't believe people have the right to knowingly spread lies about the moral low point of Western civilisation. I also believe those who suffered, and those who survived have rights. The right not to be libelled for a start. The right not to be called a liar when they give testimony to the evils of the camps.

If I have to choose whose rights are pre-eminent between Irving and survivors of the holocaust, I know who I back

In Austria, they have a much closer relationship to what happened during the holocaust than in the UK or US. They also have a 'problem' with a sector of Austrian politics which is of the far right. I was in Austria during the 1986 Austrian Presidential election when Waldheim was outed as a member of the SA. His popularity went up. That tells you something.

They also had a spate of cases in the courts that meant that Jewish people involved in court cases had to prove the holocaust did happen.

It is on that basis that they passed these laws. In addition there are other reasons for protecting the memory of the holocaust. There are fewer and fewer witnesses alive, people who can stand up and say "I was there, I saw it".

Irving and the extreme right do have an agenda here. They know that popular revulsion over the holocaust is the single main reason why they're not going to get anywhere politically, so Irving et al are deliberately aiding todays Nazi's by questioning and playing down the horror of the holocaust, so that the extreme right might make political advances.

Last time I looked, Austria was a democracy, so for me, the inevitable comparisons with fascism and soviet style censorship don't really stand up.

Freedom of speech exists in a context, and within rules. That isn't a green light for censorship, it is a fact of life. You can test this by standing up in the middle of a film at the cinema and reciting Mein Kampf, or the American constitution, or whatever you like. You will be asked to leave. You could also be prosecuted for causing a disturbance if you push it far enough or choose to exercise your right to free speech by, say, shouting out "Bomb!"

You can stand up at a public meeting and descibe black people as nothing more than muggers and racists, and refer to them as "niggers" or "Wogs". You would be prosecuted. Our right to freedom of speech is restricted, by criminal laws, libel laws and social norms.

Whilst laws can be misused or abused by governments, and I believe they are, we have to acknowlege these rules exist.

Irving deliberately broke the law governing Freedom of Speech in Austria, he wanted to test it, and he has. i have no doubt that there are ways of exercising freedom of speech in Austria that we do not enjoy here.

Likewise, if the Rwandans wanted to pass a law aginst denying their holocaust, that might be appropriate to them given the politics of the region, but not for us or the Austrians. If I travelled to the region to deliberately break those laws, it is not unreasonable for them to uphold their laws and prosecute me.
posted by quarsan at 3:06 PM on February 20, 2006

Eh, while I'd be opposed to banning any speech here in the US, I don't have a problem with the Germans doing it. Don't take weed with you when you go to Singapore, don't holocaust deny in Germany (or Austria). Not that hard.
posted by delmoi at 3:07 PM on February 20, 2006

Cue obligatory apologetics about how freedom of certain speech is justifiably "different" in Central Europe due to their "unique history" (ignoring that maybe that cavalierness with liberty is a continuation of Central European history rather than a correction for it).
posted by dgaicun at 3:07 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by five fresh fish The man is a cancer. Remove him from the body of society.

I agree. While we're at it, let's remove Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Schlessinger, and Paul Harvey, because I don't like what they say, either.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:08 PM on February 20, 2006

Ha!
posted by dgaicun at 3:08 PM on February 20, 2006

He is a racist, a bigot, a facsist and a Hitler apologist. He should not be jailed for his views any more than those that carry around Mao's little red book, or spout revisionist nonsense about Lenin and Stalin.

His stupidity notwithstanding, some of his books are fascinating, especially Hitler's War, if you know enough to separate fact from wishful thinking.
posted by loquax at 3:09 PM on February 20, 2006

Going from "Irving faces week in Austria cell" to "sentenced him to three years in prison" seems like quite a big development to me.


And this:

From "He told a libel hearing in London in 2000 that there had been no gas chambers at the Auschwitz camp."

to

"I pleaded guilty on the advice of my lawyer... obviously I've changed," he said. "History is a constantly growing tree and I've learnt a lot since 1989."

In custody since November, Irving says he never dismissed the Holocaust, and it was only ever a small part of his research.

Nothing like a little prison time to make you re-evaluate your theories.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:09 PM on February 20, 2006

OTHER COUNTRIES NOT ACTUALLY PART OF AMERICA SHOCK! NEWS AT 10!
posted by Artw at 3:11 PM on February 20, 2006

Locking him up legitimizes his claims of (vast Jewish) conspiracy in the minds of his followers and like-minded people. Also, putting him in jail doesn't really impede the flow of crap, some other idiot will happily replace him or be his willing surrogate. The only "right" thing to do, is to do whatever causes the least amount of harm and doesn't enflame or perpetuate the believers or the belief.
As to fivefreshfishe's comment, please remember that that's exactly what the Nazis said about the Jews.
posted by doctor_negative at 3:14 PM on February 20, 2006

You can stand up at a public meeting and descibe black people as nothing more than muggers and racists, and refer to them as "niggers" or "Wogs". You would be prosecuted. Our right to freedom of speech is restricted, by criminal laws, libel laws and social norms.

Prosecuted for what?

Anyway, just try telling people you support hamas.
posted by delmoi at 3:14 PM on February 20, 2006

In the US, I wouldn't want to see a law like this...in Austria (and, I believe, Germany), I'm prepared to accept it as a "special case", and I don't see any kind of slippery slope here. Plus, all this twit had to do was *stay out of Austria*, which doesn't take a lot of effort. I mean, look at the list of countries Kissinger manages to avoid.
posted by uosuaq at 3:14 PM on February 20, 2006

Is it too early to say that the Iraq war never happened? The Civil War?

There are people who claim that America never had any slaves...
posted by Balisong at 3:14 PM on February 20, 2006

delmoi: prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred.
posted by quarsan at 3:16 PM on February 20, 2006

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the parallel to the Danish cartoons...
posted by laz-e-boy at 3:16 PM on February 20, 2006

Lies, this is all lies.

David Irving (if that's his real name) has most certainly *not* been sentenced to 2 or 3 years in prison. Those numbers are greatly exaggerated. At most Mr. Irving (if he really exists, which I'm not convinced of) will get a slip on the wrist and two or three weeks in the pen.
posted by sour cream at 3:17 PM on February 20, 2006

I believe in free speech, but I don't believe people have the right to knowingly spread lies about the moral low point of Western civilisation.

You know, with all the commentary over the recent cartoon issue in Denmark, and now statements like this, I am really, really getting depressed with this half assed nonconcern about freedom. You do not believe in free speech, you believe in your free speech.
posted by dgaicun at 3:18 PM on February 20, 2006

Irving should be able to say whatever he likes, anywhere he likes. And I should be free to mock his stupidity. The rights of mankind are universal. Making his stupid revisionism against the law in some places actually lends his arguments an importance they do not deserve. "Oh, he must something that makes people afraid!" This is counter productive.
posted by LarryC at 3:19 PM on February 20, 2006

Facts suggest the Holocaust happened. Those who deny that it happened do so by ignoring evidence.

Of course, facts suggest a lot of things and if we decide that free speech means only saying things that are supported by facts, well, we throw the entire modern policital system into disarray. I mean, can you imagine the prosecutions that would have to occur in, for example, England or the USA over published accounts of contemporary world events if we went after every newspaper reporter that published a story that was not actually based on facts in the last five years?

