jailed for denying the holocaust

[hobbes]

I will not embarrass you further.

If you think that someone should be jailed for an unpopular opinion, you and your 1984 camera and survellience moniters can live happily well away from my counrty.

How is this ANY different than denying slavery?

You are pro-freedom as long as it supports your opinion, good for you.

I do not think that someone should be jailed for holding an unpopular opinion, like I said quite clearly, they can hold whatever opinion they want. That's a matter for them

However that does not mean they can choose to express any opinion wherever they want and whenever they want. I do not think the KKK should be allowed to go en mass into a black area and hold a rally proclaiming white supremacy. That does not mean they cannot do it, simply that society can decide it is wrong and take them to task for it.

In Austria they think that holocaust denial is so offensive that it is punishable by imprisonment. Where I am, incitement towards racial hatred is illegal because we as a society think it is morally repugnant. Society has rights, just as much as the individual.

With regard to the various attempted analogies. Certain rights are held to be absolute and others are not. The right to life and the right to freedom from torture are absolute and the State cannot take those away. The right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression are not. The default position is that people have those rights, however given certain circumstances and within a certain legal framework, the State can remove these rights.

That's how things are over here and the Austrians, given the historical significance, have every right to behave in the way they did. If some anti-semitic, racist decided to flaunt their laws good on them for defending themselves from him.

EDIT - The right to freedom from slavery is also an absolute right.

If someone comes to my home and asks me if I think the holocuast occurred and I say "No, it was a hoax". That is my opinion, and not jailable.

If I use this opinion to intentionally cause harm or incite hatred, then I am stepping on the rights of others, and this should be jailable.

This is what I have been trying to express since post one.

That is why I said in my first post that we perhaps were not getting the full story, which simply stated that he was jailed for denying the holocaust. It was not just his denial of the holocaust that was the offense, but how he used his opinion to intentionally stir up offense and promote hatred.

[JPaul]

That is why I said in my first post that we perhaps were not getting the full story, which simply stated that he was jailed for denying the holocaust. It was not just his denial of the holocaust that was the offense, but how he used his opinion to intentionally stir up offense and promote hatred.

On what do you base this contention.

[Skillian]

It was not just his denial of the holocaust that was the offense, but how he used his opinion to intentionally stir up offense and promote hatred.

No it's not, public denial is the offence. Your way makes more sense to me and many others, but it's not how the law is.

[Busyman]

I think what really sucks is that the law is about public denial of a historical event or minimalization of it.

I think everyone knows that freedom of speech is not absolute. There are too many examples: shouting "BOMB" at an airport, libel and slander, threatening bodily harm against a person or riding into a neighborhood shouting racial hatred. Those are direct contradictions to (absolute) freedom of speech.

What this case sounds like is dissenting opinion and the government stifling dissenting opinion.

Imagine folks NOT being able spout conspiracy theories about 9/11, calling the President an idiot on TV or questioning evolution.

The law, in principle, stifles a person in public from being an idiot OR correct.

[hobbes]

It was not just his denial of the holocaust that was the offense, but how he used his opinion to intentionally stir up offense and promote hatred.

No it's not, public denial is the offence. Your way makes more sense to me and many others, but it's not how the law is.

Then it's just a stupid law which censors its citizens. Being jailed for expressing an opinion, in a context which is not aimed at hurting or provoking others, is wrong.

It is not illegal to yell "fire", but one will be held accountable for yelling fire(when there is none) in a crowded theather, provoking a stampede and causing injuries.

It would be like jailing someone for denying slavery in the US. Wrong.
It would be like jailing someone for denying Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Wrong.

The historical record is there and stands well enough on its own.

They can pass any laws they want, and I can judge them as I see fit.

[Busyman]

The historical record is there and stands well enough on its own.

They can pass any laws they want, and I can judge them as I see fit.

Eggggzacklee.

[Formula1]

Again as a user at TB.net said, I agree with this response,

3 words, freedom of speech. Although I personally think that denying holocaust shows that the person is either dumb or he lacks education, having second opinion on a matter is hardly worth of prison time. I saw people fighting for freedom of speech in the danes vs. mohammed cartoon threads, I see this situation very similar.

[BawA]

You think people should be jailed for free speech, really

Yes, obviously.

I support Abu Hamza being jailed and I think Nick Fuckwit the head of the BNP should also be jailed for what he said (he's being re-tried apparently).

Free speech yes, consequences also yes. Society has a right to protect itself from hatemongers and those who would cause the suffering of others by their words and what their words lead to.

thats what am been saying for so long, what u say now?
why not jail that man who made cartoons?
they can jail someone for just speaking but they cant jail a guy who acctually made something that spreaded world wide.

If someone comes to my home and asks me if I think the holocuast occurred and I say "No, it was a hoax". That is my opinion, and not jailable.

If I use this opinion to intentionally cause harm or incite hatred, then I am stepping on the rights of others, and this should be jailable.

again something that i was pointing.

[JPaul]

why not jail that man who made cartoons?

For the simple reason that he did not commit an offence. If he had then the Danish authorities may well have prosecuted him.