PDA

View Full Version : Free Speech Lost



PHAT
21-02-2006, 07:53 AM
I see the item below this morning and think of Voltaire.

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

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1574398.htm


As an aside. The Swiss are a bunch of filthy anti-semetics who justwant to pretend they care. I reckon the [edit*: Austrians] are trying to appease the Jewish lobby because of the way they got into bed with the Nasis to steal everything from the Jews.

*edit: An example of transference ;)

EGOR
21-02-2006, 07:59 AM
As an aside. The Swiss are a bunch of filthy anti-semetics who justwant to pretend they care. I reckon the Swiss are trying to appease the Jewish lobby because of the way they got into bed with the Nasis to steal everything from the Jews.
What exactly has the Swiss got to do it? It's the Austrian's who found him guilty.:hmm:

Spiny Norman
21-02-2006, 08:08 AM
Matt, there must always be practical limits. If, for example, I stand outside your house with a megaphone, proclaiming you a hater of religion and incite a crowd to stone you and your family to death ... do you think that my right of free speech should be protected? If so, why? If not, then aren't we now simply disagreeing about WHERE to draw the line and not about WHETHER to draw a line at all?

PHAT
21-02-2006, 09:11 AM
Matt, there must always be practical limits. ...aren't we now simply disagreeing about WHERE to draw the line and not about WHETHER to draw a line at all?

It is of course a matter of where to draw the line.

Incitement to riot poses a direct and immeadiate danger to the liberty of others. Therefore, for good order, it has been made a criminal act.

Irving's ratbaggery is equal in its danger to, the mostly enlighten state we live in, as say, your religious ratbaggery. Shut down Irving, then shut down your church, then shut down, all unPC, then we are all up Shit Creek.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2006, 10:31 AM
History is a constantly growing tree and I've learnt a lot since 1989.

One might say Irving is a very slow learner.

My view is that it is better to ridicule his kind than to punish them harshly and risk martyring them. But at the same time, his case is comparable to Australian drug-runners in SE Asia. He should have known better than to set foot in Austria ever again. I have no sympathy for him.

What I want to know is how he got in. Why didn't Austria simply ban him from entry for his views, or can't you do that sort of thing in Europe anymore?

shaun
21-02-2006, 10:32 AM
It is of course a matter of where to draw the line.

Incitement to riot poses a direct and immeadiate danger to the liberty of others. Therefore, for good order, it has been made a criminal act.



I disagree with where you have drawn the line. In Frosty's example he refers to two acts. One is to incite a crowd to stone you, the other is the actual stoning itself. In my mind the latter is the crime, not the former, and the line should be drawn between them.
If you are to defend free speech then (IMHO) you have to be quite clear that speech in and of its self does not cause physical harm or deprive people of liberty. If acts then occur based on that speech, then punish the acts themselves.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2006, 10:56 AM
Matt's line is very similar to the classic John Stuart Mill line:


an opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but [not] when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer

(as opposed to the Howard Government line in which the international-politics equivalent of the former is also considered "incitement"). I'm also sceptical about the need for laws against even genuine incitement, but I do think you need something to cover for cases where someone in a position of power over someone else orders or encourages them to perform a violent act.

EGOR
21-02-2006, 11:28 AM
I disagree with where you have drawn the line. In Frosty's example he refers to two acts. One is to incite a crowd to stone you, the other is the actual stoning itself. In my mind the latter is the crime, not the former, and the line should be drawn between them.
How can incitement to commit a crime not be as punishable as the crime it's self? If I incite someone else to kill someone I want dead, how am I not as guilty as the one who did the killing?

shaun
21-02-2006, 11:32 AM
Matt's line is very similar to the classic John Stuart Mill line:



(as opposed to the Howard Government line in which the international-politics equivalent of the former is also considered "incitement"). I'm also sceptical about the need for laws against even genuine incitement, but I do think you need something to cover for cases where someone in a position of power over someone else orders or encourages them to perform a violent act.

