http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

Sweet Sweet Justice!

yay for censorship

I always find holocaust denial a sticky subject. Yeah it's 99.9% of the time just anti-semitic arseholes trying to make a jab. But it doesn't exactly encourage people to really look into it, when, if you found information that may have lessened the impact of the holocausts (eg fewer people involved), you could be threatened with jail time.
It's the one piece of history for which arguing over it can result in a prison sentence.

That's horrible

Seconded. That is horrible.

I'm glad to see that Europe jails those who demonstrate how terrible freedom of speech really is.

It's not terrible. It's necessary. Holocaust denial is exactly what was said in that article. It's Antisemitism dressed up as intellectual debate. Hate crimes and hate speech are illegal.

The Holocaust happened. I have family members who have / had the tattoos to prove it, and others who weren't so fortunate as to live through the ordeals at the camps. People like that man make me sick.

But Yecti, there is so much compelling evidence for the existence of the holocaust that the deniers just get shouted down. It's going to be a sore point for you when family was involved but in the interests of freedom of speech this sentence is disgusting. It also just fuels the deniers because it suggests that the evidence for the holocaust is weak enough that a law needs to be in place to protect it.
It seems unnecessary and it places one piece of history separate to all the rest. People can argue about the Rwandan, Armenian, Sudanian and Ukrainian genocides without fear of jail time. All of these were fueled by prejudices, so what makes the holocaust so special that it cannot be scrutinised?

Plus this Irving guy isn't being dogmatic about it. He obviously doesn't trust anything short of primary evidence but when he read Eichmann's papers he realised he was wrong and he accepted the existence of the holocaust. WTF does jailing him do for anyone?

Er, I thought they proved that there WEREN'T any gas chambers. Auschwitz was not a death camp per say, where people were taken to be killed. Worked to death, yes, but not exterminated. Some guy went around in the 80s, before they rebuilt the place, and showed that the showers were actually SHOWERS. There were no seals on the doors, for example. Strangely enough it appears that the article I read may have been by this guy...but I thought the guy who documented it was just a photographer or something...anyone else have details on this?


So you can be arrested in Europe for spewing crap? Wow, for once I actually do feel that I have more rights as an American.

Maybe it IS just antisemitism dressed up as an intellectual debate. But how does that mean you should throw a guy in jail for it? I mean, we protect Klan rallies because we HAVE to. Because thay may be full of ****, but they're supposed to have the right to say what they want.

They make me sick, too. But that's not a reason to throw them in jail.

I think this is appropriate:

"i disagree with what my nieghbor says, but i will fight to the death for his right to say it"

Was that voltair? or fanklin? completely blanked out on that. still, the point remains.

That's a very coincidental instapost.

Sounds like a load of bull crap to me. Imagine if we jailed everyone who said we shouldn't go to war with Iraq. Imagine if we jailed everyone who said something that was untrue. Give me a freaking break.

I wonder how many other things you can't talk about publicly there. Is there a list somewhere travellers can look at? Like what if I go to London and I think the fact that they closed the crown jewel exhibit sucked and I said that out loud? I travelled halfway around the world to see these stupid things and the exhibit is closed and I say something about it, "the crown jewels don't exist if I can't see them," should I be thrown in jail? That's freaking ridiculous.

yes, but its definitly appropriate. i'm suprised no one else posed it earlier then us.

The extradition papers are in the post :p

Speak up in favor of the Jews in Berechtesgaden and you are shot on sight...60 odd years ago.

Speak up against the Jews and you are shot on sight...well figuratively, today.

Moral of the Story: Speak up against the will of the state then and now and you are punished. Fascism is not dead folks.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0429.shtml

I think it's pretty stupid to throw someone in jail for something like this. I know it's a sensative subject, but people are entitled to their opinions.

Three years in jail for having a retarded opinion? Guess that's why there aren't any german Massassians.

I was going to say: I wish half of massassi lived there. Game freaking over.

Impi would love to have a word with you.

Yeah, but Impi's one of the few of us with out stupid opinions. I think. But really, everyone should have a few stupid opinions. It's just healthy. I'm going to pick out a good one right now.

HOLD ON HERE.

Did this guy get sentenced for denying the holocaust or for illegally entering Austria? The source article is vague and seems to imply the former, but wikipedia says otherwise.

From this article



[edit] Can't really find a source for him being banned, but apparently he was tried for promoting Nazi views which is illegal under Austrian law. And if he had not gone back into Austria to speak to a group of radical pro-Nazi students, he wouldn't have been tried at all.

The one you're expressing seems stupid enough.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]The one you're expressing seems stupid enough.[/QUOTE]


So is this one. Knock if off, both of you.

So... what happens if I were to hypothetically walk around raving about how the Civil War didn't happen? Even though, like in this situation, there's some fairly substantial proof that it did? Would I become famous, be arrested on ludicrous charges and put on the web and debated about? Or would I just go to county jail for a night as drunk and disorderly?

Thats pretty silly. How cares if he doesn't think the holocaust happened, or even rants and raves about. Anybody who is sane will just ignore him. I don't need the government to shut him up for me, I just won't listen to him, why is it so difficult for people to understand that? With all forms of censorship?

Does no one else find it brutally ironic that they censor free speech which relates to a fascist regime?

Uh...DS...all I did was tell him that saying Germans have stupid opinions is rather...well...stupid?

You guys are missing the point. This man has been barred/banned from many different countries including Canada and the US. Imagine a historian coming over from the UK and condoning the slaughter of Native Americans. I could totally see the US deporting him and banning him from coming back in the country. If you travel to another country, you have to respect their perspective.

This guy is a revisionist historian trying to legitimize the Nazis. He deserves more than three years.

But he been banned from the countries for having a stupid opinion.

Well he used to be a credible historian stating this opinion as fact.

No. Auschwitz was a death camp. There were "labor" camps, but the Auschwitz/Birchenau facility was all about extermination. Something like 99% of the prisoners didn't survive more than 2 weeks before they were gassed.

Having been to Auschwitz/Birchenau and also to Dachau... all I can say is this guy is lucky he's only getting jail time.

No I couldn't. He'd be run out of any type of credibility but not deporting the *******. If anything the ACLU would jump on his case for him to be able to say what he wants.

This guy spoke aloud setiments contrary to the thoughts of the state and he was arrested. That don't bother you?

Ku Klux Klan is a myth.

My evidence: I said so, everyone else lies.

I remember growing up and being unable to go to certain stores on Sundays because of Klan recruitment rallies going on, and they gave us olive people very threatening looks.

Exactly.

There's a fine line between what should and should not be censored. I am definitely in favor of keeping the government out of peoples' business, but there's a good reason the Nazi party is outlawed. I admit the law detracts from freedom of speech, but expressing certain radical viewpoints (e.g., KKK) needs to be illegal. And he should have made his comments from the safety of his own country.

Why?

Rarely does the "slippery slope" argument work in discussions here at Massassi, but in this case, it does apply. You're letting the government decide what you should be allowed to say, because you don't agree with it. Where does it end?

I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but it's another must here. Supporting the government's right to censor its people is something that Hitler would say.

Granted, there are limits. The "fire in a theater" argument still stands. For instance, a Neo-Nazi group can, should be, and was prevented from demonstrating in a heavily-Jewish area in the U.S.. Their right to free speech was not revoked - they were allowed to demonstrate in areas where it wouldn't incite fighting in the streets.