Former Klan leader David Duke has been detained by police in Prague on suspicion of denying the Holocaust. Despite the universal loathing of Duke and other Holocaust deniers, the arrest hits a difficult issue for civil libertarians. Criminalizing a viewpoint is a fundamental denial of free speech and allows prosecution for unpopular thoughts or views.
Countries like Germany have long criminalized Holocaust denial as well as the use of Nazi symbols. The problem is that such laws do not defeat unworthy ideas or theories. They merely force them below ground and give these people a status as victims. It also breeds conspiracy theories that they feed on in their recruitment campaigns.
An analogy can be drawn to the prosecution of religious criticism and criticism of homosexuality, here.
In the Czech Republic, you can go to prison for three years for uttering such theories. There is a reluctance to be seen defending Duke, who has led a thoroughly indefensible life. However, the West cannot claim to defend free speech while exempting certain unpopular or intolerable theories. It would be better in my view to allow good ideas to defeat bad ideas in the free market of speech.
For the story, click here.
Dear Czech Republic,
You need to fix your law on this. It is bad.
Someday this bad law will be used to suppress the truth.
Just because it is suppressing a lie at them moment is not dispositive.
So do it like the Bush administration did. Suppress the publication of the story. And if you can’t suppress the story have the editor fired and if you can’t do any of the above. Have the IRS visit the, the paper and audit everyone involved m and if that does not work have the CIA buy them. This seems to have worked so far.
And don’t forget, if this get out it batter not be traced to me or I will deny it.
And you think I make this stuff up?
Context, Jonathan. You’re applying the judgement of an American to a situation which is uniquely European. The Holocaust happened in our own backyard, to people’s neighbours, friends and families; to some extent, it is still an open wound.
To ban Holocaust denial is only censorship in the same sense that it is censorship to forbid shouting “Fire!” in a crowded place; it is technically correct that free speech is being infringed, but punishment for it is reasonable.
Interesting view Mike. I still think that even though it is still an open wound, denying an event happened should not be a crime. I think that someone as dirty as David Duke deserves to be in prison, but not because of his beliefs. Allowing a law like that to stand opens the door for another law that makes it a crime to believe that global warming is a hoax. If that kind of law was passed here in the states, there would be alot of Republicans who would be guilty. However,the only thing that they are guilty of is being stupid and that shouldn’t be a crime.
Mike, here is the difficulty with your position. All rational people understand that the Holocaust occurred. Therefore, to deny the reality of the Holocaust is to deny what is factually irrefutable. What you are suggesting is that it is appropriate to criminalize the denial of irrefutable facts under certain circumstances. But how does a coherent legal system define with any precision the set of circumstances under which the denial of a fact should constitute a crime? Does it require that the fact be especially abhorrent? Is it sufficient that groups or classes of people are offended by the denial? Does the denial become less criminal over time as those most deeply offended gradually die? Is demonstrable sincerity on the part of the offender a defense? Where is the line of criminality to be drawn? Of course, it would be frivolous to start rounding up members of the Flat Earth Society? But could we criminalize the assertions of young earth creationists? How about those persons who continue to argue that the story of men landing on the moon was a gigantic hoax? I view the criminalization of stupidity as a dangerous proposition, one that openly invites abuse and oppression of unpopular views at the whim of the majority.
There is a lot of denial going on in the USA about torture and it is difficult to see and hear the right wing morality crowd not only denying torture but also attempting justification spread through free speech.
Even that torture is unlawful seems to make no difference. I don’t want to put this in a religious context but how can some conservative right-wingers wrap themselves in the flag and religion and then smugly pronounce torture is ok if they deserve it?
Bush conjured hate for Muslims for oil. Attempting to justify torture of enemy combatants based on acts that are war crimes is insane.
MikeA:
very good points. However if I go into Harlem and start telling the residents that I think MLK was full of s***, wouldnt I run the risk of getting my behind kicked and possibly starting a riot. Could something be so objectionable that it is not the speech that is being condemned but the possible outcome caused by such speech? And could this be similar to slander except on a different level?
Personally I think people need to keep remembering the Holocaust so it does not happen again and it is a constant reminder of the lengths that the state can go if placed in the wrong hands with the wrong philosophy. The negation of which could lead to another disaster of the same or worse. The spectre of Hitler, has I think done some good in restraining the appetites of like minded individuals. Humans as a species have a very short historical memory.
I dont know if I am stating that well enough although it looks like fire in a movie theatre but that is not what I am looking for.
Anyway just some thoughts.
