Jailed for speech: The precedent that sets

February 21, 2006 by Jeff Jarvis

It’s not hard to agree that Holocaust denier David Irving is an ass. But by jailing him for three years because of the assanine things he said, Austria sets a difficult precedent that affects other debates about speech today:

If they will jail Irving because of what he said about the Holocaust, will they jail the cartoonists and editors who published the now-infamous Mohammed cartoons because half the world thinks they are offensively assanine? If they do it for the Jews, why not the Muslims? And if an exhibit of dung-and-urine-covered Mary and Jesus art comes to town, will they do the same for the Christians? Where does this stop?

And if they jail Irving because of what he said, will they justify the Chinese jailing journalists for what they say that is offensive to the Chinese regime?

If Austria does this, then why don’t other nations? If you can be jailed for being stupidly offensive enough to deny the Holocaust, then should you be jailed for violating American law and saying “fuck” on TV? Where does this stop?

I am troubled at government regulation of speech for the chill it creates.

And even in the case of Irving, I believe it is wholly unnecessary. Doesn’t most of the sane world know he is an ass and what he says is wrong? Do we need to be protected from him? Should the Austrian government be his editor?

Ah, but you may argue that his fascist intellectual forefathers incited the worst imaginable crimes and so isn’t such hateful speech worth banning? No, I’d argue that the problem in Nazi Germany was not so much that the haters could speak but that they could ban their opponents from speaking. The cold of the chill is more dangerous than the heat of the hate. I believe that a free marketplace of speech will succeed where a closed and controlled public square will fail.

  • Pingback: La Shawn Barber’s Corner » Law Against Holocaust Denial?

  • http://moviesandmore.typepad.com Patricia

    Agreed, one hundred percent. Make him a public ass rather than a martyr.

  • http://writingup.com/ashok ashok

    I’d argue that the problem in Nazi Germany was not so much that the haters could speak but that they could ban their opponents from speaking. The cold of the chill is more dangerous than the heat of the hate.

    I don’t agree, but it’s a good thought, and it could be exactly correct. I do think a gov’t has to say some opinions are a violence against the regime that cannot be tolerated. The Nazi past of that area of the world always means that the current gov’t can be threatened directly with a romantic antiquarianism that might overthrow it. You have sort of argued against this point, but I don’t think you can knock it down fully, just as I can’t say you’re entirely wrong. Letting people be free works wonders.

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    Before the Nazis had enough political power to change the terms of public discourse they used physical intimidation.
    The same thing is going on today in Iran and Afghanistan. Religious groups attack those who don’t conform to their policies.

    The rule of law only works when the law is enforced. Historically even the US has not always been too vigilant about allowing for public dissent. During the heyday of the Wobblies, for example, the local police looked the other way when Pinkerton agents attacked those at the rallies.

    A similar thing happened at the last the RNC convention in NYC. The police rounded up lots of protesters on phoney charges at the behest of the committee and its local enforcers – Pataki and Bloomberg.

    Germany and Austria face the delicate problem of an existing neo-Nazi and skinhead movement which they are trying to control by restricting their ability to publicize their cause. Their experiences with the Nazis may be making this an over reaction, but their techniques are understandable, even if not ideal, given their history.

    Suggest some other approach which allows “free speech” but restricts “hate speech”, it’s not easy…

  • http://www.virtualbites.com/ Markus Pirchner

    Austrian criminal prosecutors and courts are acting according to the law (denying the holocaust and any attempt to reconstitute nazi organizations and/or a nazi regime are criminal offenses and have been for decades).
    You can argue the laws but you cannot argue the prosecutors and courts because they act according to the laws.
    Apparantly there is no law in Austria against saying “fuck” on TV. ;-)

  • Wise One

    Three cheers for Austria and the Moslems. FOS is an issue for idiots.

    People who mock Christ, the Saints, or holy men of other faiths like Mohammed should get a swift boot in the posterior.

