We Have A Right To Be Wrong

Francisco Goya, 'Plucked Turkey' ca.1812, Neue Pinakothek, Munich

 

David Irving, the infamous and discredited British historian, languishes in an Austrian jail, having been sentenced to three years. Just writing that sentence makes me feel happy. The next sentence is much harder to write. He should be released.

Irving’s views are repulsive and wrong. He is a deeply offensive crank, and a litigious one, who has tried to use the libel laws to silence his critics. Five years ago, he sued the American historian, Deborah Lipstadt, after she described him as a Holocaust denier, and lost. In a withering 333-page judgment, Mr Justice Charles Gray described him as an anti-Semite, a racist and a neo-Nazi sympathiser who had “persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”.

Deborah Lipstat: “Laws that ban ideas, no matter how vile the ideas, are distasteful to academics, and even those academics who ended Mr. Irving's mainstream career have come out to defend him today.

"If you had told me, a few months ago, that I would be demanding David Irving's release one day, I would have called you insane," Ms. Lipstadt told the German magazine Der Spiegel this week.

But she is defending him. "I'm against censorship -- no one stands to benefit from the throwing of this guy into prison."

Irving’s opinions are indefensible; his right to hold them, however, must be defended. For reasons of both principle and expediency, he should go free. Freedom of speech includes the right to be hopelessly, demonstrably and repeatedly wrong. It is not to be applied selectively, depending on the nature of the speech in question, but universally and consistently. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is unequivocal: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

To defend free speech when we happen to share the speaker’s opinion is an easy task. Take Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish writer who is facing trial for saying, in defiance of the official Turkish view of history, that his compatriots carried out the genocide of Armenians during the First World War. Many writers (including this one) have defended his right to do so. Far harder, but just as essential, is the defence of speech that we find morally disgusting and intellectually bankrupt. When a conference in Turkey on the Armenian question was cancelled under state pressure, the liberal West was outraged; when Iran recently announced a conference to question the authenticity of the Holocaust, the West was, once again, outraged. But in the case of both Irving and Pamuk, the issue should be settled in the court of public discussion, not the law courts; so long as speech does not directly incite racial hatred, it must remain free.

Jack Grant @ The Moderate Voice: "Yes, denying that the Holocaust occurred is criminal, but should it be a crime in a society that treasures liberty and wishes to avoid the very mindset that permitted something as horrible as the Holocaust to occur?

Note that criminal is defined "having the nature of a crime" while crime is "a violation of the law", a subtle but distinct difference.

In other words, where does the line between true political speech the freedom of which does indeed protect a democracy from descent into the tyranny of creeping expansion of government power versus the equivalent of "crying fire in a crowded theater" lie?

Millions died in the Holocaust, a systematic extermination of a people based upon their religion that was perpetrated in a society where dissent was punished by at the least exclusion from society and legal protection if not by the very same extermination.

Where does the line lie between the "internment" advocated by some versus the concentration camps that the Nazis created with such efficiency?"

He was convicted under a 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."

To use the criminal laws to ban opinions you don't approve of apart from being reminiscent of a totalitarian regime, is intensely immoral, but also highly ineffective, since you don't eliminate opinions by criminalizing their expression.

Neo Neocon has an in-depth analysis: "But with Irving, it turns out it would have been far better to trust, but verify. Because it wasn't until the lawyers for the defense obtained access to the bulk of Irving's notes and papers through the liberal British discovery process, and Evans was paid to use his knowledge of German to take the time to do an in-depth study of how Irving's original sources matched up with Irving's depiction of them in his writing, that the truly colossal magnitude of Irving's deception was revealed, as well as the depth of his anti-Semitism."

In her latest post today Neo Neocon quotes Professor Hajo Funke, a German historian: "In Germany and in Austria there is a moral obligation to fight the kind of propaganda peddled by Irving. We can't afford the luxury of the Anglo-Saxon freedom of speech argument in this regard," he says.

"It's not that I don't understand it, it's just not for us. Not yet. Not for a long time." and has a very good post on how the dismissal of the verdict is not that simple

"Someone should tell the people in charge of Irving's website about his sudden change of heart, [he claimed at his trial he did not deny the existence of the Holocaust: "I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,"] because it still features reams and reams of "revisionist" material about the Holocaust, most of written or compiled well after 1989. Now that his liberty is on the line, Irving the brave free-speech martyr reveals himself to be nothing but a pathetic, simpering coward."