Raf:
I think that what we conservatives dispute is whether or not global warming is a man made or natural phenomenon. Generally I think the sun is the cause since it “powers” our planet and has the most impact on temperature and weather systems. If there was no sun there would be no weather.
Bron, I agree that there are limits on speech based upon the imminent threat of harm (e.g., crying “fire” in a movie theatre, the classic example). I also would not stand on a street corner in Harlem and preach to the crowds about the dangerous radicalism of Martin Luther King or Malcolm X, even if I firmly believed in what I was saying, because I do not wish to have my ass kicked. But extreme examples are always used to justify bad policy (e.g., the captured terrorist and the ticking time bomb scenario routinely posited by advocates of torture). Politicians love to regulate behavior based upon extreme examples, much like teachers who keep the whole class after school because some unidentified miscreant stole the erasers.
Mike A.,
Consider yourself reported!
This presents one hell of a problem for me and in that sense it highlights that on any free speech issue there will arise a situation that exacerbates it to the limit.
Part of the European problem about the Shoah is that while it was perpetrated by the Nazi’s, there existed much enthusiastic assistance from the occupied peoples. This was especially true in Poland, Serbia, Croatia and the Ukraine. The resistance in France too became mythologized after the was but was less widespread than many would have you believe. The RCC was quite anti-Jewish before the war as was the Pope of the era and the hierarchy. The Dutch and the Danes were generally heroic in their trying to protect Jews and others. The difficulty though that Europeans in general faced was that while the “Final Solution” was a horror to most, there was before and during the war much anti-Jewish feeling that given the Nazi’s results engendered guilt. To feel guilty about something breeds resentment towards that which makes you feel guilty.
Germany, was faced with a larger problem. The seeds of Hitler were born in the settlement of WWI and in the myth that Germany had lost the war due to treason. Right after WWII, there began to spring up in Germany many who applied the same reasoning to WWII as to WWI, i.e. We lost because of traitors. THe German government had to take action or begin to face the re-rise of Nazism. Indeed today there is a small but vocal pro-Nazi movement in Germany and its’ like exists in other European Countries.
Now how best to demonize the Jews in this modern world than to make the Shoah a figment of Jewish Propaganda? This de-legitimizes Jewish suffering and underlines the myth of Jewish duplicity. The Saudi’s have been especially clever in this by financing PR campaigns that simultaneously deny the Shoah, but at the same time accuses the Israeli’s of being Nazi like.
Finally, this all happened more than 65 years ago. Most survivors have died out, as have most perpetrators. The teaching of painful history is difficult in most country’s, think of slavery and the extermination of Native Americans, or the refusal of turkey to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. As time goes on truth becomes fragile and apologists gain cachet.
On the other hand “Free Speech” is the main artery of free societies. Censoring speech is difficult because who oversees the censor? So we have this tension between irresponsible and hateful people, using a basic freedom in service to their own evil. To me, even as a Jew, censorship must not be imposed. The only answer to it, in fact the supportive artery to a free society is an educational system that is rigorous intellectually, available to all financially and so well funded that it draws the best talent. As we all know the problem is that there are those among us, who though not in Mr. Duke’s league, do not want an educated public so that they might control them.
Mike Appleton,
Those are excellent arguments characterizing the quality of your posts on this site. I think most rational, decent people dislike what Mr. Duke says and represents, but they would also agree that he has the right to make those statements.
Hypothetically, are you strongly enough committed to First Amendment/free speech rights that you would defend Mr. ‘KKK’ Duke as his legal counsel—how about other attorneys here?
Gee thanks, Jill. I’ll be sure to make frequent mention of you in my prison diaries.
FFLEO, thank you for your kind words. I do indeed feel strongly enough about it that I would not turn down Mr. Duke as a client. However, I suspect that he will receive the services of a legal team much more competent than I in this area.
MikeA & MikeS:
excellent thoughts. I am convinced. Although for a moment I thought MikeS might have made the point I was trying to make.
I guess the government cant really control speech no matter how bad or outrageous.
And I agree about the Life Boat Morality that they teach in schools, bad idea.
Mike S., yours was a truly outstanding post on this topic. And I also agree with your antidote. The battle over an accurate history of our own country continues, particularly as it relates to our treatment of Native Americans and of African-Americans subsequent to the conclusion of the Civil War. This is one of the reasons I am disturbed by the comments of those who believe that the proper response to the issue of torture is to “look forward” rather than confront the reality of what we have done. The best test of a nation’s character is the willingness of its people to honestly assess moral failures. But the criminalization of speech does not advance the truth; it merely makes martyrs of liars.
