Jumping Jewish Jesus!

[naruki_oni]

Vile right-wingnut asshat faces up to 10 years in jail for a crime he committed in 1989.

His victim? The truth.

Yep, that's it. He lied about the Holocaust, denying its existence.

So he is finally facing trial in Austria, where freedom of speech apparently has rather strict limitations.

The smarmy bastard is now claiming he's reformed and no longer denies it, hoping for a lenient sentence. Get this, the author of several books on Nazis says "I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."

I hate this.

On the one hand, I really want people like him to die. They serve no good purpose in the world save as a bad example, and we have all of those we need. His death will only make things better.

On the other hand, there is no fucking way he deserves to be punished for denying the Holocaust. If they want to get him on hate speech or something that's a bit different, but this is completely absurd.

Sadly, I think this is where the US is heading under its current "leadership". And, more sadly, at least one or two people who read this will be happy about that.

Comments

I'll be surprised if the UK isn't on that list soon

[tkirk.livejournal.com]

What with the 'laws against inciting religious hatred' bill that the government are trying to get through. Now personally, I think people like him deserve a chance to speak, as long as the law allows me to stand at the front of the crowd and ridicule him. That's my idea of free speech. Let the idiots prove it by opening their mouths.....

No, no! People mustn't be allowed to say nasty things!

[lionsphil.livejournal.com]

Look how well it worked for User Frie--

Shit.

Re: No, no! People mustn't be allowed to say nasty things!

[tkirk.livejournal.com]

lol :) Feeling crappy, I needed a laugh

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

Hey, Naruki-san, daijoubu desu ka?

As I said in another comment on the same subject, the issue of holocaust denial is that it lays down the theoretical groundwork for further hate crimes.

I know anybody who grew up in a liberal environment cringes when he hears people being sentenced for "something they said". But there are always laws against inciting hate or violence. Basically, once you convince people that the holocaust did not exist, you can easily convince them that Nazism is a good idea, besides which, the Jews really should be purged from the world because they are the ones who furthered this sort of lie. That sort of thing, anyway.

It's the same with evolution denial. Unfortunately, there's no law against it, but it's the sort of idea that will cause religion to eventually mix with the state and deprive people of their freedom of religion. Holocaust denial will deprive some of their life, if allowed to roam free.

Slippery slope

[bloodyviking.livejournal.com]

I agree with Naruki.

The guy is a jerk, but unless you can show that the guy actually incited hate or violence, all you've got is a slippery slope argument. One shouldn't go to jail for doing something that Might lead to $bad_thing happening. At least not without solid proof that $bad_thing was the Intended result.

Re: Slippery slope

[(Anonymous)]

This is not a slippery slope case. It might have been, if the law was more general, such as "you shouldn't tell lies" or something.

Holocaust denial is a well-defined, well-bounded offense. It's not as if, once you accused Mr. Sleeze of it, you'll be able to use the same law for accusing Mr. Innocent. Either he engaged in this particular activity or not.

I think there should be limits to freedom of speech - provided that they are well defined, and can't be used as "catch all" excuses to get rid of inconveniences.

Ah, damn it, that was me.

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

LJ logged me out again.

Slippery slope

[bloodyviking.livejournal.com]

It is the reason for law itself, and your argument supporting it, that is the slippery slope argument. There is nothing slippery slope about the way it is being applied.

The guy is a jerk, and I am in favor of stupidity being painful, But I have to be against any law which has a formal fallacy as its basis for existance.

Re: Slippery slope

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

I see. Well, it reminds me a bit of that American constitution issue with arms. In the rest of the world, gun limitations are no issue. However, the American founding fathers suffered from the British regime that limited their ability to defend themselves by putting them always at a disadvantage, not being allowed the same weapons oppressors and aggressors had. So they put that "right to bear arms" in the constitution.

Well, I'm not exactly an expert on American history, so please correct me if I got that wrong.

Anyway, now the USA has a rather unique feature in its constitution, continuing as a point of argument to this day, and all because of its particular history.

So I think countries like Austria and Germany have this unique law (well, here in Israel, too, I believe holocaust denial is considered a crime. It actually brings my points home even better) because of the greater sensitivity they have about this issue. Once something has hit you, you try to defend yourself better against it.