    Holocaust deniers are just Jew haters. Boot them too.

  • Richard

    Wise One-

    That’s ridiculous. I’ll mock whoever I want. You’re free to disagree with my mocking, but the idea that certain groups should be exempt from criticism is wrong. Personally, I don’t believe in Christ, Mohamad, Vishnu, Allah, UFOs or astrology. Why should I keep my mouth shut, or be particularly sensetive about those subjects when I don’t see anything special about them? As far as I’m concerned, religion is a belief system people choose to follow and it’s not any more or less valid than choosing to follow a political philosophy. Ideas are always free game for criticism, just because you claim “god” inspires your ideas doesn’t make them special. I think religious people should get a boot in the posterior- they’ve caused more than enough trouble. Free speech rules!

  • stan devaughn

    It would be great if we could just ignore a self-absorbed jackass like Irving and the nut cases who run Iran, and the zombies who’re trying to shove Islam down the world’s throat when they’re not trying to slit it, and all the other plagues of modern society. But we can’t because the Holocaust is used by all of the above to purposely drive a political agenda and manipulate mobs. Nothing else compares to it. There’s a good reason why denial of this event is a crime in some quarters. It’s as good a way as any to maintain peoples’ attention.

  • http://blog.tomevslin.com Tom Evslin

    There is no state that can be trusted for long with the power to decide which speech is free. Banning an opinion can even act to give it a credibility it doesn’t deserve.

    But there have been some thoughtful comments favoring the laws banning Nazi themes on my post on this subject.

  • http://amomentwith.typepad.com/ Easycure

    The cold of the chill is more dangerous than the heat of the hate.

    A very nice line there. Normally I’d get snarky and ask you if that came from your TV Guide days, but it’s too good of a line.

    And you’re right too. The hate was bad, but because the hate was the only thing tolerated, it didn’t matter what you really thought. That’s not good whether it’s Nazi, Muslim, Christian, Scientologist or Buddhist. Not only that but the opposite is the only thing that works, free speech.

    It’s the First Amendment for a reason. Those wacky forefathers knew it then, we should heed them now.

  • NatC

    Oh, free speech is the best way to protect us, and to let the truth be known?
    Sure. I’ll leave it to you to deal with scientology’s damages then.

    That’s really one of the most critical differences between Europe and the US. Here in Europe it is generally considered that not anyone is in a position to protect himself/herself from such abuses, so we have laws to forbid such actions. We cannot consider being happy with free speech if that means that way too many people are abused by malevolent others.
    We often say in France that “my liberty ends where that of others starts”. That means that you are not allowed to impair on someone else’s liberty, would it simply be by disseminating false information.

  • http://ruthcalvo Ruth

    When dissent is called treachery, then punishing free speech will be totalitarian. While I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    Wise One seems to have been making the point Jeff made by showing the absurdity of the opposite point of view. At least, I hope so.

  • Menlo Bob

    How is this any different than censorship in China? Let’s hear it for cutting off their Yahoo and Google.

  • Wise One

    Not exempt from criticism. Just mocking. Discussion and debate is not ridicule.

  • http://pbcliberal.blogmatrix.com PBCliberal

    The last time around, the Nazis made good use of government repression saying the idea must be good because the corrupt government was trying to supress it.

    We seem hell bent for leather to repeat history.

  • http://www.tomdevine.net Tom

    “The cold of the chill is more dangerous than the heat of the hate.”

    Carve that in stone somewhere!

  • http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com Brandon

    Quite right, but we we need to clean our own house too -

    http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/supporting-nazi-lover.html

  • Pingback: CaNN :: We started it.

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Chilling

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    David Irving: “The Holocaust never happened.”

    Austria: “You’re going to jail.”

    David Irving: “Oh, wait. Maybe it *did* happen…”

    I’m a free speech absolutist myself, Jeff, but sometimes you simply can’t argue with results.

    p.s. It’s ‘asinine’, btw.

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Defending speech against the chill