My point is that Freedom of Speech, as we currently understand it in the USA, includes "Freedom to Lie." While Austria's laws are different, sending Irving to jail for lying sort of gets the folks who are his true believes thinking that the government is just trying to suppress "the truth."

Now, sending him and some of his followers to work for six months at a holocaust museum or similar institution might actually force them to think about a few things.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:21 PM on February 20, 2006

delmoi: prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred.

What country are you talking about?
posted by delmoi at 3:21 PM on February 20, 2006

. You do not believe in free speech, you believe in your free speech.

Wrong. Irving knows what happened, as was shown at his previous trial, he deliberately re-wrote history. He is deliberately lying.

In your world libel, slander and defamation don't exist, but in the real world every nation in the world has laws prohibiting that. The holocaust denial laws are simply an extension of that.
posted by quarsan at 3:23 PM on February 20, 2006

The other thing that should be considered about laws on free speech these days is that the internet makes it very, very much harder.

The far right has the ability now to claim, with some legitimacy, persecution when people are put in jail for their views and to get their views across anyways by having a web site in the US.

Irving has all his books available for free on the net. How is putting him in jail stopping him from expressing these views?
posted by sien at 3:23 PM on February 20, 2006

delmoi: the UK, and you could probably get a prosecution under the Public Order act also.
posted by quarsan at 3:23 PM on February 20, 2006

I agree. While we're at it, let's remove Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Schlessinger, and Paul Harvey, because I don't like what they say, either.

Sending them to Austria would be a helluva good step in the right direction!
posted by five fresh fish at 3:32 PM on February 20, 2006

Or is it justifiable in some cases?

Yes.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:33 PM on February 20, 2006

What almost everybody said: At best this is a way of strengthening his following. Laws restricting hate speech smack a little too much of totalitarianism to me, and betray a very pessimistic view of human nature.

I suspect when ridiculous claims aren't allowed in the public forum, where they may be rightfully smacked down by free individuals, these ideas' beliveability among the uninformed will only increase.

Disclaimer: I'm not an Austrian so I can't say what "we" should do.
posted by Opposite George at 3:36 PM on February 20, 2006

delmoi: prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred.

Incitement requires far more than stating opinions. I have never seen Berlin tell anybody to go and hate Jews or anybody else in his books. It's clear that he himself is no fan, but where is he advocating present-day action or violence?

In your world libel, slander and defamation don't exist, but in the real world every nation in the world has laws prohibiting that. The holocaust denial laws are simply an extension of that.

Who is he libeling, slandering or defaming? Why can these people not bring civil suits against him? Events and history cannot be defamed. Even if they could, these are civil torts, not criminal offenses. Criminal libel no longer effectively exists in the West because of the various constitutions guaranteeing free speech.
posted by loquax at 3:38 PM on February 20, 2006

In your world libel, slander and defamation don't exist

In my world these laws can be problematic, but really you are just ass-holing the relevant distinctions away (hmm . . . maybe you should be jailed). In my world political, historical and scientific "revisionism" (i.e. bullshit) are not grounds for punishment, spurious and trite associations with "yelling fire in a crowded theatre", "libel", and "false advertising" notwithstanding.
posted by dgaicun at 3:41 PM on February 20, 2006

Even Scalia
gets his revision on
posted by hortense at 3:42 PM on February 20, 2006

That's not a free speech issue.

You are so very, very wrong.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:44 PM on February 20, 2006

This most certainly is a free speech issue. Much of the official holocaust story needs to be revised, as is our understanding of a shitload of historical events. To make such a thing illegal is preposterous and frankly I can't understand how anyone could assent, even silently, to such a thing. The thuggish cencorship of holocaust revisionism (not synonymous with denial, btw) is fucking obscene.
posted by undule at 3:49 PM on February 20, 2006

I believe in free speech, but...

... but not really.
posted by SPrintF at 3:50 PM on February 20, 2006

quarsan: I believe in free speech, but I don't believe people have the right to knowingly spread lies about the moral low point of Western civilisation.

That view is not something that can EVER be compatible with free speech. The problem lies in this; how can anyone know if someone is spreading lies or not? They have to know the truth. And who is the arbiter of truth? The government? Today you're spreading lies if you deny the holocaust; tomorrow you're spreading lies when you criticize the administration.

I'm not terribly comfortable with libel and slander, but at least in those cases, a person has to be the target, harm has to be proven, and the person is hopefully around so you can determine truth or falsehood of any claims. So it's a little bit better case.

I can understand the purpose of these laws, because after WWII there were no doubt lots of nazis left over who wanted to bring it back. But they do prevent free speech in the countries in which they exist.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:52 PM on February 20, 2006

sour cream - bravo sir bravo! :)
posted by nola at 3:58 PM on February 20, 2006

I share the concerns of others regarding the protection at all costs of the right of free speech. That said, reading this thread, I can't help but think about the Swift Boaters. Personally, I think they are all bald-faced liars. Did they have the RIGHT to tell those lies? Sure. And look what happened - alot of people listened to those lies, and that, in conjunction with a lot of other factors, contributed to the re-election of our 43rd president. I consider that to be a tragedy, but nowhere near as tragic as the Holocaust - so if we have to live with its effects, I'll bear it. But I have to admit that I am comforted knowing that there is an institutionalized protection from the effects of telling similar lies about the Holocaust where it originated.

And that's making a lot of assumptions about the effectiveness of these laws, I know. But it's how I feel.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 3:59 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by quarsan I believe in free speech, but I don't understand it or really believe in it.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:05 PM on February 20, 2006

Should we (read; Austria) be jailing people for their views, however reprehensible or otherwise incorrect they might be? Or is it justifiable in some cases?

posted by solid-one-love Yes.

Ah, the familiar face of fascism.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:09 PM on February 20, 2006

Free speeh is free speech, either you support it or you don't. It's funny how some people are so eager to deplore the Nazis but so happy to support Nazi tactics.

Respectfully, I'll have to disagree with this statement. Hate-Crime laws, (or whatever each jurisdiction calls them,) are reasonable limits on freedom of speech. There is a simple reason for this:

Words have power. They have the power to hurt, cause harm and unrest just as much as actions do. I am not allowed to take a swinging-roundhouse punch at people on the street. This is a reasonable limit on my otherwise broad freedom of action. Here in Canada, a place with hate-crime laws, I am not allowed to make racist statements or deny the holocaust for exactly the same reason: it hurts people, deeply. Simply because you, your and buddies and friends aren't really offended by this man's vile words does not mean that other people aren't, too. His words cause real pain - sometimes emotionally, and sometimes physically by indirectly promoting violence. In either case, I see hate laws as reasonable limits on free speech to avoid this pain.

Making his stupid revisionism against the law in some places actually lends his arguments an importance they do not deserve. "Oh, he must something that makes people afraid!" This is counter productive.

It's not illegal because people are afraid of what he says, it's illegal because people are hurt by what he says. It's illegal for the same reason I can't punch my neighbour in the nose.

I am sorry to repeat myself, but I'm amazed by the number of people who misunderstand the point of hate-crime laws and reasonable limits on free speech. By all means, keep testing those limits! That's what a supreme court is for. But, if your words hurt people, then expect to be punished.

I agree. While we're at it, let's remove Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Schlessinger, and Paul Harvey, because I don't like what they say, either.