The crime only exists once the act has been performed or attempted, not before. And once again their are already statutes that exist to deal with this, that don't impinge on my rights to state "I wish someone would stab John Howard in the eye with a pencil and wiggle it around in his brain cavity".

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2006, 11:41 AM
The crime only exists once the act has been performed or attempted, not before. And once again their are already statutes that exist to deal with this, that don't impinge on my rights to state "I wish someone would stab John Howard in the eye with a pencil and wiggle it around in his brain cavity".

Yes - the same point was made by those criticising Howard's laws while defending existing laws against incitement.

PHAT
21-02-2006, 11:48 AM
I disagree with where you have drawn the line. ... If you are to defend free speech then (IMHO) you have to be quite clear that speech in and of its self does not cause physical harm or deprive people of liberty. If acts then occur based on that speech, then punish the acts themselves.

Sorry mate, but speech/words in and of thems selves do deprive people of liberty - "She's a witch!" Sounds/words/speech can cause the environment (a social setting) to become malevelant.

I think you are arguing that causing direct physical harm is not OK, but we ought to allow indirect physical harm. This is obviously such a principle applied in a general sense, is inarguably impractical for any society. I therefore suppose you are claiming special privaledge for the use of language to freely wreak havock.

PHAT
21-02-2006, 11:58 AM
The crime only exists once the act has been performed or attempted, not before. And once again their are already statutes that exist to deal with this, that don't impinge on my rights to state "I wish someone would stab John Howard in the eye with a pencil and wiggle it around in his brain cavity".

As you and I and a angry mob burst throught the door of the Priministers Office, you yell, "I wish someone would stab John Howard in the eye with a pencil and wiggle it around in his brain cavity." I snatch a pencil from your breast pocket and proceed to meet your wish.

I doubt that you would escape a gaol term.

shaun
21-02-2006, 12:39 PM
As you and I and a angry mob burst throught the door of the Priministers Office, you yell, "I wish someone would stab John Howard in the eye with a pencil and wiggle it around in his brain cavity." I snatch a pencil from your breast pocket and proceed to meet your wish.

I doubt that you would escape a gaol term.

And I'm not saying I would. The real question is "What if no one did as I suggested? Should I still go to jail?"

PHAT
21-02-2006, 12:51 PM
And I'm not saying I would. The real question is "What if no one did as I suggested? Should I still go to jail?"

Apply that logic to driving through red lights. If no accident occurs, should anyone be fined for driving through a red light?

We rightly have taffic laws relating to "driving in a manner dangerous." Are you suggesting that there be no laws relating to "speaking in a manner dangerous."

Southpaw Jim
21-02-2006, 12:55 PM
The real question is "What if no one did as I suggested? Should I still go to jail?"

I think the real answer lies in the fact that you can't control what others will or won't do once you've said it. The idea is to discourage the inciter from creating conditions realistically conducive to violence.

shaun
21-02-2006, 01:04 PM
Apply that logic to driving through red lights. If no accident occurs, should anyone be fined for driving through a red light?

We rightly have taffic laws relating to "driving in a manner dangerous." Are you suggesting that there be no laws relating to "speaking in a manner dangerous."

Yes. I am suggesting exactly that.

PHAT
21-02-2006, 01:15 PM
Yes. I am suggesting exactly that.

Now we are getting somewhere. Can you point to an essay that makes the argument that:

Of all actions that can cause harm, the action we call speech should be immune from contraint.

I am willing to change my mind, but I need convincing, not rhetoric.





.

Alan Shore
21-02-2006, 01:15 PM
As you and I and a angry mob burst throught the door of the Priministers Office, you yell, "I wish someone would stab John Howard in the eye with a pencil and wiggle it around in his brain cavity." I snatch a pencil from your breast pocket and proceed to meet your wish.

I doubt that you would escape a gaol term.