Siggy has a valid point: "David Irving, the professor emeritus of Holocaust denial, wasn't sentenced to three years because he is a professed anti Semite. He wasn't sentenced to three years in prison because he is the patron saint of neo Nazis the world over and he is not being punished for writing about conspiracies and idiotic ideas.

David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison for yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater. He was sentenced for denying a truth that cost millions of innocent lives, now forgotten and unacknowledged. He was sentenced to prison because his denial of the truth and horror of that time is a kind of equivalent of blaming the rape victim for the assault.

David Irving is the poster boy for Iranian and Arab holocaust denial. They are societies for whom denial of the truth is a necessary tonic, so that they might deny their own culpability." Read the entire post, it's important.

Yes he is despicable, yes he is wrong, and his rants would simply not have led to legal action in the US, but is being in denial a crime? This criminal sentence comes at a time when we are fighting for a fundamental freedom of speech which we have supposedly taken for granted, and the conviction only serves to undermine that freedom, and give cause to the question that has long dogged the German and Austrian anti-Nazi laws: If you prohibit certain topics of speech, can you really say you have a free society?

Jonah Goldberg says "No Buts On Free Speech":

Of course some speech is inappropriate. Even some political speech is inapropriate (you would think more conservatives who rightly despise Michael Moore would understand this). But inappropriate shouldn't mean illegal. And yet liberals -- and no shortage of conservatives -- consider criticism of inappropriate speech to be somehow an infringement of free speech rights.

TigerHawk: "Let's not throw people in jail for writing what they will, or burn the embassies of countries that suffer offensive opinions to exist, or slaughter innocent people, or lodge diplomatic protests. It is high time to decriminalize speech everywhere in the world, no matter how asshattish it may be."

Glenn Greenwald: "The reason for this is clear. One ingrained American political principle is that citizens cannot and must not be punished by the State for expressing ideas and opinions, no matter how reprehensible, repulsive or even dangerous the opinions are. This is not something which most Americans even need to contemplate or debate. It’s ingrained on a visceral, almost instinctive level, such that reading an article which reports on someone’s imprisonment for expressing an idea provokes an immediate, reflexive revulsion." Read the entire analysis, it's excellent, aside from the obligatory references to 'wiretappgate', debated ad nauseum.

Jeff Goldstein: "What I fear—and why I support the free speech solution (in which people like Irving are publicly humiliated for their poor research, their wild conjecture, and their barely cohesive conspiracy theories)—is that by imprisoning Irving, the stage has been effectively set for the criminalization of other instances of “public hate speech,” which, in an intellectual millieu of hard multiculturalism and the celebration of “diversity” through the kinds of identity politics that allow individual groups to construct and defend any perceived affronts to the group, is sure to end in the kind of absurd relativism that has been too long insinuating itself into western liberalism."

Much more importantly it gives our Islamofascist friends, who wasted no time listing Irving as another victim of Jewish hatred, the feeling that our freedom of speech is indeed subjective.

And again I ask “Should we have a right to be wrong?”

According to CNN, who have had 12 600 people vote thus far on the question of whether Austria has a right to have a law against Holocaust denial, 43% voted 'yes' and 57% voted 'no'.

UPDATE: My friend Shrinkwrapped draws an interesting comparison to child abuse: "As for Irving, we do not send adult abusers to jail unless there is proof they actually performed such abuse.  On the other hand, we now register sex offenders who are likely to abuse again, and in some cases will extend their prison sentences in order to protect innocents.  Would we or should we do the same to those who would facilitate child abuse?  I do not know the answer to that question but it seems to me it comes closest to the heart of Holocaust Denial.  As many have pointed out, Holocaust denial is being used by those who wish to complete the job the Nazis started.  They are using it to justify their genocidal aspirations and facilitate their ongoing efforts to recreate the Nazi program, this time using Nuclear weapons instead of gas chambers."

And then this anti-Semitic garbage I discovered from another Holocaust denier, who hails Irving as a hero. What a crazy messed up world we live in.

UPDATE II: Prosecutors file an appeal against the leniency of the sentence and the Defense files against the severity of the sentence.

Daniel Finkelstein on The Power of Truth.

More @ The Belmont Club, Dr. Sanity, FlapsBlog, Secure Liberty, Joe Gandelman, The Jawa Report, QandO, Say Anything, Althouse, The Sundries Shack, Hyscience, Natalie Solent, The Agenda Gap

Comments

[Thor]

I'm all for giving the right of free speech to minorities.

But the reason Irving is such a problem, is that he is not a minority.

When is it free speech, and when is it a rally to murder?