On an interesting side note, there are some things that Coulter (at least) has said that might fall into the grey area of hate-crime. This is not because we don't like her, but because her words can hurt. It's a question of injury, not offense. This could just as easily go for the now infamous Mohammed cartoons: whether they were designed to offend or not, they do more than that: they injure and hurt devout muslims.

posted by generichuman at 4:11 PM on February 20, 2006

Wrong. Irving knows what happened, as was shown at his previous trial, he deliberately re-wrote history. He is deliberately lying.

In your world libel, slander and defamation don't exist, but in the real world every nation in the world has laws prohibiting that. The holocaust denial laws are simply an extension of that.

You're just an idiot, aren't you? Even if you aren't, I can say that - because of free speech. Nobody is going to arrest me for calling you an idiot, or even for denying that you exist. Being an idiot is not illegal, so you're safe from being arrested.
posted by odinsdream at 4:14 PM on February 20, 2006

But, if your words hurt people, then expect to be punished.

Avoidance of pain is not a sensible reason to have laws, my friend.
posted by odinsdream at 4:15 PM on February 20, 2006

The problem with the line of thinking that this is OK is that it is only as good as the people who are being protected. I believe the holocaust is such an emotional issue which is why some (many?) will say it's OK to protect that... but what about all the other issues in the world that are equally bad but don't have laws protecting them?

It would be impossible because there's no way to manage, track, and create so many laws and in the end you destroy free speech.

While I do understand that Austria/Germany have a special situation that is specific to their countries, I don't see how the law is effective. It seems that Irving is now a genuine martyr for the extreme-right.
posted by chaz at 4:20 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by generichuman if your words hurt people, then expect to be punished.

Uh, hello? Free speech doesn't protect speech you like; free speech protects speech you hate.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:21 PM on February 20, 2006

Ah, the familiar face of fascism.

Then you have 33 million fascists living to your north, because we have laws against such statements as Irving has made, and the vast majority of us agree with those laws.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:21 PM on February 20, 2006

btw it's not nice to call people an idiot or an asshole when they're disagreeing calmly and reasonably with you. But your right to do so is defended.
posted by chaz at 4:21 PM on February 20, 2006

generichuman: It's not illegal because people are afraid of what he says, it's illegal because people are hurt by what he says. It's illegal for the same reason I can't punch my neighbour in the nose.

I shouldn't be able to say things that hurt others? What if they are true? And if the truth or falsehood is differentiated under the law, who decides what is true? What if it's impossible to tell, like in the case of historical events (which can never be proven beyond any doubt) or in the case of something completely unprovable like religion?

Your weak-minded view on free speech has given me a headache. Expect the cops in about half an hour.
posted by Mitrovarr at 4:21 PM on February 20, 2006

generichuman writes "They have the power to hurt, cause harm and unrest just as much as actions do. "

No they don't. That statement is absurd on its face.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:22 PM on February 20, 2006

Avoidance of pain is not a sensible reason to have laws, my friend.

It isn't? Why on earth not? That seems to be the whole point of laws. Hell, that's how laws come to be in the first place if your social contract theorist. (And most of Western Politics almost certainly is.)

I'll emphasize the word REASONABLE again. Test the limits. Take it to court. If we can't decide as a society what constitutes unreasonable pain, then baby we're in trouble. If you can justify to yourself the terrible hurt and anguish that hearing somebody publicly deny the holocaust causes some people in the name of free speech, then I pity you. Why not justify taking a swing at people on the bus in the name of freedom of action?
posted by generichuman at 4:22 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by solid-one-love Then you have 33 million fascists living to your north, because we have laws against such statements as Irving has made, and the vast majority of us agree with those laws.

That's not something of which you ought to be proud.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:24 PM on February 20, 2006

This will not harm the cause of the right-wing, and it may aid it. However, the main objection is that it is simply not justice to jail someone for voicing an opinion that doesn't incite people to murder.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 4:26 PM on February 20, 2006

Mel Gibson's dad is "a close second" for the position of the world's foremost Holocaust denier? How so? Aside from having a famous son, Hutton Gibson is pretty much a non-entity.

Don't get me wrong - I think Holocaust deniers are repulsive idiots, so I am certainly not defending this tool. I do think describing him as the second most prominent Holocaust denier in the world is a bit hyperbolic.

As for Irving, I - speaking as a jew - say that free speech is free speech, no matter how loathsome the speaker, and he should not be imprisoned. (I wouldn't mind putting a big bag of flaming dog poo on his porch, though!) For the right of free speech to really be substantive, it must be very nearly absolute. If we allow it to be truncated for anything short of extreme situations - yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, revealing secrets in wartime, etc. - then the slope towards it being eroded away entirely will truly be very slippery.
posted by John Smallberries at 4:26 PM on February 20, 2006

btw it's not nice to call people an idiot or an asshole when they're disagreeing calmly and reasonably with you.

And it's par for the course here.

No they don't. That statement is absurd on its face.

Yes, they do. Probative harm was the most salient point for the passage of anti-hate laws in Canada. Were it 'absurd on its face', it wouldn't have been passed.

Anyhow.

The idea that the US is some bastion of free speech is absurd on its face. The US has all sorts of laws against various kinds of speech. I'd put money on Canada and Austria having freer speech than the US.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:27 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by generichuman If you can justify to yourself the terrible hurt and anguish that hearing somebody publicly deny the holocaust causes some people in the name of free speech, then I pity you.

Middle school recess must've been hell for you.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:27 PM on February 20, 2006

Everyone knows King Richard III was illegitimate, a murderer, a rapist and guilty of regicide. Those revisionist bastard Ricardians that hope to rehabilitate his name should be thrown into the nearest English jail.

If you can justify to yourself the terrible hurt and anguish that hearing somebody publicly deny the holocaust causes some people in the name of free speech, then I pity you.

As a relative of survivors of the horrors of the Soviet gulags, Ceausescu's Romania, the Warsaw Ghetto and Hitler's concentration camps, I have no more problem with Berlin spouting inanities than I do with Marxist professors glossing over the crimes of communism. See, the beauty of free speech means that every other World War II historian is perfectly free to mock, disparage and disprove every one of Berlin's ludicrous claims. As long as that is the case, the rantings of a bigot will never cause the kind of harm that they have in the past.
posted by loquax at 4:32 PM on February 20, 2006

I believe in free speech, but...

There's no "but." Either you believe people should have the right to express their beliefs and opinions, as objectionable as they may be, or they don't.

You believe in limited free speech, which isn't free speech at all. Cowboy up and admit it.
posted by S.C. at 4:33 PM on February 20, 2006

Can't really Godwinize here, but this should do...
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - GWB
posted by nightchrome at 4:34 PM on February 20, 2006

That's not something of which you ought to be proud.

On the otherhand, I think it's morally abhorrent that the US does not imprison Holocaust-deniers.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:34 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by solid-one-love Probative harm was the most salient point for the passage of anti-hate laws in Canada. Were it 'absurd on its face', it wouldn't have been passed.

Oh, horse shit. Absurd laws are passed all the time, both in Canada and the United States.

The idea that the US is some bastion of free speech is absurd on its face. The US has all sorts of laws against various kinds of speech. I'd put money on Canada and Austria having freer speech than the US.