I disagree with sentiment though - free speech should exist alongside the ability to rationally make up one's mind and weigh up the consequences of an action, thus just saying something is not an action and has not caused direct harm.

PHAT
21-02-2006, 01:33 PM
... free speech should exist alongside the ability to reationally make up one's mind and weigh up the consequences of an action,...

I have a serious problem with this caviet. Here you are saying that free speech "should" exist alongside rational people doing rational things. However, we both know that rational behaviour is the exception rather than the rule.

Unbridled free speech will find an ear. As Eurotrash said,


The idea is to discourage the inciter from creating conditions realistically conducive to violence..

The important variable in the quote above is the word "realistically." Only statistics ( :uhoh: ) can objectively answer that question. What level of risky, do we wish to accept in free speech. Erving, I accept; Fundy Christians, I accept; Tutsi radio jocks inciting a week-long Hutu genecide, I do not accept.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2006, 01:39 PM
Of all actions that can cause harm, the action we call speech should be immune from contraint.

Your argument's a bit loose here on the topic of "cause". The incitement isn't the sole cause; there also needs to be an incitee stupid enough to listen and respond accordingly. It's not comparable to your red light situation where a potential victim would probably not be doing anything wrong.

Alan Shore
21-02-2006, 01:42 PM
Yes Matt, the problem is there are too many who can be influenced without thinking through consequences. I see this as an eventual goal, that all people will have the basic understanding of the consequences of their own actions and to take personal responsibility, therefore making any kind of 'inciting' clause completely redundant.

PHAT
21-02-2006, 01:55 PM
Your argument's a bit loose here on the topic of "cause".

It is not loose. It is board. If you have a problem with my use of the word "cause," I suggest you go elsewhere. I used the word, I meant the word, you work with the word or nick-off.


The incitement isn't the sole cause; there also needs to be an incitee stupid enough to listen and respond accordingly.

If I whack a paper wasp nest with a stick, and someone else gets stung then I caused the person to be stung. I am primarily responsible. I incite a mob of drunken and enraged yobs to go wog bashing I am as guilty as they are.

Hence my free speech has crossed the boundry into criminality.



It's not comparable to your red light situation where a potential victim would probably not be doing anything wrong.

Irrelavent. Victims of reckless free speaking are generally not doing anything wrong either.:doh:

firegoat7
21-02-2006, 01:59 PM
Yes Matt, the problem is there are too many who can be influenced without thinking through consequences. I see this as an eventual goal, that all people will have the basic understanding of the consequences of their own actions and to take personal responsibility, therefore making any kind of 'inciting' clause completely redundant.

But, people hold all sorts of belief that is false -should all false belief be made illegal, clearly not, and often the consequences of something cannot be linked to causality, let alone be imagined- I think you are intuitively right to attack influence, but the issue may be one of addressing how it is we are all so easily influenced! I don't think the media is helping in the Irving case...I have already seen different reports that contradict each other.

cheers Fg7

PHAT
21-02-2006, 02:06 PM
Yes Matt, the problem is there are too many who can be influenced without thinking through consequences. I see this as an eventual goal, that all people will have the basic understanding of the consequences of their own actions and to take personal responsibility, therefore making any kind of 'inciting' clause completely redundant.

:lol: we will have that goal along with world peace and a fluffy kitten for every child.

So, we are left with having to be practical in a dangerously ambivalent world.

Alan Shore
21-02-2006, 02:08 PM
But, people hold all sorts of belief that is false -should all false belief be made illegal, clearly not, and often the consequences of something cannot be linked to causality, let alone be imagined- I think you are intuitively right to attack influence, but the issue may be one of addressing how it is we are all so easily influenced! I don't think the media is helping in the Irving case...I have already seen different reports that contradict each other.

cheers Fg7

Nothing wrong with beliefs firegoat, but beliefs must be subject to heavy personal and outside scrutiny otherwise you're going to run into problems.

You're right, the media isn't helping in the case either.

