The Irving trial and Holocaust denial
The Austrian David Irving was sentenced to 3 years in prison for Holicaust denial.
It occurred to me that this likely wouldn't happen in the US, but I have mixed feelings about it. Is it a test of one's convictions regarding free speech? Or is Austria right to safeguard its society from people like Irving?
It occurred to me that this likely wouldn't happen in the US, but I have mixed feelings about it. Is it a test of one's convictions regarding free speech? Or is Austria right to safeguard its society from people like Irving?
Comments (30)
Of course the context was Austria's participation in the holocaust and probably Irving has other motives than just being a crackpot. So it gets murky there. The reason we in the US are hardcore on speech is because if you give the government power to censure, then it can be abused. Maybe we don't care if a holocaust denier gets shut down, but what about if it's someone espousing an unpopular political opinion? What if they're criticizing the government?
It seems like Austria thinks society needs to be protected from certain kinds of crackpots, which is weird form a US perspective. Why can't society decide without using the force of law who to believe when it comes to history?
What they don't realize is that in today's world, censorship is to popularity as gasoline is to open flames, or that one day they too could be censored via the same appeal (let alone that they aren't the benevolent king/queen we all need)...
So we need to protect the voting public by censoring people? That sounds anti-democratic. And how do we determine who and when to censor? Because I can imagine pro-Trump supporters saying the same thing about past presidents they didn't like.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's for sure!
Sometimes we get people in office that we don't like, and that we disagree with vehemently, but if you start limiting (as you say) who can say what, then you open yourself up to the same kind of censorship. I don't want to see a socialist get into office, but we still need to keep the communication lines open. It's paramount to keep yourself informed, and not just from a one-sided perspective.
If you ban the speech of one crackpot, you're inevitably going to create additional crackpots.
If we let the crackpots have their freedom of thought and speech it's possible they could delude others, maybe even a majority, into subscribing to their no longer crackpot beliefs. It's a risk, sure, but that's inherent in the democratic gambit that the modern west is founded on. We hope and pray that the free marketplace of opinions and ideas can sufficiently filter out the crack-pots and the Pol Pots. Being sufficiently exposed to the reality of hate-based ideologies can be quite helpful in helping people think critically about them, and wide-spread critical thinking is something we definitely want in a democracy.
Basically, by banning speech you can do more damage to democracy than if you allowed it. Banned speech creates a cult of mystery, and then festers in dark and cloistered corners where manipulative thinking can go unchallenged. We also have to consider that some unpopular ideas might actually turn out to be true, and there's no comprehensive guide to knowing what to ban and what not to ban (what might turn out to be harmful, false, true, or beneficial).
If someone can tell me who the perfect arbiter of allowed and forbidden ideas is, I'll start forecasting their bias and inevitable failure...
That's the thing. Nobody can be trusted in that role anymore than anyone can be trusted with unshared power.
I really, really hate that. However, usually I hear about that stuff from conservative sources that I don't trust very much. Often times, things are taken out of context when reporting so as to cause outrage in the viewer.
It's undemocratic, to be sure, but we must at least acknowledge the normative argument that typically justifies censorship. "The greater good" and all that... In the European and other countries where holocaust denial is a crime, it's fundamentally based on that argument. When the US government censored and shut down radio stations and media purveyors who were critical of the war effort during WW2, they did it under the same justification.
Even the anecdotal "fire" in a crowded theater employs the same reasoning.
In the context where speech clearly would lead to imminent and avoidable harm (such as revealing state secrets, direct incitements of violence, causing panic in a crowd, etc...) it does seem reasonable to me to ban the speech. But, when it comes to the banning of ideas themselves (or speech on the basis of promoting the wrong ideas) I don't see how it could possibly be justifiable. Unless an idea is in and of itself a threat (such as specific instructions on how to create weapons of mass destruction or otherwise carry out deadly attacks), why should it be banned?
If an arbiter can determine what is or is not permissible for a democratic public to consume, then they can explain why to the democratic public, and then we can decide for ourselves! (otherwise it's not democracy)...
:up:
Your post made me think about what Jon Stewart said: that Trump is a direct result of a steady barage of talk radio and Fox News.
Speech may be free but the news is paid for.
Crackpot Pol Pot. :strong:
Like this:
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/
"But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison."
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/US-Anti-BDS-Bill-Giving-Trump-Power-to-Punish-Movement-Supporters-Gains-Traction-20180629-0006.html
"The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is practically ready for a house vote after being approved by the committee Thursday and would allow for the punishment of businesses engaged in BDS with criminal penalties of a maximum US$1 million fine and 20 years in prison.
Brian Hauss, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), criticized the bill arguing it “seeks to dictate the political activities Americans can and can’t engage in.”"
That's up to 20 years in prison for disagreeing with the policy of a U.S. ally. Free speech. Not so much.
am I wrong in thinking this way? or is it maybe to simplified and dosent address the bigger problem?
Neo-Nazi groups regularly incite their members to violence. It's not like they're just these harmless mislead folks having their freedom to speech rights trampled on by evil oppressive lefties. They are dangerous scum. I don't support violence against them except in self-defense. At the same time if someone incites violence and then suffers violence by a third party such as antifa, I would hold them to a great degree responsible for their own fate.
Fair request. I don't know, but I'll look into it. Just to add that by incite violence, I don't limit that to direct imperatives such as "Let's go beat up some [insert minority group here]" (though I have seen that done too) but include stirring up hatred which is likely to lead to violence. If you present minority groups as a threat then you prime those who believe you towards violence as a means of defense against that threat even if it's a "preemptive strike" type defense.
Quoting Aleksander Kvam
They're not helping, I agree.
It wouldn't happen in the US because the US was founded on the principle of distrust of government and an important check against the government is freedom of speech. Austria, on the other hand, was not founded on such principles, but instead previously found itself and much of Western Europe on the verge of collapse because of Nazi ideology. It therefore has created laws protecting itself from a reemergence of that ideology.
The distinctions between the two nations are historical and understandable. I am biased toward the US policy and think it's probably more enlightened, but, then again, the US was the victor in WW2 and affected to a much less extent than Europe.
The more important point is that suppressing morons makes them martyrs for their causes.
I'm sure that's not all there is to it.