How much money are you willing to put up?
posted by fandango_matt at 4:35 PM on February 20, 2006

My precious feelings are hurt by the very fact that the OP brought attention to this man. Since words have power and Effigy2000 has drawn attention to those words that hurt, he should be put in jail.
posted by Falconetti at 4:36 PM on February 20, 2006

every one of Berlin's ludicrous claim

David Irving != Irving Berlin! Is that a malapropism? What's that called?
posted by dgaicun at 4:36 PM on February 20, 2006

Middle school recess must've been hell for you.

Look, this is exactly the attitude that gets in the way of understanding the idea of probative harm and speech. We're all taught by our moms that "sticks and stones...blah blah." They're right, for the most part. Nobody here is going to throw me in jail for calling them stupid.

But saying "all black people should be expelled from Canada since they all carry guns," will get you in trouble. and it damn well should, because you'd be stirring up several centuries worth of cultural prejudice and hurt. Hate laws don't stop name-calling, they stop pain and nip group prejudice in the bud before it can fester.

Just because you aren't hurt by words, and neither are your minority friends, doesn't mean that there aren't people who are. Do you want to be the one to tell them "suck it up?" Would you go to a holocaust survivor, deny the holocaust, then tell them to "suck it up, it's free speech" when tears well in their eyes?
posted by generichuman at 4:37 PM on February 20, 2006

That last bit was harsh. I meant to press "preview" rather than "post." But the point, I think, is valid.
posted by generichuman at 4:37 PM on February 20, 2006

"Mel Gibson's dad is "a close second" for the position of the world's foremost Holocaust denier? How so? Aside from having a famous son, Hutton Gibson is pretty much a non-entity.

Don't get me wrong - I think Holocaust deniers are repulsive idiots, so I am certainly not defending this tool. I do think describing him as the second most prominent Holocaust denier in the world is a bit hyperbolic."

Actually, I agree. I should state for the record that when I wrote that I said it with my tounge planted somewhat in my cheek, but I didn't think a ;) was appropriate for a FPP.

I think we can both agree, however, that Hutton Gibson is a tool. :)
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:38 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by solid-one-love I think it's morally abhorrent that the US does not imprison Holocaust-deniers.

So you're comfortable with imprisoning people whose opinions differ from yours. Wow.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:38 PM on February 20, 2006

David Irving != Irving Berlin! Is that a malapropism? What's that called?

Please tell me, I'll use it in my defense. I've been slandering poor Irving Berlin all day talking about this.
posted by loquax at 4:39 PM on February 20, 2006

If you can justify to yourself the terrible hurt and anguish that hearing somebody publicly deny the holocaust causes some people in the name of free speech, then I pity you.

Being offended by someone's words is a choice. It is no different than the retards who work themselves into a frenzy when someone burns the flag.

Nobody's rights are violated when an idiot speaks their mind.
posted by jsonic at 4:40 PM on February 20, 2006

Rights aren't rights if they only apply in easy cases, if they only apply where the general population agree. David Irving is an idiot and a perverter of history - but that in and of itself isn't and should not be a crime.

There is a substantial difference between laws which criminalise an act - such as inciteing hatred - and those which criminalise the expression of an idea. I would have no problems with Irving being imprisoned, should the evidence exist, for a UK-style offence of inciting racial hatred, but the idea that, absent any intent to incite, an idea in and of itself should be criminalised, is wrong.

Austria is, like all EU nations, is bound by the Convention on Human Rights. Art 10 states everyone has the right to freedom of expression, subject to the the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals.... It is difficult to see how this right is any protection for Europeans if this case is sufficient to be judged a case of national security or public safety, without evidence of intended provocation. I suspect ultimately this case will appear before the European Court of Human Rights - it will be intersting to see whether they uphold rights in hard cases.

Ultimately, however, it is foolishness to treat holocaust deniers as criminals. It feeds their fantasies and creates their martyrs. We need to create a society where we both challenge such patently false nonsense and give our young people the reasoning skills to spot the rubbish it is.
posted by prentiz at 4:41 PM on February 20, 2006

Oh, horse shit. Absurd laws are passed all the time, both in Canada and the United States.

And this wasn't one of them.

How much money are you willing to put up?

More than you have. I've never seen a Canadian investigated by CSIS for having an anti-Harper poster in her dorm, for example.

So you're comfortable with imprisoning people whose opinions differ from yours.

I'm comfortable with imprisoning people who cause harm. Holding an opinion doesn't do that. Expressing one can. Most civilized Western nations agree with this. You don't. Whatever. Don't take it personally or make it personal, please.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:41 PM on February 20, 2006

what jsonic said above.
posted by nola at 4:42 PM on February 20, 2006

i want solid-one-love imprisoned for expressing a harmful opinion.
posted by nola at 4:43 PM on February 20, 2006

“Free speech doesn't protect speech you like; free speech protects speech you hate.” -posted by fandango_matt
Thanks fandango_ matt.

I’m all for free speech.

....what?

There’s no “but” there.

I know there usually is one. Not here.

We let idots spout off about intelligent design and damnfool notions that the Earth is flat or whatever the powerwords du jour are. As long as we don’t teach it in schools, or it’s not mandated to listen to in any other way, they can say whatever they like. The truth is there and their lies are transparent.

If someone’s feelings are hurt, that’s too bad.
Of course, if a holocaust deniers body gets hurt, that’s too bad too.
In Illinois we have this law called ‘fighting words.’
So let’s say I call your mother a whore and you hit me. The “he hit me first” B.S. doesn’t hold up for battery charges, etc. In fact if it’s blatent enough you can be charged with battery while the other guy walks.
I suspect the same thing would apply to this kind of crap.

"I'd put money on Canada and Austria having freer speech than the US."

What kind of money?
posted by Smedleyman at 4:43 PM on February 20, 2006

As an interesting side note, it's largely Canadian conservatives, usually the really right-wing ones, who oppose hate crime laws.

h, horse shit. Absurd laws are passed all the time, both in Canada and the United States.

It's also interesting to note that Canada's hate laws weren't some willy-nilly law that passed on a whim. It was the result of a lot of public debate, and it's been tested at several levels of court.

We decided, through the best democratic mechanisms we have, what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable pain - legislation was written and tested accordingly.

It's also an ongoing process of debate. And that's a good thing.
posted by generichuman at 4:44 PM on February 20, 2006

There are many controversial topics that could easily fall into the "hate speech" category. Affirmative action, drawing cartoons of the Prophet, Jews that collaborated during the Holocaust, denouncing of religion/atheism (this would eliminate the existence of this site), race and genetics, etc. To arrive at truths about such issues, they need to be discussed and all points of view need to be allowed in the marketplace of ideas for that discussion to thrive. This allows people to validly look at the evidence and make their own decisions.
posted by Falconetti at 4:45 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 4:46 PM on February 20, 2006

In Illinois we have this law called ‘fighting words.’

wow, Illinois is much cooler than i knew.
posted by nola at 4:48 PM on February 20, 2006

Deborah Lipstadt, who spent five years of her life battling a libel action started by Irving against her, says "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth". On her blog, she eloquently covers the ground we just have on MeFi. I don't think I could be so graceful in victory.
posted by iffley at 4:49 PM on February 20, 2006

In Illinois we have this law called ‘fighting words.’

This is constitutional doctrine and applies everywhere in the US (although Illinois may very well have a more or less stringent version of it).
posted by Falconetti at 4:51 PM on February 20, 2006

Good God. Expressing an opinion can cause harm - ergo it’s ok to imprison that person?

Yep....that completely validates the amount of money I spend on ammunition.

