From a US perspective, putting someone in prison for disagreeing about how a historical even went down sounds like using force to silence someone's speech, or punish someone for saying the wrong thing.

Of course the context was Austria's participation in the holocaust and probably Irving has other motives than just being a crackpot. So it gets murky there. The reason we in the US are hardcore on speech is because if you give the government power to censure, then it can be abused. Maybe we don't care if a holocaust denier gets shut down, but what about if it's someone espousing an unpopular political opinion? What if they're criticizing the government?

It seems like Austria thinks society needs to be protected from certain kinds of crackpots, which is weird form a US perspective. Why can't society decide without using the force of law who to believe when it comes to history?

Some among us would tell you 'because if we don't censor people then people like Trump can get elected", which on the surface seems to have some merit.

What they don't realize is that in today's world, censorship is to popularity as gasoline is to open flames, or that one day they too could be censored via the same appeal (let alone that they aren't the benevolent king/queen we all need)...

Some among us would tell you 'because if we don't censor people then people like Trump can get elected", which on the surface seems to have some merit. — VagabondSpectre

So we need to protect the voting public by censoring people? That sounds anti-democratic. And how do we determine who and when to censor? Because I can imagine pro-Trump supporters saying the same thing about past presidents they didn't like.

What they don't realize is that in today's world, censorship is to popularity as gasoline is to open flames, — VagabondSpectre

That's for sure!

I agree with much of what you said. This is why it's so important to be able to express your beliefs openly, and preferably in debate with others who disagree. This is also why it's not good what many on the left are doing, viz., shutting down speech they disagree with on many campuses. I'm making a distinction between liberals and democrats and leftists, because many democrats also agree with not shutting down speech.

Sometimes we get people in office that we don't like, and that we disagree with vehemently, but if you start limiting (as you say) who can say what, then you open yourself up to the same kind of censorship. I don't want to see a socialist get into office, but we still need to keep the communication lines open. It's paramount to keep yourself informed, and not just from a one-sided perspective.

If you ban the speech of one crackpot, you're inevitably going to create additional crackpots.

If we let the crackpots have their freedom of thought and speech it's possible they could delude others, maybe even a majority, into subscribing to their no longer crackpot beliefs. It's a risk, sure, but that's inherent in the democratic gambit that the modern west is founded on. We hope and pray that the free marketplace of opinions and ideas can sufficiently filter out the crack-pots and the Pol Pots. Being sufficiently exposed to the reality of hate-based ideologies can be quite helpful in helping people think critically about them, and wide-spread critical thinking is something we definitely want in a democracy.

Basically, by banning speech you can do more damage to democracy than if you allowed it. Banned speech creates a cult of mystery, and then festers in dark and cloistered corners where manipulative thinking can go unchallenged. We also have to consider that some unpopular ideas might actually turn out to be true, and there's no comprehensive guide to knowing what to ban and what not to ban (what might turn out to be harmful, false, true, or beneficial).

If someone can tell me who the perfect arbiter of allowed and forbidden ideas is, I'll start forecasting their bias and inevitable failure...

If someone cal tell me who the perfect arbiter of allowed and forbidden ideas is, I'll start forecasting their bias and inevitable failure... — VagabondSpectre

That's the thing. Nobody can be trusted in that role anymore than anyone can be trusted with unshared power.

his is also why it's not good what many on the left are doing, viz., shutting down speech they disagree with on many campuses. — Sam26

I really, really hate that. However, usually I hear about that stuff from conservative sources that I don't trust very much. Often times, things are taken out of context when reporting so as to cause outrage in the viewer.

So we need to protect the voting public by censoring people? That sounds anti-democratic. And how do we determine who and when to censor? Because I can imagine pro-Trump supporters saying the same thing about past presidents they didn't like. — Marchesk

It's undemocratic, to be sure, but we must at least acknowledge the normative argument that typically justifies censorship. "The greater good" and all that... In the European and other countries where holocaust denial is a crime, it's fundamentally based on that argument. When the US government censored and shut down radio stations and media purveyors who were critical of the war effort during WW2, they did it under the same justification.

