I was shocked to learn that Austria has a law against, “whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media.” (Source)
They’re kidding, right?
Don’t get me wrong. I understand how angry some are when people downplay or deny the Jewish Holocaust, but to make the public expression of it a crime?
Thank God I’m living in America.
No matter how despicable an utterance, no one should go to prison for expressing an idea. But I guess such a sentiment is uniquely American.
(AP Photo)
FullosseousFlap writes: “Now you know why the American Founders wrote the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…”
Update (2/21): I took a class on the First Amendment in law school. Although taking such a class isn’t necessary to understand the law, it helps. At the very least, this Holocaust buzz provides an opportunity to read the annotated First Amendment.
Even before the class, I knew that certain forms of speech weren’t protected, despite the plain language of the law:
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…
(I had a retro-hippy professor, ACLU-type, and he kept stressing over and over, “Congress shall make no law!” whenever he introduced a new category of unprotected speech.)
Seems clear enough on its face, doesn’t it? Not quite. We know, for instance, that no one has the freedom to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Why? There would be panic, a stampede, and people would be hurt. There is no freedom to make false reports. Other forms of speech NOT protected by the FA: obscenity, defamation, incitement to crime, “fighting words,” sedition…
The way courts interpret the FA has evolved over the years. Read the background of the development of the FA, the controversial doctrine of prior restraint, and the clear and present danger test. In fact, you should read all the annotations under Freedom of Expression (“Expression” can be verbal, symbolic, artistic…).
Despite the plain language of the law, courts have interpreted it in different ways. For example, political speech is the most protected form of speech. Why? The freedom to express dissent and disgust for the government is the essence of political freedom. Commercial speech receives less protection because the government has broad powers to regulate commerce.
Then there’s the issue of which standard to apply. Content-based restrictions on freedom of speech receive strict scrutiny in the courts. That is, the government must have a “compelling state interest” in restricting the speech and the restriction must be “narrowly tailored” to serve that end. It’s all very fascinating.
I can’t find many good sites on the FA, but after you’ve read the FindLaw entry, read Cornell Law School’s entry and visit the First Amendment Center.
Someone in the comment section mentioned Cindy Sheehan. At first we thought she was thrown out of the State of the Union speech for wearing a T-shirt that listed Iraq war casualties. Then we heard she was causing a ruckus. Then the Capitol Police apologized to her and dropped the unlawful conduct charges. When I thought she was removed for wearing a T-shirt with an “anti-war” message, I defended her.
Another Update: Jeff Jarvis says:
I am troubled at government regulation of speech for the chill it creates….
Ah, but you may argue that his fascist intellectual forefathers incited the worst imaginable crimes and so isn’t such hateful speech worth banning? No, I’d argue that the problem in Nazi Germany was not so much that the haters could speak but that they could ban their opponents from speaking. The cold of the chill is more dangerous than the heat of the hate. I believe that a free marketplace of speech will succeed where a closed and controlled public square will fail. (Emphasis added)