Nothing personal. I just want to be ready when the civilized western police politely kick in my door when I disagree with whatever it’s currently fashionable to duckspeak.

Consider by those terms I stand with the holocaust deniers. I will now say officially: I do not believe the holocaust ever happened. I believe it was a Jewish conspiracy and...stuff. Whatever. Hitler was keen, and such.
Must I more earnestly and vehemently spout such nonsense? Or do we start defining what I’m allowed to say more broadly?
posted by Smedleyman at 4:51 PM on February 20, 2006

As an interesting side note, it's largely Canadian conservatives, usually the really right-wing ones, who oppose hate crime laws.

I hate hate crime laws. Is that a hate crime?
posted by loquax at 4:52 PM on February 20, 2006

Words have power. They have the power to hurt, cause harm and unrest just as much as actions do.

That's patently false, even if the Canadian Parliament has insisted otherwise.

Actions can take you and put you in the gas chamber, and kill you dead, and pry the fillings out of your cooling, dead body, and burn your corpse.

But no matter what I say to you, you're not going to drop dead because of it, or spontaneously combust out of outrage, or have bullet holes appear in you out of nowhere.

Here in Canada, a place with hate-crime laws, I am not allowed to make racist statements or deny the holocaust for exactly the same reason: it hurts people, deeply.

But that's only as reasonable as the people whose feelings you're hurting.

I'm sure that it hurts people deeply to hear words like "God damn" or "Jesus H. Christ" or other blasphemy-to-Christians. Should we ban that too? Presumably not, and presumably the difference is that for some reason racial offense is more noteworthy or acceptable then religiously-motivated offense. That it is reasonable for black people not to want to hear "nigger," but unreasonable for Christians to not want to hear "God damn."

It's just that difference that I object to -- the state shouldn't be deciding whose offense is reasonable and whose is unreasonable. In the here and now, hate speech laws have been applied reasonably, but there is no guarantee at all that they will continue to be applied reasonably, and the mere fact that the state gets to play favorites with it is troublesome.

Now, when speech has actually, for real and no kidding, incited violence, then the law should punish the person whose speech caused actual harm to actual, specific people. Likewise, when speech is a threat of violence, the law should punish the person threatening violence. But speech that merely hurts feelings? No way.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:54 PM on February 20, 2006

solid-one-love writes "Yes, they do. Probative harm was the most salient point for the passage of anti-hate laws in Canada. Were it 'absurd on its face', it wouldn't have been passed."

What is "absurd on its face" is the statement that "Words...have the power to hurt, cause harm and unrest just as much as actions do." This is just wrong: the set of all actions clearly includes things that are more harmful (and more prone to inciting responsive violence) than anything in the set of all words.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:58 PM on February 20, 2006

What ROU_Xenophobe said.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:59 PM on February 20, 2006

One last response, then I'll give up on trying to show the dissection between offense and pain. If you don't understand that, then you'll never get the point of hate-crime laws. Society won't crumble, so don't worry about it - it's just a different location of the limit.

There’s no “but” there. I know there usually is one. Not here.

I remember teaching Hobbes and social contract theory to "intro to ethics" students. They had a hard time grasping this one. With rights, there is always a "but."

It's that "but" that stops us from hitting each other in the head with spears and stealing each other's food. Society is tension: it's tension between the needs and rights of the individual and their relation to greater society with its own needs. You want to interact with other people? Then there's always a certain amount of compromise regarding your rights. There's a "but."

A lot of people don't grasp the subtlety of this, or (Hobbes, or social contract theory.) To say that the needs of the individual should always trump society's needs is absurd. (The reverse is also absurd.) Of course there should be controls - that's how we live in peace.

It's the great power of democracy to harness that tension. That's its whole reason d'etre! It makes citizens party to the debate, able to pull for their side in the tug-of-war between the individual and society. Hate-crime laws just stop the individual from tugging too hard. It stops majorities from trouncing on minorities that they just don't understand.
posted by generichuman at 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by solid-one-love I'm comfortable with imprisoning people who cause harm. Holding an opinion doesn't do that. Expressing one can.

Wrong. Being hurt or offended by words is a choice. As I've said, free speech doesn't protect speech you like, it protects speech you hate.

Most civilized Western nations agree with this. You don't. Whatever. Don't take it personally or make it personal, please.

Oh fuck you, you fat, feculent, fascist fuckwit. You don't understand the concept of free speech, you advocate imprisoning people who express views you consider "hurtful", and then you've got the audacity to call me uncivilized and then tell me not to make it personal.
posted by fandango_matt at 5:03 PM on February 20, 2006

Hate-crime laws just stop the individual from tugging too hard. It stops majorities from trouncing on minorities that they just don't understand.

Nobody's rights are "trounced" upon by someone else's words.
posted by jsonic at 5:06 PM on February 20, 2006

i'm about sick of hearing the lefts answer to neo con fascism, aka s.o.l.

your argument begins quickly to consume it self.
when you say people should be allowed "freedom of speech" unless someone finds it hurtful.
posted by nola at 5:11 PM on February 20, 2006

I honestly wonder if this all comes down to the question of how much you trust democracy and your own power?

If you don't trust democracy and your power to meaningfully participate in government and legislation, then hate-crime laws are probably a bad idea for you: you worry about the "government," as a conceptually distinct entity from you, deciding that your ideas are hurtful and throwing you in jail.

If you do trust the democratic process then hate-crime laws can work for you, because you know that as a reasonable participant in the process (and you are reasonable, aren't you?) you will always have a measure of say in deciding what constitutes a hate crime.

This is a really interesting thread to me. I actually didn't really realize how intensely angry people would feel about hate-crime laws. Rights language is really ingrained in some people as something static and fixed, not a constant negotiation. I find that interesting.

(Note: I said interesting, not stupid or fucking dumb. Please don't turn an interesting political thread into rubbish by using personal invective.)
posted by generichuman at 5:11 PM on February 20, 2006

generichuman writes "It stops majorities from trouncing on minorities that they just don't understand."

I'm not getting your use of the word "trouncing" here. It can mean a few things: to beat or whip (this is certainly covered by laws against assault and battery, and has nothing to do with speech); to defeat utterly (I'm not sure how this plays out in the context of a democratic society: an electoral defeat is within the bounds of democracy, a military defeat implies civil war and has little to do with hate speech laws); or to censure harshly. This last meaning is the only common one that has anything to do with speech, but I'm having difficulty seeing why it should be outlawed. I think I should be allowed to censure whomever I like, so long as I'm not behaving fraudulently.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:11 PM on February 20, 2006

generichuman , i like your arguments and agree with some of your broad statements on the push pull between the individual and the group (state) . but to answer your question , i don't trust the group (state, democracy, what ever) to permit my voice.
posted by nola at 5:14 PM on February 20, 2006

generichuman, I get the point: the point is that by banning the expression of some ideas, we will get people to get along better because they can't call each other hurtful things. I understand why these laws are passed. I just think they're deeply foolish, that they're rooted in magical thinking, and that their presence is mildly dangerous to more important free expression.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:14 PM on February 20, 2006

This:

posted by prentiz it is foolishness to treat holocaust deniers as criminals. It feeds their fantasies and creates their martyrs. We need to create a society where we both challenge such patently false nonsense and give our young people the reasoning skills to spot the rubbish it is.

And this:

posted by ROU_Xenophobe [these laws are] deeply foolish, that they're rooted in magical thinking, and that their presence is mildly dangerous to more important free expression.