Even the anecdotal "fire" in a crowded theater employs the same reasoning.

In the context where speech clearly would lead to imminent and avoidable harm (such as revealing state secrets, direct incitements of violence, causing panic in a crowd, etc...) it does seem reasonable to me to ban the speech. But, when it comes to the banning of ideas themselves (or speech on the basis of promoting the wrong ideas) I don't see how it could possibly be justifiable. Unless an idea is in and of itself a threat (such as specific instructions on how to create weapons of mass destruction or otherwise carry out deadly attacks), why should it be banned?

If an arbiter can determine what is or is not permissible for a democratic public to consume, then they can explain why to the democratic public, and then we can decide for ourselves! (otherwise it's not democracy)...

It's paramount to keep yourself informed, and not just from a one-sided perspective. — Sam26

:up:

It was said that imprisoning Irving made a martyr of him.

Your post made me think about what Jon Stewart said: that Trump is a direct result of a steady barage of talk radio and Fox News.

Speech may be free but the news is paid for.

Crackpot Pol Pot. :strong:

There's crazy stuff going on on both sides. Until we dispense with the liberal vs conservative, or democrat vs republican you won't be able, in a lot of cases, be able to distinguish what's fact and what''s not fact. Politicians in many cases are only interested in holding onto power, and they create a narrative that people buy into, that narrative in many cases has little to do with facts. It's simple, the ends justify the means for many politicians.

People can vote for censorship, and they can vote for tyranny. They can vote for oppression and injustice. Hurrahs for freedom and democracy can lead to the gas chamber. Hurrah, therefore, for the protection of this and other truths!

I have tried to start a dialog with members of antifa-facebook pages. and im not rude or anything, but still, no one bothers to respond unless with strong negativity towards me and anyone not 100% on board on what their about. and sadly does people are so easily labeled as nazis or facists. and it can be uncomftable for anyone to be called a nazi/facist with all the bad stuff in the past linked to it. and I also believe does better-than-thou "anti-facist" know that it is a great way to silence people that way. their cause might be nobel but their actions and mannerism is just plain stupid. there not getting my respect that way.

I understand what that's like, unfortunately there are leftists that don't want to hear from anyone who disagrees with them; and the irony is that their the one's acting like fascists.

Unfortunately we can vote ourselves right into tyranny, whether from the left or right.

...what about if it's someone espousing an unpopular political opinion? — Marchesk

Like this:

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/

"But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison."

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/US-Anti-BDS-Bill-Giving-Trump-Power-to-Punish-Movement-Supporters-Gains-Traction-20180629-0006.html

"The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is practically ready for a house vote after being approved by the committee Thursday and would allow for the punishment of businesses engaged in BDS with criminal penalties of a maximum US$1 million fine and 20 years in prison.

Brian Hauss, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), criticized the bill arguing it “seeks to dictate the political activities Americans can and can’t engage in.”"

That's up to 20 years in prison for disagreeing with the policy of a U.S. ally. Free speech. Not so much.

yeah, and there not afraid to use violence either. on social-media, the kind of person among them that I loathe the most, is the people saying they would or could rape, tourtur and murder a facist/neo-nazi. I obviously can never know if their serious or not and I hope that they are not. sure, im not saying that the true facist/neo-nazis are good people but they are offcourse human-beings that feel pain and fear just like anyone else. and if that dont come to mind among those particular kind of "sosial-justice warriors" then their psychopaths. they act like their on a holy mission and they cant do no wrong. like its morally acceptable. and what confuses me is that people view neo-nazis as the worst of the worst. worse then serial-killers, worse than rapist. and im betting that the majority of neo-nazis dont even engage in violence towards their "enemies", they are neo-nazis because of the way they think first and formost. (im sure offcourse that there are neo-nazis that do that aswell) but silencing them or starting fist-fights with them isnt gonna solve a damn thing. chances are, they`re just making it worse. violence breeds violence and revenge. it is because of this, that people giving hate-speeches should be met with skeptisism leding to disscusions and a strong non-violent opposision to their "way of thinking" or simply ignoring them. any sane person knows there is no room for facism and nazism in todays sosiety. but the so-called "anti-facists" cant seem to let the past stay in the past. acting as ww2 was a resent event and fueling the fire by becoming enraged with hate towards them. It might be easy for me not to have such strong hate towards neo-nazis, having never been bothered by them nor have anyone I know been so. and ww2, grim as it was, is just something I have read about, not expirienced. I dont care if neo-nazis have a right to free-speech because im smart enough not to listen to their bullshit.
am I wrong in thinking this way? or is it maybe to simplified and dosent address the bigger problem?

