Barbelith Underground > Switchboard > David Irving- guilty as charged?

So what if someone wants to flat out deny that something happened? No one says that you have to believe them - that is your choice. Freedom of speech is an inaliable right whether it is true or false.

No, but I might be willing to believe a professional historian about historical facts in the same way that I would believe a professional scientist about laws of science. Because they both claim to be acting within a certain framework based around hypothesis, research and having actual proof to support their statements.

If we look at his website we see he describes himself as a historian, an expert on the Third Reich and so on, clearly trying to establsih his credentials as a respectable source of information.

Now perhaps you have the time and energy to call into doubt the opinion of everyone you meet go and research their statements and make up your own mind - if so then you are ahead of most of us who tend to rely on the reputation and status of experts in obtaining our information about the world.

Also I suspect, or would hope, that you are already convinced that the Holocaust happened and therefore don't really pay much attention to Mr Irving's views. However according to this survey you may be in a minority who have even heard of it. It is people who do not know about the Holocaust who may then take the works of Irving and others like him as actual historical works - i.e that they record what actually happened. At which point I, and I think the Austrian government, would argue that there is a real danger because it then leads to the rehabilitation of Nazis and the argument that the 'Jews made it all up'.

I don't think anyone would disagree that this law is a crude instrument with which to attack the problem of anti-semitism and nazi sympathisers and I wouldn't be happy to see it copied in the UK but only because I think that in most people's minds Nazi-ism is identified with Germany and so there are patriotic/inherently racist issues that work against revisionism.

He has a theory that some people don't like.

Again he doesn't have a theory. Go back to what I posted - he is accused of deliberately manipulating and distorting the facts to fit his argument. Thats not free expression its an attempt to mislead people that millions of people died and what the implications of this might be.

And while you are busy defending Irving you might want to look at this website which sums up his anti-semitism and general racism and which suggest that rather than being some innocent victim of an oppressive state he is in fact hiding his real views behind his lies in order to make them publicly acceptable. Of course you are free to disbelieve that site and make up your own mind but it would be nice to know what you base it on.

So what you are saying is that all liars should be arrested?

No but perhaps all liars whose lies cause harm to others? We arrest people who lie under oath in court? Is their freedom of expression hurt? We arrest or fine people who make false claims about their products (which is books are)? Does that damage their freedom of expression?
Also the fact that some liars get away with it doesn't negate the fact that they shouldn't