Mike A.,
Thank you. My take on the “look forward” remarks are that it is part of a political strategy whose end result will be the exposure and prosecution of these horrific crimes. We’ll see though if I’m right. On your point we cannot as a Nation truly look forward by ignoring what has been done, any more than the new German government after WWII could have had the attitude of “Well those guys are gone, we’re different let’s just proceed with a clean slate.”
I think though we must not just focus on torture when we are dealing in retribution. We engaged in an unprovoked war, killing perhaps a million Iraqi’s and replaced a secular despot, with religious fanatics and oppressors. We’ve also distributed millions to private companies who have cared badly for our troops and imposed an oil treaty that cheats the Iraqi’s. The Bush/Cheney administration has much more to answer for than just torture and at stake is whether we continue with a Foreign Policy that would have made the Roman Emperors proud, or one that doesn’t see us as the
country of hegemony but of peace.
Bron, Mike A. is correct. Te situation you describe would constitute “fighting words,” that is, words in public that incite hatred and violence. They are not protected by the 1st Amd under a line of cases beginning with Chaplinsky.
The dilemma arises when the words are spoken in an abstract and theoretical forum without any incitement.
Mike S. I agree with Mike A. that your posting is eloquent, and we cann all learn from it.
Gnome:
thanks for the info. And wouldnt Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire apply to David Duke denying the Holocaust? I can bet a bunch of German Jews would want to kick his behind. This was kind of my original point, but not being a lawyer I am hamstrung.
Bron, it would depend on the circumstances. Shouting it on a street corner in inflamatory language would seem likely to incite violence. But statements made at a private academic seminar in scholarly terms would not be fighting words.
But this only applies in the US, where there is a First Amendment. The 1st does not apply in Europe.
From a German standpoint: Holocaust denial and using nazi symbols is a cultural taboo that is enforced by criminal law.
The best analogy for the USA would be public nudity, which is also a cultural taboo enforced by law.
“(…) But how does a coherent legal system define with any precision the set of circumstances under which the denial of a fact should constitute a crime? (…)”
Section 130 Agitation of the People
(…)
(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.
(Section 220a defines genocide)
Berliner:
after what NAZI’s did to Germany I would think you would shoot those SOB’s on site.
As is consistent with the Noriega case. The 4th Amendment has no applicability outside of the US. So, I guess the 1st Shouldn’t either.
Think it cant happen here?
American artist and resident Ernst Zundel was arrested and denied habeus corpus in Knoxville Tennessee, tortured with dogs in Blount County Justice Center (where judges have no requirement for legal edukashun nor law license and are convicted of pedophile rape), deported to Canada without charges, deported to ZioNazi Germany, given a secret showtrial without transcript, sentenced to life on death row for publishing a history book written by a British school student.
http://www.zundelsite.org
If you prove that 600,000 jews were killed in WW2 instead of 6-million, or you complain about 50-million Christians holocausted in WW2 for jewish banksters, YOURE GOIN TO JAIL!
Never mind that jewish historians report on History Channel and CSPAN that Adolf Hitler Schicklegruber Rothschild was jewish heir to half the world’s banking fortune, and 150,000 Khazar AshkeNazi non-Semitic jews ran Nazi Germany in WW2, targeting Sephardic Semitic Jews to “justify” inventing Israel by stealing Palestine.
But if youre a grand dragon of the KKK and stick needles in Cathy OBrien’s eye, you’ll be elected to a lifetime of Congress and worshipped as a god by media mercs (Senator Robert Byrd).
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=j0_2SbG6MoKMtgeW1MG2Dw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=cathy+o%27brien&spell=1
Pirate,
It just happened here. Free speech.
What is David doing in the Czech Republic??? Last I heard he was teaching students in Eastern Europe (Romania?) How jews should be slaughtered again, etc. It is nice to see Neo-Nazis getting the @#$! beaten out of them in the more civilized countries in Europe; at least it allows the Euros some form of public remorse when they discriminate against Nazi vermin. You are probably correct in your legal defense of Duke; but you choose an interesting man to defend and an interesting cause to champion, i.e., opposing the censorship of Nazi material and general jew hatred, when you know countries like Germany will never back down from such a policy. The Czech Republic had a fun group called the Iron Cross who used to torture their victims (jews) by burning their genitals with candles before they killed them. I’d say the Czechs need to feel better about themselves, don’t you? hugs and kisses David!
Pirate News:
CAthy Obrien looks like she is 10 eggs short of a dozen.
