NEWS: Austria Holds 'Holocaust Denier'

Doesn't anyone here see a bigger picture? Leaving this case alone for a moment, how can one be punished for offering an opposing historical viewpoint. It seems that offering opposing viewpoints on history, science, religion, and the like is what ATS is all about. I find it hard to imagine anyone who posts comments on this forum to be in favor of jail time for this. Seems sort of hypocritical.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Doesn't anyone here see a bigger picture? Leaving this case alone for a moment, how can one be punished for offering an opposing historical viewpoint. It seems that offering opposing viewpoints on history, science, religion, and the like is what ATS is all about. I find it hard to imagine anyone who posts comments on this forum to be in favor of jail time for this. Seems sort of hypocritical.

You can't just have people running around re-writing history based on feelings of hatred towards a particular group of people; in this case Irving's hatred of the Jewish people.

Originally posted by Lanton
..
You can't just have people running around re-writing history based on feelings of hatred towards a particular group of people; in this case Irving's hatred of the Jewish people.

And if we did have people running around telling bogus bull, who'd care? no-one, apparently, because you can distort or deny the history of the napoleonic wars, the Huns, the European invasion of the Americas without a problem and no-one gets hurt or jailed.

Censorship is just that, certainly not a matter of preference and imho any successful attempt should be subject to capital punishment. Systems which persecuted for thought crimes are responsible for millions of deaths, yet no-one cares because it was their beloved governments,, whereas the average talking nut is comparably harmless. (people who run amuck don't talk all that much, usually) Can you simply ignore the facts?!

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Lanton
..
You can't just have people running around re-writing history based on feelings of hatred towards a particular group of people; in this case Irving's hatred of the Jewish people.

And if we did have people running around telling bogus bull, who'd care? no-one, apparently, because you can distort or deny the history of the napoleonic wars, the Huns, the European invasion of the Americas without a problem and no-one gets hurt or jailed.

Censorship is just that, certainly not a matter of preference and imho any successful attempt should be subject to capital punishment. Systems which persecuted for thought crimes are responsible for millions of deaths, yet no-one cares because it was their beloved governments,, whereas the average talking nut is comparably harmless. (people who run amuck don't talk all that much, usually) Can you simply ignore the facts?!

The Napoleonic wars?! Who's been distorting or denying the history of the Nepoleonic wars?

The Nazi's systematically snuffed out 6 million Jews and the German people, to some extent, let them do it. That should not be forgotten, and 'historians', like David Irving, should not be allowed to belittle that event or attempt to re-write history to 'show' that that event didn't take place.

The Nazi's systematically snuffed out 6 million Jews and the German people, to some extent, let them do it. That should not be forgotten, and 'historians', like David Irving, should not be allowed to belittle that event or attempt to re-write history to 'show' that that event didn't take place.

How is this any different than the systematic destruction of entire societies of people in the Americas? We now say “God bless America” like it was manifest destiny. Rather than denying the event ever took place, we explain it away as being part of the greater good. If anything, I see this as a more offensive action, but those who make comments like that are free to walk the streets. I say again, if you believe in the freedom to have open debate and discussion, then any statements calling for punishment for opposing viewpoints is total hypocrisy. Should I be jailed for openly believing that this man should be free?

And the comments about re-writing history are just preposterous. Saying that he is re-writing history would be like saying that people who believe that a UFO crashed in Roswell have re-written history because it goes against the accepted, public explanation. Will you jail Philip Corso for making statements that may not be completely accurate in his book The Day After Roswell. In essence, he is re-writing history in the same fashion. The only difference is the body count.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

The Nazi's systematically snuffed out 6 million Jews and the German people, to some extent, let them do it. That should not be forgotten, and 'historians', like David Irving, should not be allowed to belittle that event or attempt to re-write history to 'show' that that event didn't take place.

