ChatterBank0 min ago
Free Speech Hypocrisy?
We are all aware of the European press claiming the right of 'free speech' during the recent fracas over the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet, Mohammed, yet the historian David Irving may well be jailed in Austria for exercising the same freedoms with his Holocaust denials.
Is this hypocrisy on the part of the West?
Is this hypocrisy on the part of the West?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Drusilla. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The term "free speech" seems to mean different things to different people. A more accurate term would be free speech wthin the law. In Austria, and several other countries, Holocaust denial is against the law. I have no doubt that David Irving is an intelligent person and would be well aware of this.
No hypocrisy, and Irving brought the trial upon himself.
No hypocrisy, and Irving brought the trial upon himself.
LazyGun is right ~ 'free speech within the law' would be more accurate. As recent events have shown, free speech is our right however incitement to murder isn't..you wouldn't be allowed to stand on a street corner & encourage people to kill others (allegedly ;o)
A very grey area, as per usual ~ I wouldn't call it hypocrisy.
The addition of 'allegedly' was very wise, Pippa. It seems to be OK to carry placards calling for the beheading of people who follow a different religion. In some places though, it is not OK for a historian to express the wrong opinions of events 60 years ago. The USSR also used to tell people what they were allowed to believe about history.
Grunty - we know that it isn't okay to be carrying around placards inciting violence, hence the laws recently pushed through regarding glorifying terror. There was widespread condemnation of those involved from all quarters. Anyone breaking these laws in future will hopefully be prosecuted. David Irving is also rightly being prosecuted for breaking the law.
As far as it being hypocritical I'm not so sure. The papers were being stupid and irresponsible but there hasn't been much question that they were breaking the law, whereas Irving clearly was. On a personal moral scale though I'd say we're looking at two reprehensible acts of a similar scale.
I personally think David Irving should be allowed to say whatever he likes about the Holocaust because he serves our children with a valuable lesson and that is there are still maniacs like him around who seek to pervert the truth and whitewash history with their own version of events however blatantly inaccurate.Although every word he says is an insult to Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and all of the other victim groups of the Shoa, he really should be permitted to air his views as freedom of speech is more important, in fact vital, than any offence that might be caused to anyone. All that being said, he did know the Austrian postition on this before he went, so knowingly broke the law there. Therefore he deserves whatever sentence he gets there as he was fully aware. I do however find it somewhat hypocritical that the West has these double standards when it comes to freedom of speech and I think the Austrian's would be well served to review their laws on the matter.
Why on earth does this have to, yet again, be turned into a 'West v Muslims' argument? Drusilla's question concerns hypocrisy by the west for prosecuting an individual for using 'free speech'
It's the Austrians prosecuting David Irving for breaking one of their laws, not the West. Just because Austria is in the West, it doesn't make the West responsible for an individual sovereign nation's laws, thus no, there is no hypocricy here.
David Irvine knew the laws of Austria when he made his comments, so knew what to expect. As it happens, it has been reported that he has since accepted that there is evidence to back up the Holocaust claims (as most of us readily believe anyway)
This has nothing to do with Muslims!!!
hiprocrasy is such a harsh word - 'double standards' is more like it.
hi Drusilla
What I don't understand is this... we have the right to freedom of speech, granted by the law. The law was supposed to be protecting the weak from the bullying, the innocent from the finger-pointers and the sanctity of what may be meat to someone but poison to another. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
So it is pure hiprocrasy to say that freedom of speech grants someone the right to speak ill of someone else, to cause harm of hurt to another human being.
But I have to add that sometimes it is unavoidable because of the difference between cultures. E.g: Different hand signals mean different things in different countries.
hi Drusilla
What I don't understand is this... we have the right to freedom of speech, granted by the law. The law was supposed to be protecting the weak from the bullying, the innocent from the finger-pointers and the sanctity of what may be meat to someone but poison to another. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
So it is pure hiprocrasy to say that freedom of speech grants someone the right to speak ill of someone else, to cause harm of hurt to another human being.
But I have to add that sometimes it is unavoidable because of the difference between cultures. E.g: Different hand signals mean different things in different countries.
-- answer removed --
Sorry, I haven't been able to respond, but have had to change my name slightly to get access. I won't respond to everyone, but would just like to answer Trojanforce.
The reason I have asked the question in this manner is because Austria was one of the nations that argued the importance of free speech in the recent debate about the cartoons of Mohammed. I find it hypocritical to adopt this argument when insulting the Moslem community, but adopting a different standard with Irving's case.
I accept I should have said Austria, rather than the West, but be honest, who would have answered a question about internal Austrian law.
I also agree with noxlumos that it's better to allow people like David Irving their freedom to vent their spleens so we can all see how weak their arguments are and argue openly with them.
I think the point Drusilla is making correct me if I'm wrong is if the newspapers claim the freedom of speech depict those cartoons then surely the same freedom should apply to David Irving's case. My point was the action of those danish newspapers was irresponsible yet nobody seemed to question that. David Irving was also irresponsible because despite knowing the laws in Austria he still made those comments.
Keyvan, the one difference here is that the whilst the cartoons were abhorrent to Muslims, they weren't against the laws of Denmark. David Irvine broke the law of Austria and is being prosecuted for it, quite rightly so.
Had Denmark, the same laws that we now have concerning inciting racial hatred, then I doubt the cartoons would have been published at all.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.