[Huan]

the link between the cartoon crisis and Irving is that a liar revised history, as the danish iman did regarding the cartoons, to incite a global riot. should he be protected by "free speech" as well?

free speech cannot be free without responsibility, and thus a limit to prevent absolute free speech

[Liquid]

Yeah, and I know alot of people are jacked up about the "freedom of speech" over this, and going on and on about comparing this to the cartoon thingy, but everyone has to keep the reality of it all into perspective. The cartoons are about our freedom of speech as it's a fuss over an "idea" and over "muhammed being a divine prophet that shouldn't be depicted in any image" which basically who can really prove that beyond one's faith? Laws for blashphemy that they want to be made are not rational because then anyone could basically say, "I am offended over 'my alien' that comes and visits me on Friday nights" Ha Ha...there is no reason of proof on that one! Just as there is not one on Muhammed. Where to the contrary, the denial of the holocaust is about a real event and can be proven and Austria is enforcing a law that was on the books and an important law to their country. I know alot of people in America might not understand how important that law means to them. I really do respect them for upholding it. It shows a real moral obligation in keeping their word that it will never happen in the future on their soil. It sends a strong message of principle. Comparing this with the cartoon issue, one has to be honest with the reality, how can freedom of speech of the press over a cartoon which was legal in that country to produce ( yet is being used to push sharia blasphemy laws onto the west) how can anyone compare that to the honorable law that was already on the books and was put there to protect the history and the truth of the murder of millions? It's the difference in apples and oranges. One is real and can be proven with truth and the other cannot be proven so it continues to try to "force via intimidation" around the world.

[Alexandra]

Liquid,

Absolutely so, and what makes it even worse is that Irving was warned that should he come back to Austria he will be arrested. He came back for a one day trip, why I wonder?

However we are only discussing a hypothesis, and arguing whether such a law should exist in the first place. The law in Austria is clear.

[Liquid]

I guess my point is this...there is no law of blasphemy against depicting prophet's images in Denmark in that cartoonist cannot express their freedom of speech (although the islamist world's desire for sharia to overcome it is in full expression) but remember that there was a law on the books about the denial of the holocaust "an actual real event of the murder of millions" and Irving knew it.

[Vee]

In Australia we don't have the right to freedom of speach, we have a law against slander.

But we do have parliamentary priviledge, what is said in, or brought forward during parliament is protected against the slander law. So we are not as free as you may think, constitutionally anyway.

Recently in Victoria we had two pastors found guilty of Religious Vilification against Islam. That law has not been passed in all states. But it has set a dangerous precedent for other trials of similar nature.

[Liquid]

In a world where people have decided to call evil good and good evil, I would like to share another viewpoint here. Do we have the right to be wrong when it allows others to entice and help rewrite history on falsehood for the generations to come; that only empowers some to keep the flame of Hitler's goal alive and working in forward motion?

I would like to share this... Jailing Irving

"It is not for nothing that Austria, Germany and even France enacted laws forbidding Holocaust denial. These laws exist because Holocaust denial is not another mindless theory.

The fact is that Holocaust denial has become the primary conduit for modern anti-Semitism. The favorite theme of all Jew-bashers of whatever variety is to portray the Holocaust as a Zionist fabrication contrived to hold the world to ransom, usurp Arab land and facilitate the implant of an interloper Jewish state within the Muslim sphere.

Holocaust denial is a common contention of those who seek to delegitimize Israel and promulgate Nazi-inspired bigotry. The denial of genocide is a warning sign of movements that have genocidal goals and endorse genocidal acts.

Irving, therefore, wasn't sentenced for his "opinions," but for disseminating hate and incitement. Countries where past excessive permissiveness spawned the worst genocidal horrors are right to be ultra-wary of repeat leniency for inflammatory rhetoric. In today's intemperate climate we can only applaud the resolve demonstrated by the Viennese court.

Holocaust deniers throughout the Mideast frequently quote Irving and his like. Irving operates in a particularly explosive context and his professed contrition must not be believed. It was uttered, as Irving stressed to British TV, only at his attorney's insistence.

Significantly Irving chose to enter court holding aloft his most controversial volume, Hitler's War which exonerates the fuhrer from plotting the "final solution." Nothing he says should be taken at face value. Lipstadt quipped: "If Irving said it was day, I'd open the window to check."

Individually, Irving may be every bit as pathetic as many claim. Indeed he will no doubt posture as the latest martyr of an international Jewish cabal. But it is not just about Irving's personal hang-ups. He has become a prophet of sorts not only for Europe's skinheads and neo-Nazis, but for their unlikely Mideastern cohorts."