How is this any different than the systematic destruction of entire societies of people in the Americas? We now say “God bless America” like it was manifest destiny. Rather than denying the event ever took place, we explain it away as being part of the greater good. If anything, I see this as a more offensive action, but those who make comments like that are free to walk the streets. I say again, if you believe in the freedom to have open debate and discussion, then any statements calling for punishment for opposing viewpoints is total hypocrisy. Should I be jailed for openly believing that this man should be free?

And the comments about re-writing history are just preposterous. Saying that he is re-writing history would be like saying that people who believe that a UFO crashed in Roswell have re-written history because it goes against the accepted, public explanation. Will you jail Philip Corso for making statements that may not be completely accurate in his book The Day After Roswell. In essence, he is re-writing history in the same fashion. The only difference is the body count.

Here we go again, belittleing the Holocaust; you're talking about the Holocaust and Roswell in the same breath. There's no evidence to support the claim that the Holocaust didn't happen - similarly there's no solid evidence to support the claim that UFO's crashed at Roswell. There is however evidence to support the theory that it was probably a high-altitude weather balloon that crashed there.

What i find difficult to understand is that when it comes round to talking about the Holocaust, some people inanely argue (like you have) 'oh well, yeah the Nazi's killed 6 million jews...but the Europeans killed millions of indigenous Americans in South and North America....or millions of people die each year from Maleria or AIDS'. Maybe it's because they're anti-semetic, maybe it's because they're ignorant of the exact nature of the Holocaust, or maybe it's because they're pretty impressionable people (who don't think for themselves) who've got caught up in the recent historical revisionism craze.

When the Europeans went to the Americas, they didn't round up every Native American they could get their hands on, stuff 'em in a camp, gas them to death or perform sadistic scientific experiments on them. They didn't go to the Americas with the intention of wiping out the locals...whereas the Nazis were intent on wiping out the European Jews.

My entire point surrounds the issue of open debate. At what point do we stop allowing open debate of a subject, and start putting those with unpopular points of view in prison. Do you jail a man for offending people? Once the body count reaches a specific point, are we no longer allowed to offer our point of view?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
My entire point surrounds the issue of open debate. At what point do we stop allowing open debate of a subject, and start putting those with unpopular points of view in prison. Do you jail a man for offending people? Once the body count reaches a specific point, are we no longer allowed to offer our point of view?

Why can't you get your head round the fact that the Nazi's systematically snuffed out 6 million Jews? It's the manner in which the Holocaust occurred that means that idiots like Irving shouldn't have the right to go around denying that the Holocaust ever took place.

Why can't you get your head round the fact that the Nazi's systematically snuffed out 6 million Jews? It's the manner in which the Holocaust occurred that means that idiots like Irving shouldn't have the right to go around denying that the Holocaust ever took place.

I never denied that the Nazis murdered 6 million people. That is a given. The issue at heart is that he should have the right to say what he believes. That is the essence of freedom of speech.


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire- 1694-1778

[edit on 24-2-2006 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Why can't you get your head round the fact that the Nazi's systematically snuffed out 6 million Jews?

Whether they did or didn't isn't the issue. The issue is free speech. When you start jailing people for their opinions you're getting into some scary territory.

Originally posted by Lanton

The Napoleonic wars?! Who's been distorting or denying the history of the Nepoleonic wars?

The Nazi's systematically snuffed out 6 million Jews and the German people, to some extent, let them do it. That should not be forgotten, and 'historians', like David Irving, should not be allowed to belittle that event or attempt to re-write history to 'show' that that event didn't take place.

Look, extent doesn't change a thing, i don't know how many self-appointed 'historians' are eager to question historic data outside the controlled realm of WW2 + Nazi Germany, people don't seem to care much if there are any - and for a good reason, because they make as much difference as a maniac holding a speech in his own soundproof basement - literally. It seems obious that 6 million vicitms are just a share of the deaths inflicted by dicatorships and war during WW2 and later, yet, you can legally deny all of them except these 6 million, what makes them special may i ask? also, the argument about forgetting the holocaust. a non-sequitur, how would they make anyone forget anythig by spreading BS about it?

