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)
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 36 comments }
I can completely understand why it’s a punishable offense to deny the holocaust. Public expression is one thing, but the denial of proven recent history is another.
If some one can’t recognize one of the greatest modern atrocities, what good are they to a cognitive society? These people are on par with skin-heads (who can be imprisoned for inciting violence).
I’m all for the punishment of people too ignorant to learn from history.
…well, in hindsight, prison sentences *is* harsh. How could I ever disagree with you? But instead, remove any form of voting rights. That seems more than fair.
I strongly disagree. I don’t know where you get the idea that “denial of proven recent history” should be against the law. Makes no sense. For the reasons I expressed, it would be just as ridiculous to send someone to prison for denying the American slave trade, for instance, despite the fact that it’s “proven…history.” What kind of standard is that?
“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.”
You’ll find plenty of people in america ready to send people to jail for speech. Thankfully no-one listens to them.
Such as…? - Admin
It is against the law in both Austria and Germany to deny the Holocaust. Those arguing that the Danish cartoons should have been censored on these grounds say it is the entire West who has laws against the denial. Of course we know that is not accurate, but that is one basis to their objection and it is sounded on a loudspeaker in Tehran almost hourly since the protests began.
I would say most Americans find this jailing as contemptible as denying historical accounts. It should never be against the law for historians to have different opinions. If so, most historians would be behind bars if they covered the Alamo. It is through the differing of opinions where we can decide which argument has more merits to it.
If we’re going to start sending people away for lying about history and recent events, we’re gonna need to fund a lot more prisons to hold all the lefties.
Seriously, being a proponent of the 1st Amendment, I can’t support criminalizing speech if it’s simply stupid, ill-informed, or even hateful. As long as it doesn’t cross the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” threshhold, let the morons rant on.
That said, perhaps the folks in Austria and Germany think Holocaust denial actually is akin to the fire/theater scenario, particularly given the active neo-Nazi movement and the fairly recent romance between those countries and the murdering of millions of innocents.
I dunno. Just thinking out loud.
FYI: Both in France and in Germany, Hitler’s Mein Kampf is illegal. Amazon.com sells it here in the US for $8. Which democracy is the strongest? Hmmm.
BTW, free speech is currently under the most severe attack since the Alien and Sedition acts over two centuries ago. Under the guise of “saving” us, the Apostles of Compassion, a.k.a. socialists, now permit only certain politically favored groups to criticize politicians at election time. This McCain-Feingold “reform” oddly exempts the press. I wonder why?
No way should it be illegal to deny the Holocaust. It’s especially hypocritcal while Europe is defending it’s right to publish the Mohammed cartoons. It should all be legal.
Austria and Germany aren’t alone, either. I blogged about it this morning. 1st Amendment analysis, etc.
http://publicfiguresbeware.blogspot.com/2006/02/speech-and-press-freedom-in-europe.html
“Such as…? - Admin”
A student at the elite Harvard Law Schoool.
Oh, sedition! Forgot about that. I think people should go to jail for sedition. That’s different. - Admin
I think Austria and Germany have good intentions. It’s somewhat admirable for these two countries to take a stand, admit their past errors, and attempt to rectify their contributions to one of the worst events in the history of mankind.
But the way to counter bad (and even offensive) speech is with more speech. Not censorship.
I think Germany and England have something similar.
The Austrians and Germans are still trying to wash the stain of the holocaust from their nationalistic skins and psyche. Austria seemed to be putting her Nazi past to rest when Curt Waldheim popped up with a nasty record as a Nazi.
Both countries ban Nazi relics, pictures of Hitler, and neo-Nazi activities. But at the same time, neither country has erected any significant monuments to the Jews, Gypsies, and slaves from within their own borders and from other countries who were murdered by the Nazis.
They want their past to be swept under the carpet and for the dirt to stay there…..hidden and out of sight.
I am convinced that most Austrians and Germans regret their past and would love to get it behind them. However, if you hop-scotch back through their histories in 50 year increments, you will find that they have a record of doing the same aggressive stuff over and over again.
If they allowed an open debate about their ugly past, they would be forced to face and wrestle with their stifled demons.
Voltaire said: “All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”
If Austria and Germany had any idea of beating the Nazi past into submission, they would face it square on. That is an idea whose time has NOT come in Austria and Germany.
“Oh, sedition! Forgot about that. I think people should go to jail for sedition. That’s different. - Admin”
‘no matter how despicable’
How is it different?
Yeah…It’s great to live in America! Well, unless you are on a college campus where administrators and professors endorse revisionist history and routinely pull all sorts of antics in an effort to shut up students expressing opposing views.
