Since I have been inundated with questions about what I think of all this let me summarize:
1. In principle I am against laws outlawing Holocaust denial.
2. I have a strange affection for the 1st Amendment
3. Furthermore, I don't think they are efficacious -- they tend to make a denier into a martyr for free speech.
4. They suggest that the evidence to prove that deniers are liars does not exist [it exists in droves]
Having said that:
1. Remember that David Irving went to Austria despite the fact that there was a warrant out for his arrest.
2. He announced that he was going. Seems to me he was "taunting" the Austrians or "asking for it."
3. In Austria, as the previous post notes, Holocaust denial has a different resonance than it does in the USA or other countries which are not directly linked to the Holocaust.
4. In a place such as Austria it is a political act that could be said to have incendiary implications and be close to incitement.
1. While I am opposed to such laws
2. I can understand the Austrian perspective.
3. Imagine if Ahamdinejad had decided to hold his conference in Vienna to save having to pay for Duke, the ridiculous rabbis et. al to fly all the way to Iran. There would have been a world outcry of unbelievable proportions.
1. I think David Irving should not be the poster child for Free Speech.
2. Remember that six weeks before my trial he offered to settle with me if I agree to pulp all my books and apologize to him. In essence he was denying my right to free speech.
3. The judge who freed him has a very dicey record [see previous post] when it comes to protecting free speech in Austria.
It's not simple.