David Irving

So he will get 3 years in the slammer for his assertions that the Holocaust did not happen. And the Austrian prosecutor wants to appeal the leniency of the sentence so that he hopefully goes away for 10. You see, the Austrians take their Holocaust denial laws pretty seriously. But, for the sake of freedom of speech, you can draw the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head. Somehow, this does not speak to me as the equal application of the laws.

If you want to deny the Holocaust, you should be able to. I should be able to mock, scorn, revile and otherwise attempt to ridicule you for your idiotic beliefs, but nevertheless, you should have the right to be a denial wacko. And I should be able to publish cartoons about Islam and have Muslims pillory me on their own press for my idiotic beliefs, morals (or lack thereof), etc. Freedom of speech should work that way. Here in the US too -- I should be equally able to shout out my hatred of Whites, Blacks, Asians, Innuit, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, [A]theists, myself, you and anyone or anything else. And if the rest of civilized (or not so) society should then wish to spend their time telling me how stupid my beliefs are, then they should be able to do that.

Or we need to get very PC and say that nobody should have the right to talk ill about anyone.... But what if I decide that not talking ill about me is offensive to me: I don't want to be liked, I bask in the hatred of others? Are my rights then infringed by the PC majority? Someone, somewhere is always going to be offended. Always. Tant pis. If we aspire to a classless society, one that is color, gender, preference, lifestyle, etc. neutral, then we have to stop punishing one set of "offensive" practices but rewarding the same practices when effected by someone of a different color, race, gender, etc. It is either bad for all of us, or not. By the very nature that "it" is permissible for some, we set up segmentation in our society -- it cannot be avoided. And spare me the crap that it is okay because of the past. Is it okay for Protestants to fry Catholics at the stake because the Inquisition did that for 500 years? Oh, I am just getting even with this Catholic dog, because my great, great, great grandfather was a heretic....

What is "hate speech" anyway? Wikipedia provides: "Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication." Sort leaves a few questions, doesn't it? What may incite one person, may not even cause another to blink (think the cartoons). One person's intent, may not be communicated at all or be subject to misinterpretation. So it all depends on where you stand while considering the matter ... thus it becomes so ambiguous as to mean nothing at all. It means whatever you want it to mean -- and only from your point of view: it is a tool of intellectual repression. Read the following webpage: http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html.

Open minded persons should always try and put themselves in "another person's shoes" to try and see what it might feel like to be the target of ridicule and hate. But you cannot mandate it: you cannot control another person's thoughts (Orwell), so the key is education. Not a blanket assertion from the educational oracle that your beliefs are wrong and another person's beliefs are correct, but education to allow rational (not emotional ... and that mostly cuts relgious dogma out of it) examination of another's core belief's -- acceptance that they might just be different and learn to live with that? Ooooh, now that's a novel idea. Does that lead to the Unalienable Right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Now THERE is a strange concept that has been floating around for a couple of hundred years....