Don't really know about Austria and de-nazification, but I have read the judge's opinion about Irving in the Lipstadt case (it's available online). Lipstadt had made some statements to the effect that Irving was an ignorant mendacious hack, and he sued her in England where the libel laws are much more favorable to the plaintiffs in these types of cases. Among other things, truth has to be established as a defense. Lipstadt was able to establish that essentially Irving was indeed an ignorant mendacious hack, and the judge's opinion in the case is an absolute gem of crisp legal writing carefully built on solid evidence. More effective than prison, I think, in getting the truth out.

As usual with free speech issues, this isn't a question of whether Irving's speech is odious, it's a question of whether the state should be allowed to declare it illegal. This is a power that I'm very reluctant to concede to central governments, which is why I generally oppose hate speech laws and think that Tony Blair is insane for pushing legislation to ban the act of "glorifying terrorism" — whatever that is.

Word.

One of the benefits of free speech, is it's much easier to identify the idiots. Throwing this scumbag in jail actually makes him a somewhat sympathetic character. But by letting him express his views unfettered, we can easily determine that he has nothing important to say. And that allows us to safely ignore him.

While I understand your views on free speech, Germany and Austria have special history in this regard and treat holocaust deniers as dangerous to a society that would like to forget what they did in the 20th Century.

To deny is to eliminate the need for vigilence at home and abroad. Many nationalist Germans/Austrians would love to be able to deny that their parents actively or passively participated in the slaughter of millions.

Free speech is a start, but please expand your list of things we should not concede to central government.

Kevin - you oppose "hate speech laws." What are those? I'm not aware of there being any hate speech laws.

As usual with free speech issues, this isn't a question of whether Irving's speech is odious, it's a question of whether the state should be allowed to declare it illegal.

Yep. When being an idiot is illegal, most of the population should be in prison.

If they are worried about their own citizens, that would be silly.
If they want to continue to demonstrate to the world how seriously they take their responsibility to atone for what they did in the 30s and 40s, that makes sense to me.

Also, once you ban some types of speech, people will ask why you're not banning other types as well. For example, I heard a Muslim guy on the CBC (Canadian public radio) asking why Irving's going to jail for saying something anti-Jewish while Europeans defend other people's rights to mock the Prophet in cartoons.

Once you give the government the power to ban offensive speech, you end up being pressured to expand the range of prohibited speech, since more and more people start letting you know what they consider offensive.

Anyone who's ever been to Germany and spent time with Germans, knows they're extremely sensitive to all things relating to the Holocaust. They're not likely to "forget" about what happened, nor deny it. Jailing Irving is totally unnecessary. The German public know the guy's a whackjob. They're not looking to bring any more shame upon themselves by repeating history. Though I haven't been to Austria, I would imagine the same holds true there, as well.

As Shermer says, it's at least understandable that countries like Germany and Austria have laws that ban Holocaust denial. There's some history there. But at some point they have to decide if they've matured enough since World War II to trust their own citizens not to fall prey en masse to the ranting hatred of loons like David Irving. It's unfortunate that apparently they don't feel they have.

I'm not sure how the second half of this paragraph follows the first. Trusting their own citizens means not having laws making Holocaust denial illegal. Are you arguing that having these laws is fine, but enforcing them isn't?

While I understand your views on free speech, Germany and Austria have special history in this regard and treat holocaust deniers as dangerous to a society that would like to forget what they did in the 20th Century.

People whose very ideas are considered dangerous are exactly who "free speech" is supposed to protect. There are no "special cases"; not in Germany and Austria after the Holocaust, not in Britain after the subway bombings, not in the US after 9/11, not in the US during the Cold War, not anywhere, not anytime. There are acts that go beyond speech to actually being part of violent acts, such as conspiracy, incitement, etc. But Holocaust denial is exactly the kind of "bad idea" for which the best counter are "good ideas" -- facts and evidence -- not suppression of speech.

Suppression of contrary speech is only the best way to advance a desired believe when the desired belief is, in fact, wrong, which is why it is the universal tactic of repressive totalitarianism that relies on deceiving the masses.

Suppressing denial does nothing to combat it, if anything it validates it, particularly when done in the otherwise "free" world, where the idea that bad ideas are fought with good ideas and totalitarian decievers employ suppression is more well established.

To deny is to eliminate the need for vigilence at home and abroad.

No, to deny is not to eliminate the need it is merely to deny it. The counter to that is for people to tell the truth to counter the deniers, not to imprison them. Once you've established that merely embracing ideas that are considered dangerous is grounds for imprisonment, you've opened the doors for widespread thought control.