And again, with the issue of being 'how' we are influenced so easily, which is something that really needs to be brought to the attention of everyone so they can build a natural defense to simply accepting everything they hear.

Alan Shore
21-02-2006, 02:09 PM
:lol: we will have that goal along with world peace and a fluffy kitten for every child.

So, we are left with having to be practical in a dangerously ambivalent world.

But it's no excuse for closing our eyes, we must try... and the closer we get, the better.

firegoat7
21-02-2006, 02:13 PM
And again, with the issue of being 'how' we are influenced so easily, which is something that really needs to be brought to the attention of everyone so they can build a natural defense to simply accepting everything they hear. Yes I agree completely.

cheers fg7

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2006, 02:21 PM
If I whack a paper wasp nest with a stick, and someone else gets stung then I caused the person to be stung. I am primarily responsible. I incite a mob of drunken and enraged yobs to go wog bashing I am as guilty as they are.

I think you have some portion of the guilt but not half of it. People should take more responsibility for their actions when drunk than to palm half of it off to someone who made the dumb suggestion in the first place.


Irrelavent. Victims of reckless free speaking are generally not doing anything wrong either.:doh:

Missed my point, which was that in the incitement case you need someone else to do something wrong for a result to occur, but in the drunk-driving case you don't.

firegoat7
21-02-2006, 02:28 PM
Nothing wrong with beliefs firegoat, but beliefs must be subject to heavy personal and outside scrutiny otherwise you're going to run into problems.



Well, this is the million dollar question. How can people be allowed to hold beliefs without denying them their freedom to hold such a belief, let alone express it?

A difficult question that is not easily solved. Because it is never really that clear who's security we are protecting or even why.

In regards to the Irving case, one limit that we can attempt to impose is that it is an anti-human belief, but so is the idea that land mines should be manufactured, not to mention alot of things we all take for granted. So I dont know.

People ought not to able to yell "Fire" in a packed movie house, but who really cares if they do it by themselves. It all depends on the context and its interpretative meaning.

cheers Fg7

Alan Shore
21-02-2006, 02:50 PM
Well, this is the million dollar question. How can people be allowed to hold beliefs without denying them their freedom to hold such a belief, let alone express it?

They're free to express their views, meaning they're also subject to the consequences of looking like an idiot, or worse, if what they say is false. In the case of the story, it's kind of clear cut but many throughout the ages have been right and in a minority and persecuted.

Which is why, you need dialectic discourse to ratify the truth of a statement or belief, not shutting people up before they even begin. But, they should only be granted serious audience if they're prepared to rationally discuss their viewpoints logically. Without that, it is merely a personal belief that should influence no one.

Re: the fire thing, consequences of being wrong are, you've disrupted many people and a theatre by being malicious, thus you have consequences.

pballard
21-02-2006, 04:09 PM
Tutsi radio jocks inciting a week-long Hutu genecide, I do not accept.

Shows how quickly we forget. It took me a while to realise this scenario was back to front.

pballard
21-02-2006, 04:14 PM
I agree that there are times to limit freedom of speech because of the "incitement" issue... but in the Irving case, that is rather irrelevant, isn't it? AFAIK Irving is not inciting violence, he is just disputing historical facts. While I'm sure he's got his facts wrong, it does bother me that any historical event is such an item of faith that we're not allowed to question it.

Southpaw Jim
21-02-2006, 06:28 PM
It was interesting to listen to an American historian (who had been sued for defamation by Irving for labelling him a 'holocaust denier') on JJJ tonight making the point that, in Austria, where it all was conceived, planned and carried out, it's an issue that has a world of meaning that does not exist for us (or most of us anyway, excepting survivors and their families).

It was also good to hear some more reportage on the case - Irving had had the warrant out on him for 17 years since making the speeches in question in Austria. In the full knowledge that this warrant existed and the potential consequences:

- Irving openly stated that he would be going to Austria;
- Irving's website openly announced the fact that he would be visiting Austria; and
- the students who invited him openly announced the fact on their website that he would be visiting Austria.

It's not like he didn't know of the risk of being arrested, and indeed it seems he brazenly dared the Austrians to act on their warrant. Apparently before his sentencing he was so blase about it all that he stated to the media that he had already booked and paid for first class airfares home to England that night.

Serves the arrogant toss right. He walked into the lion's den in full knowledge of what could happen, and it did :clap:

PHAT
21-02-2006, 10:47 PM
Shows how quickly we forget. It took me a while to realise this scenario was back to front.
Shame on me! Shame on the UN. Shame on us all.

ElevatorEscapee
21-02-2006, 10:50 PM
I suspect that Frosty would be there at the front of that mob saying "let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone..." woe be unto him if there are women wearing fake beards in the crowd! ;)

PHAT
21-02-2006, 10:53 PM
Serves the arrogant toss right. He walked into the lion's den in full knowledge of what could happen, and it did :clap:

I think that the concenus in this thread is against gaoling Erving for his ratbaggery. Therefore, I ask you, are you saying he sould instead cop 3 years for being and "arrogent tosser?"

ElevatorEscapee
21-02-2006, 10:54 PM
I say, Let Frosty cast stones at both Irving and Farty!

Southpaw Jim
22-02-2006, 06:28 AM
I think that the concenus in this thread is against gaoling Erving for his ratbaggery. Therefore, I ask you, are you saying he sould instead cop 3 years for being and "arrogent tosser?"

I'm saying he knew the law, he knew he was a wanted man, and he knew that to travel in Austria posed a legal risk to himself. If he's silly enough to ignore that, and arrogant enough to think he can wander around untouched in a country where he's a wanted man, then he deserves what he gets. Whether or not you agree with the laws in question, you must admit that it was rather... ill considered?

PHAT
22-02-2006, 07:31 AM
I'm saying he knew the law, he knew he was a wanted man, and he knew that to travel in Austria posed a legal risk to himself. If he's silly enough to ignore that, and arrogant enough to think he can wander around untouched in a country where he's a wanted man, then he deserves what he gets.[bold by MS] Whether or not you agree with the laws in question, you must admit that it was rather... ill considered?

1. You have made a case for his being arrogant/stupid.
2. You have stated that "he deserves what he gets" for this.
3. He got 3 years.
*That is 3 yrs for being arrogant/stupid. I think you are being punitively selfrightious.*

Now, let us apply your method of determining punishment, hypothetically to someone less obnoxious:

A scantily clad young women gets drunk in a rough pub and indulges in provocative attention seaking behaviour. She is raped in the carpark.

Can you bring yourself to gleefully say that "she deserves what he gets," - I cannot. I can only conclude that you are supporting the incarseration of the ratbag Erving merely because you dislike him. That makes you at the very least, as "bad" as him.

Southpaw Jim
22-02-2006, 08:29 AM
That, Matt, is an utterly scurrilous and ridiculous analogy. The woman in question has every right to go to a public place without fear of molestation. It's a very different thing from going to a country where you know you've broken the law (regardless of what you think of that law). Nice try to colour my statement, though :wall:

Irving went to Austria in the full knowledge that the Austrian authorities, by law, were entitled to subject him to punishment. He did not have to go there.

I repeat: Irving did not have to go there. Regardless of what he thought of Austria's laws, to go to Austria was either stupid (ie he didn't realise the potential consequences) or arrogant - he didn't think the Austrians would have the balls to actually enforce their laws. The quantum of punishment is for the Austrians to decide. I'm not making any comment on the validity of gaoling him for 3 years, per se, I'm just saying that he deserves it for going there in full knowledge of the potential consequences.

I don't think you would be stupid enough to go to a country where you knew there was a warrant out for your arrest, would you Matt? :hmm:

PHAT
22-02-2006, 09:22 AM
That, Matt, is an utterly scurrilous and ridiculous analogy.