Neo-Nazi groups regularly incite their members to violence. It's not like they're just these harmless mislead folks having their freedom to speech rights trampled on by evil oppressive lefties. They are dangerous scum. I don't support violence against them except in self-defense. At the same time if someone incites violence and then suffers violence by a third party such as antifa, I would hold them to a great degree responsible for their own fate.

I hope you in no way viewed my comment as sympathizing with the neo-nazis. I just havent seen them(wrong as I may be) as a problem in the bigger picture. I dont view their marches and rallies as a problem. and I think simply turning you back on them and ignoring them is a better action then giving them all the misplaced attention. and mocking them isnt helping either. most people are against them, so I dont buy the whole "nazism is on the rise" statement. they may have become bolder after the massive muslim-immigration to europe a few years back, but they remain an minority and for every attack they do, they`re only digging their own grave. I believe groups like antifa are slowing down that prosess by egging them on.

"Neo-Nazi groups regularly incite their members to violence." dont mean to apply that its a lie, but are there any reliable sources and statistics about this? I rarely hear about them in the media, and sadly there are so many(on both sides) that lie about it to try and make it seem worse then is really is. that said, I allways abid to the truth, even if it made me wrong.

"Neo-Nazi groups regularly incite their members to violence." dont mean to apply that its a lie, but are there any reliable sources and statistics about this? — Aleksander Kvam

Fair request. I don't know, but I'll look into it. Just to add that by incite violence, I don't limit that to direct imperatives such as "Let's go beat up some [insert minority group here]" (though I have seen that done too) but include stirring up hatred which is likely to lead to violence. If you present minority groups as a threat then you prime those who believe you towards violence as a means of defense against that threat even if it's a "preemptive strike" type defense.

I believe groups like antifa are slowing down that prosess by egging them on. — Aleksander Kvam

They're not helping, I agree.

I guess why nazism/facism/racism is such a toutchy and tricky thing to overcome is because it it infused with both hate and fear. fear of a dark future caused by strangers from distant unknown lands. and hate towards them for that very reason. and it dosent make it any better when both hate and fear clouds your mind and reasoning.

if there reason for the fear is reasonable and and hate justifiable(hmmm..?) is a to difficult question to answer.

time will tell....maybe. only death is curtain.

The Austrian David Irving was sentenced to 3 years in prison for Holicaust denial.

It occurred to me that this likely wouldn't happen in the US, but I have mixed feelings about it. Is it a test of one's convictions regarding free speech? Or is Austria right to safeguard its society from people like Irving? — frank

It wouldn't happen in the US because the US was founded on the principle of distrust of government and an important check against the government is freedom of speech. Austria, on the other hand, was not founded on such principles, but instead previously found itself and much of Western Europe on the verge of collapse because of Nazi ideology. It therefore has created laws protecting itself from a reemergence of that ideology.

The distinctions between the two nations are historical and understandable. I am biased toward the US policy and think it's probably more enlightened, but, then again, the US was the victor in WW2 and affected to a much less extent than Europe.

Right. I wasn't criticizing Austria. I was pondering censorship, pros and cons.

The more important point is that suppressing morons makes them martyrs for their causes.

maybe the true issue with free-speech-for-all, isnt the one that is spreading hateful opinions and so on, but the ones that are to easily manipulated by him, when they should know that what he is saying isnt right.

I'm guessing that at some level they do know the holocaust happened. It's a show of disrespect to the victims to say it didn't.

I'm sure that's not all there is to it.

offcourse, neither do I think that thing was all that made it possible for hitler to put to life his riech.

a politician still need a nice smile and a bag full of charm :)