Learn from the mistakes of others

this has sparked the usual round of debate regarding censorship:

Monday, February 20, 2006
British historian pleads guilty in Austria to denying Holocaust
Lisl Brunner at 9:38 AM ET

[JURIST] British historian David Irving [BBC profile, personal website] has pleaded guilty before an Austrian criminal court to charges [JURIST report] of denying the World War II Holocaust [BBC backgrounder]. Irving, 68, was arrested in Austria [JURIST report] in November pursuant to a 1989 warrant based on two speeches in which he denied the Nazis' use of gas chambers. Denial of the Holocaust is a crime in Austria, and Irving could face up to 10 years in prison.

Irving appeared before the court with a copy of his 1977 best-selling account of World War II, Hitler's War, in which he contended that the Holocaust executions were carried out without Hitler's knowledge according to orders of his underlings. He told reporters that he has changed his mind, claiming "I have learned a lot since 1989." Irving faces up to ten years in prison.

BBC News has more.

2:57 PM ET - BBC News is reporting that Irving has been sentenced to three years in jail.

'holocaust denial' is a thorny problem. on the one hand, people have a right to express their opinions, on the other, some opinions are widely considered to be wrong, or even dangerous.

this case has sparked some debate locally, on larvatus prodeo, shaun cronin provides an overview of some of this in his piece "free speech and the legitimacy of a point of view". he concludes this way:

"Holocaust deniers should not be denied their right of free speech. However their right of free speech does not mean that we should listen nor confer legitimacy by respecting the 'right' to have a point of view."

i'll address my reservations with this point of view below.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006
UK historian to appeal jail sentence for denying Holocaust
Krystal MacIntyre at 11:36 AM ET

[JURIST] British historian David Irving [BBC profile, personal website] has said he will appeal the three-year sentence he received after pleading guilty [JURIST report] Monday to charges of denying the Holocaust [JURIST report]. Irving was charged in connection to two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989, in which he denied that Nazis used gas chambers at Auschwitz during the World War II Holocaust [BBC backgrounder]. Irving admitted to making the statements, but said that he has since changed his mind.

Irving and his lawyer say they will appeal the three year sentence, referring to the sentence as a battle of censorship and saying it is too stringent for comments that he made years ago. Austrian prosecutors also filed an appeal [Reuters report] Tuesday, asking the appeals court to lengthen Irving's sentence. Prosecutors say that Irving pretended to change his views in order to avoid a lengthy sentence. Austria is one of eleven countries which have laws against denying the existence of the Holocaust.

BBC News has more.

the issue of holocaust denial, and what to do about it, sits squarely in the issue of propaganda (in the pejorative sense of the term). propaganda is a difficult beast to get a grip on. just what is and is not propaganda will largely depend upon your ideology (in relations to both what propaganda is and what constitutes propaganda.)

the austrians, and others in europe, have chosen to ban public denial of the holocaust for a number of reasons - not the least of which is the recurring problem of neo-nazism.

here is a parallel with the so-called debate regarding "intelligent design". even mentioning that some people deny genocide occurred affords them and their ideology legitimacy. merely raising the possibility for someone to say "see, there is a debate about this, it is in question, they're debating it right now" opens the door.

the past hundred years or so have seen the development of very sophisticated psychological techniques for the preparation and dissemination of propaganda. merely allowing certain voices to speak can be enough. on the other hand, not addressing certain ideological positions - or more accurately, not equipping populations with the knowledge and the critical thinking skills to be able to assess for themselves - is even more dangerous.

coming back to cronin's view,

"Holocaust deniers should not be denied their right of free speech. However their right of free speech does not mean that we should listen nor confer legitimacy by respecting the 'right' to have a point of view."

how do you afford people with toxic ideologies an opportunity to speak, yet also not "listen []or confer legitimacy by respecting the 'right' to have a point of view"? by allowing them to speak, we are saying that what they have to say just might be worth listening to ...