Niether scurrilous nor ridiculous. :hand:


The woman in question has every right to go to a public place without fear of molestation.
True. It is her human right to liberty - regardless of her stupidly exercising her human right to free expression.


It's a very different thing from going to a country where you know you've broken the law (regardless of what you think of that law).
Different yet the same. Erving is having his human right to liberty violated (by a state, not a rapist) because he exercised his human right to free speech


The quantum of punishment is for the Austrians to decide.

Ahh. National soverenty. It allows us to allow the unallowable. :rolleyes:
I'm not making any comment on the validity of gaoling him for 3 years, per se, I'm just saying that he deserves it for going there in full knowledge of the potential consequences.

This is this most perverse statement posted here in weeks. How on eath can you say that;
1. You are not "comment[ing] on to validity" of 3 years, yet also say,
2. "he deserves what he gets," for thumbing his nose.

These two positions are incompatable. You must either say that his incarseration is a travesty, or that you think incarceration is what he deserves.



I don't think you would be stupid enough to go to a country where you knew there was a warrant out for your arrest, would you Matt? :hmm:
No! Given the way the Australian government has been looking after its citizens - David Hicks, Cornealia Rou, Bali 9, et cetera - maybe Australian citizenship is really citizenshit.

Southpaw Jim
22-02-2006, 10:14 AM
Different yet the same. Erving is having his human right to liberty violated (by a state, not a rapist) because he exercised his human right to free speech

No. He is not. His liberty was perfectly untouched provided he did not go to Austria. He chose to do this. You cannot escape the fact that he chose to do this, and thereby put himself in this position. If he chooses to thumb his nose at Austria's laws, then he accepts the consequences.


This is this most perverse statement posted here in weeks. How on eath can you say that;
1. You are not "comment[ing] on to validity" of 3 years, yet also say,
2. "he deserves what he gets," for thumbing his nose.

These two positions are incompatable. You must either say that his incarseration is a travesty, or that you think incarceration is what he deserves.

They are not incompatible. Would it be a travesty if he was incarcerated for 1 day? Doubtful. Would he deserve to be punished for breaching the law? Yes. There is a difference between saying he deserves to be punished for breaching the law, and saying that the sentence is disproportionate to the crime.


No! Given the way the Australian government has been looking after its citizens - David Hicks, Cornealia Rou, Bali 9, et cetera - maybe Australian citizenship is really citizenshit.

At least we agree on this. It is utterly shameful that the government washes their hands of Hicks on the basis that 'we've seen the [untested in court] evidence and have no sympathy for him'.

firegoat7
22-02-2006, 03:26 PM
Which is why, you need dialectic discourse to ratify the truth of a statement or belief, not shutting people up before they even begin.
I agree completely, except with the truth statement, I don't think that is necessary, so long as the dialectical discourse is engaging.



But, they should only be granted serious audience if they're prepared to rationally discuss their viewpoints logically. Without that, it is merely a personal belief that should influence no one.



I actually don't agree with this point. I really don't believe that a serious audience is that important, nor is logic, in regards to influencing people.

I cite examples of ,some religous people in the West, who may not believe in God anymore, but still practise Christian belief because it makes them better people.

Another example might be Arosar's aviator, The Scream is not a logic representation of real people, but it is powerful enough to influence because it engages its audience into interacting with it. I see dialectical discourse as following the same path, truth is relative not absolute.

cheers fg7

Alan Shore
22-02-2006, 05:06 PM
I actually don't agree with this point. I really don't believe that a serious audience is that important, nor is logic, in regards to influencing people.

I think you just read what I said wrong fg7, or perhaps I didn't comnmunicate it clearly enough, I meant by 'grant serious audience' as 'for people to take them seriously' as what people should do, not what people currently do.


I cite examples of ,some religous people in the West, who may not believe in God anymore, but still practise Christian belief because it makes them better people.

