Abaddon-
So, no one supporting Irving's 'freedom of speech' has any comment about; - the unavoidable restriction of freedoms to those targetted by his speech? What about their freedom ladies and gentlemen?
- the fact that there are recognised restrictions on freedoms of speech when they can result in harm?
- why it's okay to infringe human rights to defend the West, but not to defend Jews?
To my knowledge he has never advocated violence against anyone. While his views are certainly ridiculous, I don't buy the tired old "yelling 'Fire!' in a movie theater" analogy. He should be free to express his (imo) twisted view of history, without being jailed.
This is a LIE. It is not an opinion. Just as a physicist saying g=3.4 m/s/s at sea-level would be lying, and demonstrably so, so to someone making this statement is lying, and demonstrably so. If is not a protected freedom of speech, as lying about facts for gain is fraud, not freedom of speech.
No, it's not. Just because a statement can be proven wrong doesn't make it a lie. Do you honestly feel that he doesn't believe these views he expresses?
... this is lying with a deliberate end in mind; recruitment of people to his 'cause' of anti-Semetic, nazi-apologism, Holocaust denial. And the end product of those causes is VIOLENCE.
That's your conclusion. Please show an example where violence is specifically advocated by him.
When did you get told a lie at school comparable to "six million people didn't die, those who did died of disease rather than gassing, no one planned it, especially not Hitler, and the Jews had it coming and are still trying to control the world"? What school did you go to!
How about "Columbus discovered America"? We even have a national Holiday for him here.
I went to an average American public school, where many unflattering subjects are omitted or glossed over.
Such as, the extermination (holocaust?) of the Native Americans; the fact that, all but one of the founding fathers of our "great democracy" were slave owners ("...all men are created equal"?); hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (can you say "terrorism"?).
Unfortunately if you believe this is about differing opinions you have fallen for the story Nazi revisonists use to justify their denial of fact. There is, nor has there been, nor will there be any limit of scholarly research into WWII and the Holocaust. The Holocaust revisonists make it out that this is what it is about. It isn't.
No, I don't believe I have fallen for anything. I believe that a person can come to whatever conclusion they want to. And criminalizing someones take on history (as repugnant, and ridiculous as it may be), is wrong.
Why not answer the points I made and show me what he does is a justified use of freedom of speech? I know sarcasm is easy, how about a little structured debate?
Doesn't having to justify what you say kind of defeat the purpose of
freedom of speech?