...nicely illustrate what has always been--and always will be--the best and only solution to the "problem" of "harmful free speech": more free speech.
posted by fandango_matt at 5:22 PM on February 20, 2006

Are Irving's words rightly called an "opinion" when they are demonstrably wrong? I think that's a point that's been left out of this discussion of whether X or Y opinion should be protected--opinions, yes. Demonstrable and malicious falsehoods? That's far shakier ground. The idea that all opinions MUST receive a fair airing and consideration, however obviously wrong, is something that the peddlers of odious lies just love.

That said, I'm not in favor of imprisoning people. Civil sanctions should be adequate for such things without resorting to criminal proceedings.
posted by trigonometry at 5:27 PM on February 20, 2006

Rights language is really ingrained in some people as something static and fixed, not a constant negotiation

There's the rub: Freedom of speech is defined as a constitutional right for the sole purpose of making sure it is not susceptable to the will of the majority.

By allowing what is, and is not, lawful speech to be defined by the legislature, you are inherently allowing the majority's view of what is allowable speech to rule.

It is ironic that 'hate-crime' limits on free-speech are viewed as protecting minorities by those who support them. When, in reality, it is the power of minority groups that is diminished by allowing the majority to decide what speech is allowed.
posted by jsonic at 5:27 PM on February 20, 2006

I'm comfortable with imprisoning people who cause harm. Holding an opinion doesn't do that. Expressing one can.

Wow, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Really.
posted by odinsdream at 5:30 PM on February 20, 2006

You do not believe in free speech, you believe in your free speech.
posted by dgaicun at 3:18 PM PST on February 20 [!]

It's not a free speech issue, it's a freedom not to have to listen to bullshit.
posted by semmi at 5:32 PM on February 20, 2006

Now, when speech has actually, for real and no kidding, incited violence, then the law should punish the person whose speech caused actual harm to actual, specific people.

What about Keegstra, who was teaching his high school class that the holocaust is a myth and Jews were to be hated?
posted by five fresh fish at 5:33 PM on February 20, 2006

There are ethics to using mass media for brainwashing, especially disguised as free speech. Free speech isn't necessarily a freedom if it defines itself as a right to purchase instead of a right to accuracy or fair access. In America, modern elections are decided by advertisements, disguised as free speech, which is little more than the art of sloganeering. Under such a system, big spenders don't need to repress speech because they can afford to buy more air time to ridicule and overwhelm dissent.
posted by Brian B. at 5:33 PM on February 20, 2006

It's not a free speech issue, it's a freedom not to have to listen to bullshit.
You don't have a right to not be offended/upset/annoyed.
posted by nightchrome at 5:34 PM on February 20, 2006

What about Keegstra, who was teaching his high school class that the holocaust is a myth and Jews were to be hated?

we are not talking about what someone is paid to teach or not teach.

we are talking about your right to speak. it really is that simple.
posted by nola at 5:37 PM on February 20, 2006

Wow, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

You're gonna want to keep single citizenship in the US, then.
posted by solid-one-love at 5:39 PM on February 20, 2006

It is ironic that 'hate-crime' limits on free-speech are viewed as protecting minorities by those who support them. When, in reality, it is the power of minority groups that is diminished by allowing the majority to decide what speech is allowed.

Again, this is a problem only when you don't have constitutional protection for minority rights.

I guess at root I just meant to say this: Checks and balances, baby. Checks and balances. They're a beautiful and complex thing. Not just on the government, but also on you.

And thank you to the whole thread, actually. I have to defend an MA thesis on radical democratic theory in a few days. It's good to keep sharp.
posted by generichuman at 5:40 PM on February 20, 2006

Again, this is a problem only when you don't have constitutional protection for minority rights.

That is exactly why freedom of speech is defined as a Constitutional right, and not defined by the changing will of the legislature.

Allowing the legislature to define allowable speech actively diminishes the rights of the minority. In fact, Constitutional rights are the only institution that ensures minority rights in a democracy.
posted by jsonic at 5:48 PM on February 20, 2006

What about Keegstra, who was teaching his high school class that the holocaust is a myth and Jews were to be hated?

I'd be surprised if that didn't violate his terms of employment, or result in demonstrably inferior teaching performance for which he might be canned.

But he shouldn't have faced a criminal penalty for it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:49 PM on February 20, 2006

Freedom of speech is a Charter right in Canada, too -- but all Charter rights come under a caveat: "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

The legislature has always had the power in Canada to define rights, and the judiciary has always had the responsibility to have the final say in how rights are defined.

I, like most of my fellow citizens, are satisfied that prohibiting hate speech is a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified.
posted by solid-one-love at 5:53 PM on February 20, 2006

“Hate-crime laws just stop the individual from tugging too hard”

Indeed. My retort to Hobbes is always Herman: “Everyone I know has a big ‘but’. C'mon, let's talk about *your* big ‘but’.”
Yes, we all loved Leviathan, and I agree with your points as general concepts.
But this is not abstraction.

Speech is not a right subject to limitation. It’s a hard concept to grasp because it is counterintuitive that something that appears to be bad for you (and society) is actually good for you (and society).

Let’s take shouting “fire” in a crowded theater and such things off the table as - while a form of speech - not related to discourse.

From some perspectives ‘free speech’ is is a right intended to allow the free discussion and exchange of ideas and beliefs - a right fundamental to a free society. Society seeks to ensure that free speech builds up rather than tears down civil society.

Sometimes however, civil society must be torn down.
Liberty means having the right to tell someone what they don’t want to hear.
We cannot a priori judge that something is wrong before we’ve heard it. Certainly we know the holocaust occured. But it seems to me we know a great many things that are harmful and dictating that some things are not to be heard - by definition - requires a judge of that classification of things.

It is not merely the speaker I am concerned with - nor merely that it could be my speech judged as unfit to hear - but that as a listener I demand the right to hear things I may not like to hear and determine for myself whether to believe them or discard them and judge for myself whether they are harmful.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere . . . Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

Free speech can be harmful - yes. But to deny free speech is twice as harmful as it denys not only the right of the individual to speak, but of the individual to hear.

I need to hear a variety of opinion in order to think and reason.
I don’t need nor want the state to do my thinking for me. Not at any time, but certainly not before the fact.
It denies that I have the power of reason - much as you assert - generichuman - “lot of people don't grasp the subtlety of this.”

I was reading Hobbes when I was a sophomore in High School. I don’t make these arguments from the abstract, but from the personal and concrete level.
I demand the right to hear a man who doesn’t believe the holocaust happened.
Not merely for my amusement but because it is only in discourse, in counter thought that free speech exists.

It is because of this automatic reciprocity - this inherent feedback - that free speech is the sole exception to the ‘but’ when it comes to rights.

I made that assertion by design.


Why are those people harmed by holocaust deniers speech?
(not how: why?)
Is their right to protection from this harm greater than my right to know of the subject?
If so - how then can I avoid it if I know about it?
By extension - does then the government have the right to keep other unpleasantries out of my sight and mind?
Where is that line drawn?

Seems to me I read about a girl a few threads down who’s going to jail for having sex.
She must feel comforted that her government is looking out for her best interests as well.

I’m not a man who suffers privilege easily.
This nonsense reeks of it.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:02 PM on February 20, 2006

People who support "Freedom of speech" except for stuff that hurts people's feelings do not support freedom of speech. It's as simple as that.