By the way a friend of mines husband works for the NSA and he says that Barack Obama is an alien from the planet Osteron I in the Antibes Galaxy. He is the point man of an intergalact invasion force, the teleprompters he uses are actually inter-galactic communication devices he uses to receive messages from his leaders. He uses a device to change the pitch and tenor of his vocal chords for mass mind control and that was how he was elected.
The Osterons’ want earth because their women have all died and so will use earth as a nursery to replenish women on their planet.
Please keep this information under your hat. We er they are looking for sympathetic earthlings to help with the invasion.
“However, the West cannot claim to defend free speech while exempting certain unpopular or intolerable theories. It would be better in my view to allow good ideas to defeat bad ideas in the free market of speech.”
*************
While I certainly agree that free speech is the issue here, there is some truth to Mike’s comments supra that “When in Rome….” Were I the decider in the Obama Administration, I would certainly communicate my strong opposition to this law — about 36 months from now. Call me a natural justice aficionado. I am aware of no time constraint that compels me to act any sooner especially when both of my principles can be satisfied.
I am sorry Bron, but your friend is completely off base about Obama’s alien origins.
Obama admitted the truth in his own words when he confronted the rumors on the campaign trail last year. Here are his words, with the source that all can check:
QUOTE ON Americans have a big choice to make, and if anybody feels like they don’t know me by now, let me try to give you some answers. Who is Barack Obama?
Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger.
I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jorel to save the Planet Earth. END QUOTE
Source: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-al-smith.htm
Occasion: Annual Al Smith Dinner, New York City.
Berliner, while I understand the motives behind the legislation you cite, the phrase “capable of disturbing the public peace” is a serious problem for me. Since virtually anything anyone says that is the least bit controversial is “capable of disturbing the public peace,” the determination as to whether a crime has been committed in a particular instance is left to the discretion of the official charged with enforcement of the statute. Under our system, the statute would be deemed unconstitutionally vague in my opinion.
VinceT:
that was just a smoke screen put up by the Osterons to deflect possible investigations into Pres. Obamas past. They know how much earthlings, especially Americans, like Superman and so figured it would take the heat off and they would be able to hatch their nefarious plan covertly.
Bron,
You are making us afraid, very afraid.
Everyone, watch the skies.
Footnote, The Fly, The Thing.
Vince:
I just wanted to make sure that Pirate News was aware of the gravity of the situation.
Mike Appleton, German law has several centuries of precedence cases, and thousands of scholarly explanations and textbooks explaining what exactly “capable of disturbing the public peace” means.
This law doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s part of a very old and mature legal system.
Berliner, my comments are not meant as a general attack on German law. I am quite aware of the thoroughness of German scholarship on any subject. However, German law does recognize that a primary function of the right of free speech is persuasion. That is, the expression of a viewpoint is frequently intended to convince others of its correctness. Therefore, free speech encourages divergent views. In that respect, it often disturbs the public peace by exhorting people to look at an issue in a way that is novel or even offensive. I had hoped that my comment would elicit an example of the application of the statutory authority you have cited.
“Disturbung the public peace” is defined as a “social situation in which there is a hightend possibility that individuals are targeted with criminal offences; or in which a significant part of the population has a reasonable fear that this may be the case”.
That goes way beyond a lively debate about “divergent views”. It covers things like rioting, lynch mobs, and vilolent groups.
Is that an Objective or Subjective standard? It seems to me that this could include Dog Fighting or any variation thereof.
Beg your pardon? How exactly is dog fighting supposed to fall under “approving, denying or rendering harmless a nazi genocide in a way that installs fear of violence in a part of the population”?
Berliner, from the definition you gave it sounds like the statute relates to a species of incitement to riot. That is also an offense under American law. However, there is a difference between language intended to offend, or even inflame, and language intended to result in physical harm to another. How is that distinction drawn under German law?
“Disturbung the public peace” is defined as a “social situation in which there is a hightend possibility that individuals are targeted with criminal offences; or in which a significant part of the population has a reasonable fear that this may be the case”.
That goes way beyond a lively debate about “divergent views”. It covers things like rioting, lynch mobs, and vilolent groups.”
It seems a rather broad definition to me that could be used to suppress most unpopular views.
The person who wrote this essay is wrong in one respect: You cannot go to jail for uttering or being a racist or Holocaust denier in Europe. You must try to present it publically and start movements. If you and your friends want to sit around and talk racism, that’s fine. You can also write factual, esoteric, research papers and books on the subject, as long as they are valid and sound. David Duke is about as unsound as you get.