Former historian David Irving was released from jail in Austria early, on December 21. Irving claims that he no longer denies the Holocaust.
Details are in the Daily Telegraph from England.
In several European nations, including Austria, denial of the Holocaust not only is historical error, it’s also against criminal law.
He was arrested in November 2005 on charges related to two speeches and a newspaper interview he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he called the gas chambers a “fairy tale” and claimed that Hitler had no role in the Holocaust, even “offering his hand to protect the Jews”.
The charges covered statements he had made, such as questioning the accepted version of the Holocaust. He argued that “millions of people were led to believe” an “absolute absurdity”. A jury found him guilty of denying the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes.
Irving had appealed his 3-year sentence as too long. He serves the rest on probation.
Irving earlier sued U.S. historian Deborah Lipstadt for libel, in London, after she had called him a Holocaust denier. In a long and famous trial, she was found not to have libeled Irving, though under British law, truth is not a defense as it is in the U.S.
While it offends my First Amendment sensibilities to criminalize the making of such claims, one wonders about the intelligence or goals of people who deny the Holocaust.
Under California law, judicial note has been taken that the Holocaust occurred. It is a fact of history. U.S. law allows more robust, and offensive, discussion of the topic.
But in the end, the Holocaust is a fact. It’s an ugly, brutal and regrettable fact. Denying it occurred at all, or to the scope and degree it occurred, is only an odd form of denial of reality.
And, while Irving has claimed publicly to no longer deny the holocaust, The Times of London reports that prosecutors in Austria weigh new charges against him for interviews he gave while imprisoned.
His lawyer, Herbert Schaller, admitted to The Times later that he would not allow Irving to speak to the press while in Austria, fearing that he might end up in trouble with the law again.
He said: “I advised Mr Irving to leave the country as soon as possible. I believe he will do exactly that without looking back. I don’t believe he will want to return to our dear fatherland ever again.”
Gerhard Jarosch, spokesman for the Vienna public prosecutor’s office, said that the authorities were considering new charges against Irving for a series of interviews he gave while in prison in which he partially restated the controversial views for which he was jailed. He said: “There is an open case against him on account of the prison interviews but it will surely take weeks before we reach a decision on it. In the meantime, Mr Irving is a free man and can travel back to Austria as he pleases.”
European laws against Holocaust denial criminalize stupidity, in effect. While that grates against our free speech genes in the U.S., there is no denying there are some who are criminally stupid.
See also: Forbes online coverage of the event.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Thanks, Ed.
Once again, the wisdom of our First Amendment shines, even among other liberal & secular republics.
LikeLike
British law is rather complicated, but as best I understand it, truth can still be a problem if the truth causes the libelee to lose income or a position, if not completely connected to the issue on which libel is charged. There is a much better description of the entire process at Deborah Lipstadt’s website; the link is listed in the body of the post:
http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2006/12/my-views-on-irvings-release-summarized.html
LikeLike
Truth no defense against libel? I had not known that of British law.
I do know that of our own law, the larger our capacity to defend scoundrels, the freer we are.
LikeLike