Some Very Different Reactions to BBC Interview

My friend [and a person who gallantly assisted me with my research], Jamie McCarthy, who is a free speech absolutist, reminds me that in 1998 he wrote the following about Irving:

If he believes in free speech, why is he suing Americans for libel in England? England has the most draconian libel laws in the world.

Jamie's comment is on the Holocaust History Project website, a great resource.

Now here's a wierd one which was posted on something called PHXnews.com. The writer claims that I the reason I want Irving released at the time of his trial is because I "fear a demise of the Holohoax.":

Since Mr. Irving's arrest, the mythology of the Zionist religion of the Holocaust has attained unprecedented global exposure. Lipstadt is trying to preserve the dogma and profits of the Holocaust Industry.

I don't think this deserves any comment, except for the fact that Irving has gotten a lot more PR as a result of his arrest which lead some to speculate that he had engineered this in order to boost his profile.

And then there was one from Richard in Connecticut:

I think Irving should go home too, and for reasons similar to yours. However, what is the risk that instead of falling into obscurity, he becomes a hero in Iran and lends some kind of credibility to their denial arguments among their constituency, leading to other problems?

My response [to be read with the proper intonation]:

A "hero in IRAN"? Sure, he could go on the road with the President of Iran and they could do a "dog and pony show." If he became a hero in Iran I think it would illustrate just how low he has sunk.

He has no credibility in the sane world. So if he becomes a hero in Iran, it will say more about Iran than about him.