Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Where do you draw the line at free speech? Here?
In all honesty I cannot agree with sending David Irving to prison for 3 years for Holocaust Denial. David Irving should be allowed to hold any opinions he feels fit, and express them, and the rest of us should be allowed to criticise, lambast and deride his opinions, as well as encouraging small children to point at him in the street and laugh.
Lorraine thinks that David Irving is an arsehole, but that as he broke the law in Austria, he should go to prison for breaking that law.
How can opinions be challenged if they cannot be expressed without fear?
Pynchon does politics. It's great!
In all honesty I cannot agree with sending David Irving to prison for 3 years for Holocaust Denial. David Irving should be allowed to hold any opinions he feels fit, and express them, and the rest of us should be allowed to criticise, lambast and deride his opinions, as well as encouraging small children to point at him in the street and laugh.
Lorraine thinks that David Irving is an arsehole, but that as he broke the law in Austria, he should go to prison for breaking that law.
How can opinions be challenged if they cannot be expressed without fear?
Pynchon does politics. It's great!
# posted by Pynchon @ 10:40 pm 
Comments:
<< Home
I couldn't agree with you more.
If a man can't express his opinion, then what can he do?
A French dude called Voltaire once said:
"I may not disagree with what you are saying, but, by God, I'll defend your right to say it."
If a man can't express his opinion, then what can he do?
A French dude called Voltaire once said:
"I may not disagree with what you are saying, but, by God, I'll defend your right to say it."
Absolutely right! There's a broad hint of double standards in this whole Mohammed / Holocaust thing. People are entitled to their beliefs, however misguided anyone else might think they are. Unless you're advocating hate and violence you should be free to believe and say whatever you will.
Let me be clear: Irving is an arsehole of the highest order who has been selectively interpreting the evidence around the holocaust for years, and I believe that he has knowingly been peddling the lie that the Holocaust never happened whilst pretending to be a serious historian.
Still with me?
Let me also say that I completely agree with you. Without defending this idiot in particular, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of "Holocaust Denial" as a crime. History thrives on debate and the exchange of views. It is through dialogue that our understanding moves on - one of the first things you learn as a historian (and I am a historian by training) is that there is no such thing as a fact. A historian's job is to interpret the evidence to try to paint a picture of the past. If Irving has deliberately used some evidence and ignored the rest, then he would hardly be the first historian to do that. The only problem is that his subject is not some dry analysis of medieval government, it is a study of the slaughter of millions of jews (and others) during the second world war. It is an extremely emotive topic. But when does debate become "holocaust denial"? who decides where the line gets drawn? I don't like it.
He might be guilty of inciting race hatred or something, but being thrown in prison for Holocaust Denial? It makes me uncomfortable. Are we not confident in our ability to be able to show his arguments up as nonsense? Why do we have to imprison him? Why can't we humiliate him for his selective interpretation? What are we afraid of?
ST
Still with me?
Let me also say that I completely agree with you. Without defending this idiot in particular, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of "Holocaust Denial" as a crime. History thrives on debate and the exchange of views. It is through dialogue that our understanding moves on - one of the first things you learn as a historian (and I am a historian by training) is that there is no such thing as a fact. A historian's job is to interpret the evidence to try to paint a picture of the past. If Irving has deliberately used some evidence and ignored the rest, then he would hardly be the first historian to do that. The only problem is that his subject is not some dry analysis of medieval government, it is a study of the slaughter of millions of jews (and others) during the second world war. It is an extremely emotive topic. But when does debate become "holocaust denial"? who decides where the line gets drawn? I don't like it.
He might be guilty of inciting race hatred or something, but being thrown in prison for Holocaust Denial? It makes me uncomfortable. Are we not confident in our ability to be able to show his arguments up as nonsense? Why do we have to imprison him? Why can't we humiliate him for his selective interpretation? What are we afraid of?
ST
This is the problem isn't it. By imprisoning him you're making a martyr out of him for the right wing loonies who love him.
He shouldn't be locked up for denying the holocaust but, as you say, ridiculed.
He probably should be locked up for entering a country he'd been banned from though. Twat!
He shouldn't be locked up for denying the holocaust but, as you say, ridiculed.
He probably should be locked up for entering a country he'd been banned from though. Twat!
I didnt know these countries had such a law. It does seem slightly odd.
As with a lot of these cases, it is often the law that is perverse, not neceesarily the application of it.
Post a Comment
As with a lot of these cases, it is often the law that is perverse, not neceesarily the application of it.
<< Home