You may consider the Nazi inflicted Holocaust the greatest tragedy of all times®, then you may not, it's immaterial, because in the end you trust Them more with censorship than you trust your fellow citizens with freedom of expression.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't know what you are talking about.

Only certain claims are ever questioned it seems and certainly only certain claims and questions are illegal...

Somehow, I get the impression that you are not interested in the proof, but since you asked, you can start here:

If your proof is anything like my kind of proof it will change my mind.

Well i appreciate the ammount of digging you clearly did if not the sources you actually managed to find. By the standards employed in the 100 million dead calculation the west and it's so called "capitalism" have killed at least as many if not more. Unless i get numbers and instance to investigate ( not that i have'nt) you are just quoting the same propaganda used in the cold war. If starvation and poverty/health related death due to a governments mismanagement or inaction can truly be called murder then the SU/China is just another murderous state like all the rest wich happened to kill it's own citizens first instead of following western policy with results in foreigners suffering and dying first. If all states functioned that way the world would be a far more peacefull place imo.

Stellar

[edit on 24-2-2006 by StellarX]

[edit on 24-2-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Lanton

The Napoleonic wars?! Who's been distorting or denying the history of the Nepoleonic wars?

The Nazi's systematically snuffed out 6 million Jews and the German people, to some extent, let them do it. That should not be forgotten, and 'historians', like David Irving, should not be allowed to belittle that event or attempt to re-write history to 'show' that that event didn't take place.

Look, extent doesn't change a thing, i don't know how many self-appointed 'historians' are eager to question historic data outside the controlled realm of WW2 + Nazi Germany, people don't seem to care much if there are any - and for a good reason, because they make as much difference as a maniac holding a speech in his own soundproof basement - literally. It seems obious that 6 million vicitms are just a share of the deaths inflicted by dicatorships and war during WW2 and later, yet, you can legally deny all of them except these 6 million, what makes them special may i ask? also, the argument about forgetting the holocaust. a non-sequitur, how would they make anyone forget anythig by spreading BS about it?

You may consider the Nazi inflicted Holocaust the greatest tragedy of all times®, then you may not, it's immaterial, because in the end you trust Them more with censorship than you trust your fellow citizens with freedom of expression.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by Long Lance]

Whether or not I, as an individual, consider the Holocaust as the greatest tragedy of all time is immaterial. It's the manner in which the Holocaust was carried out that matters; whether you'd like to admit it or not, at no other time before that, in recorded history, had a people set about systematically wiping out another people, and almost succeeded in doing just that. The Final Solution of the Jewish Question called for the genocidal killing of the entire European Jewish population; 6 million Jews were dead by the war's close in '45.

Like I pointed out before, the Europeans didn't cross the pond to the Americas with the intention of wiping out the locals. Neither did Stalin intend, or partially succeed, in wiping out the Russian Jews or Georgians.

I guess, though, that because it's the Jews we're talking about, you're gonna feign a lack of understanding of the point i'm making, right?

There's freedom of speech and expression...then there's abusing that right; which is what Irving did in publically denying that the holocaust ever happened.

Originally posted by Lanton
..
Like I pointed out before, the Europeans didn't cross the pond to the Americas with the intention of wiping out the locals. Neither did Stalin intend, or partially succeed, in wiping out the Russian Jews or Georgians.

I guess, though, that because it's the Jews we're talking about, you're gonna feign a lack of understanding of the point i'm making, right?

There's freedom of speech and expression...then there's abusing that right; which is what Irving did in publically denying that the holocaust ever happened.

So, what you're saying is that dedicated genocide of a single ethnicity is worse than inflicting the same number of deaths with a wider distribution, right? I wonder how you're going to explain that, since you're basically inferring that some murders are worse than others, are you aware that by doing so, you're attaching different values to different people's lives?

PS: 'abusing a right' you're moving into 1984 territory.

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Lanton
..
Like I pointed out before, the Europeans didn't cross the pond to the Americas with the intention of wiping out the locals. Neither did Stalin intend, or partially succeed, in wiping out the Russian Jews or Georgians.