Posted by: Liquid | Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 10:22 PM

[Huan]

Slander even of "a dangerous sort" is not a criminal offense, and does not carry a jail sentence, otherwise we would now have the entire Muslim population involved in the Cartoon riots behind bars.

in the US, it is a civil offense and can carry a fine. this is because we as a community believe this is appropriate punishment for the crime. in Austria apparently it is a criminal offense with possible jail time. they have decided so, as they too are a democracy.

i do not equate legality with morality. what is the morality of this? i think it may be immoral to lie and deny the grievious sufferings of others that may justify further suffering on them. especially if the truth can be easily had in both content and reason. but this is grey.

should the laws make it a criminal offense? i am undecided and am willing to let the community decide how its members should interact with one another.

[RL]

i highly reccomend today's truthful and excellent breakpoint
commentary at,

breakpoint.org

"Never again."

You can also learn some interesting facts about some truly
peculiar Jews at,

chaim.org

and

jfjonline.org

Who said that the One True and Living Creator God doesn't work
in some mysterious ways, and doesn't have a truly wonderful
sense of humor ?

Shalom and Blessings to all of you in the Name of God the
Father, His One and Only Son, and The Wonderful Holy Spirit
of Christ(The Spirit of Truth and Love).

discoveryseries.org/spirit.html

God Bless You Alexandra.

: )

[Stefan]

Yes, we do have a right to be wrong and a right to be stupid. I right I have, unhappily, exercised from time to time. The way to deal with holocaust deniers is in the realm of argument and historical fact. It is not the same as crying “Fire”. If the holocaust denier were to also incite violence against others then we have a different problem but it has nothing to do with their historical revisionism (although it is possible that the two may go hand-in-hand). If we were to convict people of errant historical writing then we would have jails filled with fuzzy-headed liberal revisionists here in this country. Couldn’t you make an argument that those who write histories that excuse or ignore the mass crimes of communists also could be considered as encouraging further attempts at implementing the most murderous system of government that the world has ever known? Those that write revisionist histories should be assaulted head-on by the full weight of scholarly, popular and media rebuttals but not imprisoned. The truth is a powerful and dynamic force and we should not be so insecure as to be paralyzed with fear by lies, errors, or fallacies.

[gringoman]

"The UN Declaration of Human Rights is unequivocal: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”"

Sounds good, grand, even noble. Oh, by the way, where was unindicted (so far) Kofi Annan and the unindicted (so far) UN diplomatic community when we needed them in the Mohammed Cartoon War/Hoax/Conspiracy?

[Alexandra]

Rob,

I don't know of any myself, but CNN has a vote on the link I have given in my post where out of 12 600 people who voted on whether Austria has a right to have a law against Holocaust denial, 43% said yes and 57% said no. You will no doubt find a lot of liberals as well as conservatives in there. Jonah does in fact mention both.

Siggy,

You have a very valid point as I said in the text, but it is debatable, and I still feel it is a slippery slope in a dangerous direction. If you had to argue it and the law was not as clearly on your side as it is in Austria, you would simply have a hard time proving it.

Huan,

Slander even of "a dangerous sort" is not a criminal offense, and does not carry a jail sentence, otherwise we would now have the entire Muslim population involved in the Cartoon riots behind bars.

[fd10801]

Why should telling a lie about an event be a crime? While it is conceivable that publishing a book that denies the Holocaust could somehow precipitate ugly events, it is not certain.

It has been my experience (and it is my opinion) that the law does not predict the future (except, of course, for the last unprotected minority -- the mentally ill).
We do not have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, however- and that is exactly what Holocaust denial is.

I would say, "Prove it!"

[Huan]

with freedom comes responsibility
failure to take reasonable responsibility should incur liability

this is not about thought police
this is not about a right to hold opinion
this is about spreading lies
akin to slander
of a dangerous sort

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

We have the right to be wrong. We certainly have the right to be stupid.

We do not have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, however- and that is exactly what Holocaust denial is.

[Rob]

Alexandra,

I know that you're quoting Jonah Goldberg, America's Best Argument Against Nepotism, and that those aren't your own words, but do you know of any liberals who have said that Irving should be thrown in jail? Goldberg claims that liberals think that criticism of speech is an infringement on free speech rights, yet gives no examples. Can you name any? My guess is that none exist...

[RL]

The koran is full of errors and lies,
so we should have a right to be totally wrong.

emircaner.com
erguncaner.com

: )