David Irving---a free speech star or a nazi apologist?

Tell your opinion on this dude, and vote!

 

My impression of David Irving is that he is a nice guy with very unpopular views. His personality lies in stark contrast to the effeminate left-winger/intellectual Gore Vidal, the novelist-cum-political analyst, or Christopher Hitchens, the leftist turned neoconservative. He doesn't seem to deny atrocities were committed against Jews so much as take the view that they have been greatly exaggerated. He probably could have gotten away with these views if not for his overt anti-Semitism (dislike of Jews/Jewish organizations) and xenophobic views (sympathy for the far right).

Politically he is very unpopular, and he is not exactly a person with a lot of charm. He rubs people the wrong way, which is perhaps his greatest fault. He also seems to be begging for martyrdom.

He should be allowed to write and speak freely. But weak-minded Europeans have the right to elect politicians who take away certain rights of theirs (Jews cannot and do not manipulate the masses like some nutcases claim). Therein lies the conflict.

 

i don't agree with what he said. However, he should NOT have been locked up. What an absolute joke and an attack on freedom. ANY country that has laws like that should be ashamed.

 

"fighting fascism is 9/10 eduction and 1/10 equating thier heads with the pavement"

 

I am under the impression that David Irving was warned by the Austrian authorities that if he continued to:"Deny the Holocaust" it would be an imprisonable offence.
I an totally in favour of 'Freedom of Speech' but If a respected & qualified Historian distorts historical facts for personal,subjective reasons,then he is not a bona fide historian.
I am not Jewish myself but that doesn't mean that I want the facts of history tainted by authorititive & responsible persons.I believe that historians have a duty to tell the truth about all the research they undertake.The 'Holocaust' was one (but not the only) ,of the worst genocides of the 20th century.It was a human tragedy of epic proportions.Institutionalized mass-murder.That is a statement of fact;regardless of whether you dispute the numbers involved or not.

 

Jews do not manipulate from behind the scenes, but people claiming to be Jewish, and maybe a few real ones too, to use their status to avoid investigation. This the real purpose behind the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) which spends it's time defaming people. All the "Jews" who want to avoid critisism have it with these organizations. I typed this up awhile ago, and rather than retyping it, I'll just post it here.

And as someone said, an country who believes they have the right to lock people up for their views is fucking insane. And contrary to what someone else said, the people don't have thr right to elect a leader who will enact laws like that. They can elect them, but they still can't make those laws. All civilized countried have safeguards to prevent them. But of course, the elites walk all over safeguards like the bill of rights...

 

He should be locked up because he PURPOSEFULLY MISREPRESENTED FACTS.

At first I was against him being locked up, being for free speech and all, but then I heard a program on the great BBC Radio 4 talking about a case against him ages ago, I changed my mind, because he was twisting historical documents to suit his aims.

 

No. The only thought crime i think is legitimate is one that involves a threat of serious injury, i.e. planning to assassinate someone.

I don't care if you deny the holocaust or even write that it was American's who killed all the jews. You have no right to lock someone up for that.


Flame the hell out of the dude, publically ostracize him..but you do not throw him in jail for something like that.

You have to accept the bad with the good...

 

Idiot.

 

what, me?

 

Aye.

 

Ok, a few things here. First, you've got to understand that the Germans and Austrians have a very different viewpoint on the holocaust to the US, UK etc: they did it. In the post-war years it was rightly seen to be of paramount importance to draw a line under the Nazi era, to ensure that it could never happen again. That was the slogan of the era: never again. But there were - and still are - people who still believed in the Nazi ideals. Their key tactic has always been to try and play down the evils of the Nazi era by denying that the holocaust happened or, in David Irving's case, claiming that it has been exaggerated by Jewish interests since. If they can play it down, they can begin to prepare the ground for their re-entry into normal politics, which has been denied to them because of the enormity of the crimes of their philosophical and political forebears. So for the Germans and Austrians, preventing holocaust denial by the strongest means is of great importance. They know where that road leads to. I'm not fond of restrictions on free speech myself, but, for example, a Muslim preacher would not be free in the US to exort his flock to become suicide bombers. There are limits on free speech if the freedom of others is to be preserved. For the Germans and Austrians, preventing the re-emergence of Nazism has similar importance.
Secondly,

Nalencer, you're off your head mate. Sorry. If you think that members of the government who are pretended to be Jewish are actually Satanists, you're off your head.

 

Okay, I'm off my head. I'd be willing to admit that, but I think you forgot to post your evidence to the contrary...

He's free to suggest it to them. He's just not free to force them into it. Forcing people to do things has nothing to do with free speech. But suggesting it is perfectly acceptable.

 

Freedom of speech ends with hate speech. Period.

There are some people who should be permantly gagged from speaking in public.

 

thankfully, freedom of speech does NOT end there.

It ends(or should end) when it puts other people in danger...i.e. "fire" in a theater.


your opinion is rather scary...but rather typical, unfortunately.

 

exactely, its called freedom of speech, so therefore it the freedom to say what you wish.

we have to accept that others may not see the world was we do, and have different opinions, and that is what makes the human being a awesome creature, we are different with different views and should be given the freedom to express said views.

i'm not happy with what he had said, however i have the freedom to disagree, ignore and argue against

 

There are no limits to freedom of speech. Hate laws are bullshit. I don't agree with those views, but I sure as shit don't agree with people censoring them either. People who think they can change freedom to support their views and ignore others are simply fascists with an American flag draped around them.

 

...