Willfully making or conveying “…false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States during wartime , or to promote the success of its enemies…” is not similar to uttering a despicable idea. The crime of sedition isn’t the utterance per se; it’s willfully spreading false information to harm the war effort and aid our enemies. That should be a crime.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/usspy.html
In that regard, I think we should carry out the death penalty for treason, as we used to.
Treason, during times of war, still can be punished by death.
Treason, as defined by law, is VERY hard to prove.
I see ‘andrew’ is over here asking you silly questions, too, La Shawn
As to the Austria law - indeed, that’s scary stuff. Thank God we live in the good ol’ USofA … I mean, if we had laws here that made it a crime for people to deny certain parts of our history, a whole bunch of people on the left would be guilty of denying anything bad that happened in the Oval Office prior to 2001
You know what, Sister? I think “andrew” is actus, who I banned from LBC months ago. He uses the same commenting style: copying a previous statement in quotation marks, then asking a banal question.
Wretched at The Belmont Club says it beautifully:
…. laws establishing “official truth” create categories of the Unmentionable into which subjects like the Jihad, feminism, abortion and Global Warming — all the assertions, half-truths and humbug of the world — will presently seek refuge. The best defense of the truth of the holocaust is an uncompromising commitment to free speech. Unless free speech is protected then some of the very evils Hitler sought to foist upon the world will be reintroduced in the name of fighting his memory.
Deny it to your hearts content, but it STILL happened…
To be imprisoned because you say it didn’t happen??
That’s a CROCK…
I’m with La Shawn on this one, I am glad to be an American…
Heh - we’re on the same page on that one, LB
La Shawn, do any Muslim countries in the Middle East have laws that require it citizens to deny the Holocaust?
Christine (#14) makes an excellent point. Keep in mind that many of the same students who have been pushing the PC agenda on campus will one day be running for Congress and the Presidency - in great numbers. Given their taste for coercive speech codes (not unlike the law in Austria), I think we can expect a similar in America for a PC “heaven”.
My first question was expressed poorly. Let me try again. Are there any Muslim countries (in the Middle East or elsewhere) that forbid saying that the Holocaust is a historical fact? I’m not aware of any, although I suspect that in Iran these days not towing the official there-was-no-Holocaust line can shorten your life.
The unfortunate thing is that the Holocaust is now less of a remembrance of the millions of lives snuffed out, Christians as well as Jews and others; and more of a political bug-a-boo to advance secular humanistic values such as “tolerance” and “understanding”.
It is on this basis, to say nothing of the injustice of prohibiting political speech of any kind; that strictures on denying the holocaust have their reason for being.
I think the law against not believeing in the holocaust is almost as bad as saying it never happened in the first place. However, you cannot dictate what people think, even morons are entitled to their own thoughts and ideas.
Raymond B
http://www.voteswagon.com
Here here, LaShawn. Those who deny the holocaust are willfully ignorant, or worse. One might as well believe the earth is flat. But to criminalize the expression of ideas, however ignorant or unpopular, is a dangerous path.
“I can completely understand why it’s a punishable offense to deny the holocaust. Public expression is one thing, but the denial of proven recent history is another.
Comment by Eric Clemmons”
Eric, I agree with you 100%… as long as I’m the one deciding “proven”. I can’t wait to have you as my slave.
Americans have a constitutional right to be despicable.
La Shawn, you wrote, “No matter how despicable an utterance, no one should go to prison for expressing an idea.” I agree with you completely.
Do you realize that numerous Americans have been arrested, and in some cases imprisoned, for expressing criticism of the Bush admininistration? In most if not all cases, charges were dropped, but nonetheless, the arrests have a chilling effect on our free speech rights.
For example, Cindy Sheehan was given a admission ticket by a member of Congress to attend the 2006 State of the Union address. About an hour before the beginning of the address, hot and exhaused from running up three flights of stairs, she unzipped her jacket, revealing a T-shirt that stated the number of Americans who have died so far in the Iraq war. For the T-shirt, she was arrested. Some contemporary media accounts said that she had been “protesting,” but these are incorrect. She had been silent and was arrested anyway. By the way, there is no law, rule, or any other governing authority that prohibits topical T-shirts in the gallery of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Thousands of people were arrested and imprisoned for over 24 hours for peaceful, lawful, nonviolent protest in New York during the 2004 Republican Convention.
There are numerous accounts of people who came to see President Bush during a presidential visit to local American communities, who were arrested either because they were known to oppose Bush, or because they were wearing T-shirts with comments about the Bush administration, or its war policies.
Admittedly, none of these incarcerations have lasted more than a few days.
But did you know that, among those non-U.S. citizens imprisoned in Guantanamo — I am not making this up — many are actually known by American authorities to be innocent of any war crime or attack against the United States.