Excellent example if you believe it to be a causal factor.. I think it may be one of many causal factors though, from environment, tradition, limitations of science to explain some things, belief in something more than oneself or even in accordance to law.. it is very different for some people which factors correlate and which would not.


Another example might be Arosar's aviator, The Scream is not a logic representation of real people, but it is powerful enough to influence because it engages its audience into interacting with it. I see dialectical discourse as following the same path, truth is relative not absolute.

Art though is a very relative thing.. as is literature essentially. The author or painter may want to convey certain things but what's interpreted may be very different from their intentions.

firegoat7
22-02-2006, 05:12 PM
I think you just read what I said wrong fg7, or perhaps I didn't comnmunicate it clearly enough, I meant by 'grant serious audience' as 'for people to take them seriously' as what people should do, not what people currently do.

Ok, I think I comprehend, but I can never be to sure.;)



cheers Fg7

PHAT
22-02-2006, 08:01 PM
There is a difference between saying he deserves to be punished for breaching the law, and saying that the sentence is disproportionate to the crime.

He got 3 years. To this you said,"...then he deserves what he gets." That is your position - unless you wish to jetison such a silly statement. You have not until now mentioned proportionate penalities. I can only think that you have reviewed your position, and are now attempting to modify your position post hoc. ;)


No. He is not. His liberty was perfectly untouched provided he did not go to Austria.
"Gimme yo money or Iz gonna pop acap in yo ass. Yo choice: Yo money o yo liberty." Liberty, Euro, is something which, if trammelled is not liberty at all. The Austrians are giving him 3 years in pokey for saying something that:
1. Was said a decade ago.
2. Was offensive to a minority.
3. Was his human right to say in free speech.
4. Has been recanted by him.

What do you think would be a just outcome?

Southpaw Jim
22-02-2006, 09:54 PM
He got 3 years. To this you said,"...then he deserves what he gets."

Wrong. Again :wall: That statement (post 38, go check it) was attached to the statement that was attached to the idea that he acted stupidly or arrogantly. It made no mention of the sentence.

You have yet to deal with the issue that he chose to put himself at risk of prosecution. I'm sure he would've been fully aware of the potential sentence. He was just arrogant enough to think that the Austrians wouldn't dare.


"Gimme yo money or Iz gonna pop acap in yo ass. Yo choice: Yo money o yo liberty." Liberty, Euro, is something which, if trammelled is not liberty at all.

Indeed it is. However, Irving popped a cap in his own ass.


The Austrians are giving him 3 years in pokey for saying something that:
1. Was said a decade ago.
2. Was offensive to a minority.
3. Was his human right to say in free speech.
4. Has been recanted by him.

Free speech can be limited by the majority of a society, through their elected representatives passing laws against certain statements. For example, it would be legally risky to start shouting 'Down with the Queen' in Wollongong! (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s12.html)

It's not a human right to say anything you want.

The Austrians made it illegal to deny the holocaust. They did this at least 17 years ago (which is when Irving made the speech in question), and I'm not aware of anyone decrying the restriction on their freedom of speech until now.

The fact that he may have recanted what he said is irrelevant (in Australia that may've been a sentencing consideration). The fact that it happened 17 years ago is also irrelevant - the warrant still existed. If he wanted to go to Austria that badly, then why did he not seek a pardon before travelling there?

I don't necessarily believe in the Austrian law, but I'm sure they don't believe in all our laws either. I do believe in their right to enforce their democratically enacted laws. It's the same with the Bali 9 - I don't agree with capital punishment, and I think life imprisonment is pretty rough too - but the simple fact (leaving aside issues about the AFP's actions) is they broke the Indonesian law, and they will suffer the consequences.

This is getting pretty boring, we're going round in circles. We're not going to agree, nor cede defeat. I've said as much as I'm going to on this ;)

antichrist
26-03-2006, 04:59 PM
In Canada a internet defo case has gone all the way to the high court. One plaintiff got $130,000 with many more coming