Freedom of speech is a Charter right in Canada, too -- but all Charter rights come under a caveat: "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Which is why I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

That and the cold.
posted by delmoi at 6:08 PM on February 20, 2006

I, like most of my fellow citizens, are satisfied that prohibiting hate speech is a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified.

Of course you are. What seemingly reasonable person wants to be against something called 'hate-speech' protection?

However, by allowing your freedom of speech to be defined by the legislature, you have set a dangerous precedent for the future. In this case the will of the majority is attempting to protect the minority. This will not always be the case.

You have given up what should be an unquestionable right in order to protect people from speech that offends them. Do you not realize that being offended is a choice?
posted by jsonic at 6:10 PM on February 20, 2006

“Civil sanctions should be adequate for such things without resorting to criminal proceedings.”

Yeah, let me add my own argument doesn’t apply to a civil redress of grievances. Certainly someone can seek methods and routes of speech that are harmful. As much as I have a right to hear - once I’ve heard, I have a right to not have it forced upon me.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:10 PM on February 20, 2006

Excellent comment, Smedleyman. My thoughts exactly.
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:12 PM on February 20, 2006

The link to the post I was referring to should have been this, sorry.
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:14 PM on February 20, 2006

However, by allowing your freedom of speech to be defined by the legislature, you have set a dangerous precedent for the future. In this case the will of the majority is attempting to protect the minority. This will not always be the case.

The final say is with the Supreme Court, though, so it's not really the will of the majority who has the final say.

You have given up what should be an unquestionable right in order to protect people from speech that offends them. Do you not realize that being offended is a choice?

I see the issue as much larger than one of being offended. Probative harm has been key to the debate. Harm reduction should trump the right to listen to speech. IMHO.

(And I maintain that our freedom of speech is greater than that in the US. No "free speech zones" when the PM speaks in public, and so forth. Nobody on the planet has truly free speech; basically, you have to pick how your speech will be suppressed, not whether or not it will be.)
posted by solid-one-love at 6:15 PM on February 20, 2006

And, yes, excellent comment, Smedleyman -- flagged as fantastic. And I disagree with it utterly.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:16 PM on February 20, 2006

i'll tell you what, leave me the right to free speech , and i will gladly never pick up a weapon against those that would silence me .

god save the fool that gets between me and the right to speak my mind.

as long as i can speak it, i will hold out the hope of change the world through ideas.

take that away, and you leave me no choice but to "change" the world with blood and fire.
posted by nola at 6:17 PM on February 20, 2006

"No "free speech zones" when the PM speaks in public, and so forth."
Fair enough. Although lots of us consider that a very temporary situation. It could lead to some unpleasantness. As in very unpleasant.

What nola said.

Many of us will stand with the holocaust deniers - emphatically NOT from taste, but from principle. We would be enemies at the state only because we are made enemies of the state.

More or less upping the stakes. Is it worth killing/imprisoning people who’s only grievance is based on freedom of expression?

‘Cause I’d rather spend the summer on my lawn.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:23 PM on February 20, 2006

/Curious - can you publically legally burn the Canadian flag in protest?
posted by Smedleyman at 6:25 PM on February 20, 2006

Probative harm has been key to the debate. Harm reduction should trump the right to listen to speech.

There are many rights that can be limited or removed in order to reduce perceived 'harm'.

The sad thing is that you have decided to limit your freedom, as well as that freedom's security, in an attempt to protect people from a perceived 'harm' that only exists because they allow it to harm them.
posted by jsonic at 6:28 PM on February 20, 2006

Smedleyman, perfectly legal as far as I am aware.
posted by nightchrome at 6:34 PM on February 20, 2006

Can you burn a Nazi flag? How about a Palestinian flag? How about an Israeli flag?
posted by fandango_matt at 6:39 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by solid-one-love And I maintain that our freedom of speech is greater than that in the US. No "free speech zones" when the PM speaks in public, and so forth.

That's because, as you've pointed out, your entire country has outlawed free speech zones.
posted by fandango_matt at 6:42 PM on February 20, 2006

Interesting. I’m not in the Candadian/American debate thing in any serious way.
Would burning a Quebec flag be ok? If you are anti-separatist? If you hate Quebecers?
I’m wondering what those limits are predicated on.

I suspect we’re having some trouble fine tuning our epistomology here and, as generichuman pointed out, it is possible we’re coming in with contrasting preconceptions.

The general denying of the holocaust to anyone who will listen - I’m solid on as free speech.
Publishing a book - as far as I’m concerned, puts him in the Sol Rushdie column, not in subject matter of course.
Speaking where he’s invited to speak - same deal.
I’m not up on Austrian libel laws, but if it was a civil case, that’s fine with me.
His suing of another person who called him a holocaust denier makes me think he needs psychiatric help.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:53 PM on February 20, 2006

Which, y’know, the government could enforce in the public interest. Not in the Soviet gulag sorta way, more the Tex Avery “you poor deluded fool” sorta men in the white coats way.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:55 PM on February 20, 2006

Smedleyman, it has happened before, 1989 according to wikipedia. People in Quebec got quite upset, as you can imagine, but that was pretty much it.
posted by nightchrome at 6:58 PM on February 20, 2006

I've always believed that the best remedy for bad speech is more speech. In my opinion, the best response for someone like Irving is ridicule; not acting as if his ideas are in any way dangerous. Given the religious insanity percolating throughout the world, this prosecution -- and the risk of creating a martyr -- strikes me as completely misguided.

I would not be at all surprised if Irving wound up with more influence because of this debacle.
posted by subgenius at 7:00 PM on February 20, 2006

I'm fairly ignorant on the topic, but it seems to me that the Canada/US thing can be boiled down to something like this. In terms of law, Canada is less free. In practice, it isn't.
Personally, I'm not fond of the way free speech is handled in legal terms in Canada. Sadly, I'm in the minority there.
posted by nightchrome at 7:02 PM on February 20, 2006

/Just curious nightchrome. I like the cold. And the city streets look clean. Chicago is boarderline unlivable. Used to be nice. Now, traffic, etc.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:11 PM on February 20, 2006

smedleyman: Let’s take shouting “fire” in a crowded theater and such things off the table as - while a form of speech - not related to discourse.

How can you simply decide that some forms of speech are not relevant to a debate on free speech? Who said that it was only about discourse?

I find it difficult to clarify my own views on the matter enough to express them, but so far I've figured out that although in theory I would support the idea of totally free speech, in practice I think some things should not be said. How about a debate on whether or not blacks really are people? Should that be protected? Even if it leads to a group decision that blacks are only monkeys and shouldn't be treated as people? (They're still only talking about this, remember). Once you have allowed that decision to be broadcast, how can you punish people for the actions they take based on this discourse? By allowing ideas to be expressed without limit, it seems to me that society would be indicating some kind of acceptance of those ideas.

I don't trust people to limit their own behaviour to 'acceptable'. I can't think of who I would trust to define or enforce 'acceptable' limits for everyone either, which is a problem.
posted by jacalata at 7:12 PM on February 20, 2006

Historical Revisionism from Wikipedia. Details the European laws.
posted by stbalbach at 7:20 PM on February 20, 2006

Smedleyman, I no longer live in Canada myself, so some might say I have less say in the matter anyhow.
Generally though, Canadians seem to feel quite strongly about free speech except where hate-speech is concerned. There's a lot less racism and group-hatred in Canada than in the USA, it's still a problem of course but to a far, far lesser degree. Perhaps that's why Canadians take such instances so seriously, as they stand out more.
posted by nightchrome at 7:20 PM on February 20, 2006

I agree. Holocaust-deniers should be publicly ridiculed, discredited and shunned by the rest of society, but not put in jail for their moronic beliefs.