So, La Shawn, let’s work together, liberal and conservative, to support free speech and oppose imprisonment for expression of ideas, and oppose false imprisonment in general.
Respectfully,
Great job crew on not reading my complete post & taking my comment leaps and bounds past it’s own merit.
There are particular things that are factual, historical events. The occurrence of the holocaust is one of these. So is the existence of Jesus Christ, Muhammed, and Buddha.
Now for my last sentence:
“…well, in hindsight, prison sentences *is* harsh. How could I ever disagree with you [La Shawn]? But instead, remove any form of voting rights. That seems more than fair.”
For someone to wholeheartedly deny an event that has such huge significance is detestable and should be punished, in my opinion. In the same way, some one who praises the destruction from 9/11 or calls for the blood of his own countrymen should be punished.
Maybe I’m just tired of people saying anything they want and influencing too many people with their ignorant lies and rhetoric.
I’m conflicted. I believe in freedom to express yourself in this country but I can’t rid myself of the need to try to ban the hatred that killed so many people.
Some years ago, my wife was asked to sing at the funeral home of her friend’s mother. She, her husband, mother grandmother and uncle all bore the tatooed number of the concentration camp where they barely suvived.
At the end of the rosary, a group of old people gather round the casket and sang a song in Polish. I was told then that this was the song they sang evey night in the camp. It told of their dreams as they saw the stars in the sky free from the horror around them and how they believed they would be delivered to enjoy that freedom.
I cried. I still cry when I remember it. To deny this truth is to accept the vilest lie that can be perpetrated on humanity. Why shouldn’t a country, the sum of its people, be allowed to denounce such a great sin?
Once again it seems people are trying to apply American values to Austrian values of free speech. Based on the historical facts that for a long time European countries have manipulated the truth before, it seems this law has some value. Just think if here in America we did not allow our own scars to be down played and manipulated.
Lashawn,
I agree that nobody should go to jail for their utterances. On the other hand,how do we handle utterances that could led to extreme bitterness,anger and even chaos in the form of lost of lives or even war.
Yes,utterances have caused wars(The Spanish-American War). This war was attributed to the “Yellow Press”,a situation in which the media had lost their responsibility in informing the public accurately without adding “spin” to stories in such a way that war was inevitable.
I am in the habit of pointing out that the framers of the constitution didn’t foresee the advent of the Internet,cable/satellite and optic technology which has lead to the strides we see in telecommunication today.The world has become a smaller place.This type of “Globalization” makes the very nature of news a powerful tool and a weapon that should not be used to “throw barbs in the skin” of enemies real or perceived.
We have the right to our utterances but our utterances must not oppress,displace or psychologically destroy the honor,dignity or historical culture of a race or nation.
I sense that alot of people are just spoiling for the ultimate confrontation and that they in person will be shocked at the fervor in which people will get caught up by this fever.
I’m all for free speech.
People should know what will happen when they say stupid things. Others will exercise their right to free speech against them.
But to go to prison? Not good………..
Great post. It’s always worth noting that the First Amendment only explicitly protects two forms of expression: text (”the press”) and speech (just what it says). That’s no accident - these are the legitimate and essential avenues of political discourse. (The first amendment is very carefully worded, even though it packs a surprising number of protections into a single sentence of only 45 words.)
The idea that all forms of “expression” are protected under the First Amendment is bogus - offensive and obscene “performance art”, to pick but one example, is clearly not fully protected, even if it has a political component or purpose. In fact, the Supreme Court is quite clear that not even all speech and writing is protected (e.g., irresponsible/dangerous speech, treason/sedition, etc.), so certainly other forms of expression may not enjoy the latitude granted to the “big two”.
Any legitimate political debate or “petition for redress of grievances” is expected to be carried out through either the written or spoken word, both of which are unambiguously protected except in a few extreme circumstances.
If the Holocaust is proven historical fact, then doesn’t anyone find it slightly strange that throughout Europe there are so many laws banning Holcaust revisionism, and that people who even question the 6 million number often face punishment? There seems to be some inconsistency there–almost as if the powers that be are afraid of something.
You may not be aware of this but denying the Armenian genocide is already a crime in France and Switzerland. The famous Jewish American historian Bernard Lewis has already been convicted of this heinous crime in France and two Turkish Nationals in Switzerland are currently under criminal investigation, and may face charges as well. It’s a scary world.
Bernard Lewis case, France (he was convicted):
http://www.hr-action.org/armenia/LeMonde.htm
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.240/current_category.76/affirmation_detail.html
Turkish Nationals, Switzerland (under investigation):
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=111&sid=5978414
http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20050506063125876
http://archive.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=42246
Comments on this entry are closed.