I find it interesting that it is actually an offense in Austria and they have been able to gaol him. Usually people like that manage to hide under 'freedom of speech' or 'intellectual debate' arguments, no matter how ludicrous that approach is.
I just heard an interesting interview with historian Deborah Lipstadt arguing that there are better ways to fight holocaust denial. She was basically saying that academic argument is much more appropriate than silencing particular views through law. This is significant given that she successfully defended in court Irving's attempt to silence her. Libstadt proved that her historical research was accurate, or thorough, where his was flawed.
She also pointed out that Irving knew about Austria's laws, and knew that they had a warrant out on him, yet made plans for his current visit very public. It smacks of looking for publicity, though I doubt that he realised it would come at quite such a high price.
I agree with you that it is better to counter such views through open debate - the only possible flaw with that approach being if some people have better access to media/publicity and can win the argument through sheer exposure, such being the FOX, etc.. times we live in.
Comments 5
Reply
Reply
She also pointed out that Irving knew about Austria's laws, and knew that they had a warrant out on him, yet made plans for his current visit very public. It smacks of looking for publicity, though I doubt that he realised it would come at quite such a high price.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment