Free Irving: A Dissenting View

Though this writer to the Observer takes a view which differs from mine, he makes an argument, one which should be of interest to those folks who feel I am wrong about wanting him freed. The problem is that how do you choose which words inflame and which words do not. Sometimes it's clear. Other times it's not.

Irving is no martyr

Does David Irving deserve to be prosecuted and imprisoned?

[...]

Free speech is a misnomer since speech carries burdens of responsibility and, while no word that may convey ideas unpalatable to us should be censored, words that twist and corrupt and deny the truth, words that inflame the ignorant and are manna for racial hatred and, therefore, inspire evil deeds, ought to be punished.

For Irving to deny the existence of gas chambers as a myth in the face of overwhelming evidence, and from a historian as learned as he prides himself to be, implies an agenda which is as unpalatable as it is loathsome.

Irving would be no 'martyr to free speech' by imprisoning him any more than Oswald Mosley was when he was incarcerated. Martyrs are made of different stuff and are kept alive by the outrage of those whose lives were inspired by a liberating truth.

[...]

Steven Berkoff