I guess, though, that because it's the Jews we're talking about, you're gonna feign a lack of understanding of the point i'm making, right?

There's freedom of speech and expression...then there's abusing that right; which is what Irving did in publically denying that the holocaust ever happened.

So, what you're saying is that dedicated genocide of a single ethnicity is worse than inflicting the same number of deaths with a wider distribution, right? I wonder how you're going to explain that, since you're basically inferring that some murders are worse than others, are you aware that by doing so, you're attaching different values to different people's lives?

PS: 'abusing a right' you're moving into 1984 territory.

The Jewish people have been persecuted for generations, mostly as a result of the ignorance and racist attitudes of the rest of us. We used to blame the ills of the world on them; e.g. the bubonic plague - so we evicted them from various countries and sent them packing.

Then along come the Nazi's who manage to wipe out 6 million Jews in a concerted attempt to wipe out the entire European Jewish population. Following that, the Soviets blamed their ills on Russia's Jews and shipped many of them off to the gulags.

I just happen to think that after thousands of years of persecution and the genocidal killing of 6 million Jews just 60 years ago, you've still got people arguing 'oh well, they're Jews, so it doesn't matter....it happened over half a century ago, and they're always putting us on a guilt-trip over the holocaust anyway'.

We all know if it had been an asian or black reporter that Ken had been talking to on the phone, and he'd made some stupid remark to the extent that the reporter was acting like an opium dealer or a slave-master, then he would've been hung out to dry. But he wouldn't have entertained making that remark in the first place, would he? Because with the Jews, apparently, it's different; they're 'fair game'.

I just happen to think that after thousands of years of persecution and the genocidal killing of 6 million Jews just 60 years ago, you've still got people arguing 'oh well, they're Jews, so it doesn't matter....it happened over half a century ago, and they're always putting us on a guilt-trip over the holocaust anyway'.

I don't think that anyone, at any point claimed that anyones life didn't matter here. And for sure nobody is has made any statements to denigrate the holocaust, except for Lanton that is. And there have been many many different attempts at murdering entire races of people, like in Rwanda, Armenia or Cambodia. You may hear it refered to as ethnic cleansing these days. The issue at hand is that someplace that referres to itself as a free country is putting someone in jail for something he said. In essence this man commited a thought crime.

If you start imprisoning people for their historical beliefs, is it any differet than imprisoning someone for religious beliefs?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

I just happen to think that after thousands of years of persecution and the genocidal killing of 6 million Jews just 60 years ago, you've still got people arguing 'oh well, they're Jews, so it doesn't matter....it happened over half a century ago, and they're always putting us on a guilt-trip over the holocaust anyway'.

I don't think that anyone, at any point claimed that anyones life didn't matter here. And for sure nobody is has made any statements to denigrate the holocaust, except for Lanton that is. And there have been many many different attempts at murdering entire races of people, like in Rwanda, Armenia or Cambodia. You may hear it refered to as ethnic cleansing these days. The issue at hand is that someplace that referres to itself as a free country is putting someone in jail for something he said. In essence this man commited a thought crime.

If you start imprisoning people for their historical beliefs, is it any differet than imprisoning someone for religious beliefs?

At what point did i 'denigrate the holocaust'?

here is a link to an entire list of 20th century attrocities. I'm sure you don't know about all that are listed, but if you were to say in public that you didn't think that one million people died in Mozambique between '75 and '92, then learned later that it did happen, would it be fair to imprison you for four years?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
here is a link to an entire list of 20th century attrocities. I'm sure you don't know about all that are listed, but if you were to say in public that you didn't think that one million people died in Mozambique between '75 and '92, then learned later that it did happen, would it be fair to imprison you for four years?

So tell me, what would've happened to Ken if it'd been a black reporter that he'd been talking to and he'd likened the reporter to a slave-master? There would've been uproar right? But apparently it's ok to bash the Jews.

THere would have been an uproar, but would there have been jail time?