I second this notion. Doesn't society become closer to Nazi Fascism when they give up free speech?
posted by j-urb at 7:22 PM on February 20, 2006

For the record, I believe in free speech. No "if"s or "but"s.
I recognize, however, that I'm in the minority both in my home country and in my adopted country, and that we live in majority-rule nations for the most part in the "civilized" world.
posted by nightchrome at 7:23 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by jacalata I find it difficult to clarify my own views on the matter enough to express them, but so far I've figured out that although in theory I would support the idea of totally free speech, in practice I think some things should not be said.

Okay. Who decides what can and cannot be said?

How about a debate on whether or not blacks really are people? Should that be protected?

Absolutely.

Even if it leads to a group decision that blacks are only monkeys and shouldn't be treated as people?

Then that group should be exposed and soundly ridiculed as the intolerant cretins and bigots they obviously are.

Once you have allowed that decision to be broadcast, how can you punish people for the actions they take based on this discourse?

Easily. Words are not actions.

By allowing ideas to be expressed without limit, it seems to me that society would be indicating some kind of acceptance of those ideas.

Allowing ideas to be expressed without limit does not mean tacit approval of those ideas, it means the society that allows ideas to be freely expressed approves of the free expression of ideas.

I don't trust people to limit their own behaviour to 'acceptable'. I can't think of who I would trust to define or enforce 'acceptable' limits for everyone either, which is a problem.

And that's exactly why free speech is a right.
posted by fandango_matt at 7:26 PM on February 20, 2006

You should be able to say almost anything, unless you are creating an immediate danger to someone else.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:33 PM on February 20, 2006

I am in complete agreement with those who side with fully free speech under all circumstances.

And with that said, I have absolutely no sympathy for Irving, and will do nothing to encourage his release. I firmly believe we are far better off without him. I condemn him for being a destructive force working hard against the best interests of society. Screw him.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:41 PM on February 20, 2006

posted by five fresh fish I am in complete agreement with those who side with fully free speech under all circumstances. And with that said, I have absolutely no sympathy for Irving, and will do nothing to encourage his release. I firmly believe we are far better off without him. I condemn him for being a destructive force working hard against the best interests of society. Screw him.

Seems to me if you truly supported free speech, you'd oppose his incarceration.
posted by fandango_matt at 7:46 PM on February 20, 2006

FIVE "MYTHS" ABOUT THE ARREST OF DAVID IRVING

1. So, I hear that David Irving has been sentenced to three years in jail in Austria.

A. FALSE. This is a myth propogated by Evil Zionists who stand to make HUGE PROFIT$ off of the myth of the "so-called" Holocaust. The French government has never sentenced David Irving to any jail time whatsoever.

2. My history professor says that David Irving is an "raving antisemitic loon" - what's up with that?

A. FALSE. Mr. Irving is in no way related to waterfowl, and in his opinion, Canadian money is ugly. And he has never been to a "rave", as techno music makes him nauseous.

3. Wow! Sounds like Irving is pretty neato! Still, I hear he really dislikes Jewish people.

A. FALSE. Mr. Irving would like Jewish people fine if they all went someplace ... you know, else. Like the ones in WWII did. If Jewish "scientists" had been working on developing gills instead of coming up with so-called "proof" of the so-called "Holocaust", they'd be peacefully living at the bottom of the Mediterranean by now.

Their lack of foresight is not, however, Mr. Irving's problem.

4. Binkies! You're right, I need to stop listening to ZIONAZI HOLOCAUSTOMANIACS. But look. Hasn't Mr. Irving been denied entry into countries like Australia?

A. FALSE. We answered the question about Austria in question #1 above. Why do you Holocau$t profiteer$ insist on asking the same stuff over and over again?

5. Jeepers. You don't think somebody could be using EVIL JEWISH BRAINWASHING POWERS ... nah. Anyway, so I heard that Mr. Irving has been censured by courts in Germany and Britain that labelled him a racist and anti-semite - what's up with that?

A. FALSE. There are no courts that are in Britain and Germany at the same time. Any assertion to the contrary is the product of ZioNazi HoloCaustazoid ProfitMongerers.
posted by swell at 7:50 PM on February 20, 2006

How about a debate on whether or not blacks really are people? Should that be protected?

It shouldn't be illegal anyway. As prtotected as any other speech.

Even if it leads to a group decision that blacks are only monkeys and shouldn't be treated as people? (They're still only talking about this, remember).

You mean, what if the League of Morons decided that? Okay.

Once you have allowed that decision to be broadcast, how can you punish people for the actions they take based on this discourse?

If their conduct is illegal, they can be punished for it. "But we talked about it beforehand!" is hardly a valid defense against prosecution.

Seems to me if you truly supported free speech, you'd oppose his incarceration.

Nah, I get where he's coming from. I abhor the death penalty, but that doesn't mean I particularly miss the people when they're gone.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:58 PM on February 20, 2006

No, y'see, fandango, I believe David Irving intends to take over the minds of simpletons and paranoids, and use their money to his sole benefit, and their political power to attempt to influence social law.

I am absolutely confident that the incarceration of David Irving, under the law of "you're such an asshole," is far less harmful than working against his incarceration on the mistaken belief that this is all about free speech, and not social management.

By the way, these awful Hate Speech Laws? Turns out they only apply once you start publicising your hatred.

Go ahead and scratch down your darkest racist thoughts in your private diary. Hell, you can even have your chums over for poker and hate.

Just don't bother going public about it.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:01 PM on February 20, 2006

I think Austria's limitation on free speech is a special case. As a nation they suffered a terrible psychic shock when they awoke from a nightmare and realized their government and citizens collectively had been complicit in the extermination of millions of innocent victims.

It is as if an otherwise good man awoke from a drunken blackout to realize that he had beaten his wife. In his remorse he declares that he can never, ever have a drop of alcohol again because bad things can happen. Such a rule wouldn't apply to most people but would be appropriate in his case.

The Austrian law wouldn't be appropriate for other countries but I think I can understand why the Austrians thought it necessary as a part of their penance. If this is the only restriction, I don't see it as overly burdensome.
posted by JackFlash at 8:02 PM on February 20, 2006

IMO the hate crime laws are about on par with noise bylaws, laws against public sex, pooperscooper laws, and other "how to behave in society" laws.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:04 PM on February 20, 2006

I think anyone who expresses an opinion that hurts my feelings should be imprisoned.

I deserve to live in a world where I do not have to hear objectionable opinions expressed that I may find hurtful.

Ahh, Utopia...are we there yet?
posted by darkstar at 8:06 PM on February 20, 2006

First of all, this concept of "probative harm" is something you should trademark, solid one love. According to Google, it appears in only one place outside this thread: an earlier post by you.

Secondly, folks may want to look at the applicable law. It isn't just about breach of the peace. The law says that "every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty..."

Yipes. Can "those pricks" be an identifiable group. If so, I'm in trouble.
posted by Cassford at 8:22 PM on February 20, 2006