Bah! This is reverse-Breyerism. Jailing Irving in the USA would violate our inviolable principles, but there's no need for us to meddle in the legal system in European countries. We should cluck our tongues and shake our heads and smugly celebrate their collective slide into irrelevance. It should also be a reminder that the liberal world order imposed post-1945 keeps the Europeans impotent and in the dark and that's a good thing indeed.

He pleaded guilty to fraud.

This is only tangentially a free speech issue and the foundation isn't exactly what you make of it. Free speech in the U.S. allows for freedom of opinion, which is not the same as freedom to write anything you want. This is true for everything from advertising and marketing (you can't make promises for benefits that don't exist) to journalism (you can't libel on air or in print someone, for instance).

There is a minimal standard of truthfulness when you are dealing with history and Irving abandoned those standards in a country that knows first hand how vile those lies are.

He decided to challenge the Austrian government and they called his bluff. His lies are knowing falsehoods and, as a result, fall under fraud. Even he knew this, which is why he pleaded guilty to the charges.

I'm glad you're posting on this Kevin, especially since nobody else seems to care, from the left or the right. Yet this is one issue that both conservatives and liberals, here or in Europe, should be in total agreement over -- and should be outraged: the freedom to be a misinformed or lying or venal shithead should not be taken away by any government.

But disgusting as these laws are in terms of their content and impact on freedom, they also violate the very idea of progress itself, which is the recognition that we can change our minds about anything. Without the ability to do that we have no progress in science, politics or ethics. Instead we have social stagnation and static societies based on prescribed piety. Irving, in fact, had recanted some years ago after losing his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt. He could have been lying through his teeth but that's irrelevant. He did publicly recant. Yet he was still convicted.

The message here is not only that you cannot hold opinions the government does not agree with, but that it is now a crime to be wrong -- sure, sure, Irving is not a nice guy and his opinions are abhorrent, etc. etc. But it is possible, after all, that he was just monumentally wrong and then he saw the light and changed his mind. He, or anyone else with any opinion deemed officially odious, can simply hold that opinion from ignorance, temporary insanity, wrong-headedness, or any other condition that causes people to hold odious views on any subject. The content of the opinion is irrelevant. You can now be convicted for being wrong.

Isn't the world becoming a strange and terrifying place? There's no country or place that I want as my home any longer. The era of progress started by the Enlightenment is dead.

Jailing Irving in the USA would violate our inviolable principles, but there's no need for us to meddle in the legal system in European countries.

I don't think anyone was proposing invading to free him. We're commenting on whether its a good or bad idea for him to be jailed, which isn't "meddling". And, if our "inviolable principles" really are "inviolable principles" rather than merely quaint local customs, then, yes, its just as wrong that they are doing it that it would be if we did it.

You don't fight bad ideas with imprisonment.

Why Irving having the reputation of being a liar and a scoundrel isn't sufficient punishment is a mystery.

Where's the anti-Bush angle on this?

I don't know that I have a problem with this.

Nothing has harmed our world more than the power of big lies. Nothing stabs at the heart of democracy more than lies designed to keep citizens ignorant and fearful.

If its not OK to yell fire in a crowded theater, and its not ok to lie publicly to harm a person's character, why on earth should it be OK to lie to harm a peoples government, or an entire peoples reputation?

Frankly, I'd love to see some serious anti-lying laws put into effect here, because it would dramatically change the nature of commerce and politics, and for the better.

If the past century has proven anything, its the power of the big lie to do irreparable harm. We can wax poetic over the disinfecting sunlight of truth, but in case you haven't been paying attention, truth has been getting its ass kicked recently, and a lot of people have died because of it.

there are few absolutes in the world. Everyone knows there is no absolute freedom in a world where your actions affect everyone around you, and we accept limitations on our freedom daily - I'm wearing pants at work, for instance. It is always a balancing act, and it will never reach a state where it is sitting on a shelf in absolute certainty of boundaries. The price of liberty is constant vigilance, after all.

Irving is a lying bastard who absolutely deserves to be locked away from society, where there is no risk of disinforming more people for the sake of bigotry and making a buck off bigotry.

Aris wrote: "the very idea of progress itself, which is the recognition that we can change our minds about anything. Without the ability to do that we have no progress in science, politics or ethics. Instead we have social stagnation and static societies based on prescribed piety."

Would someone tell the Bush Administration this? And it's not just the ability to change your mind, but to admit you might have been *gasp* wrong.

Here's where it gets tricky.

Kevin's right that their should be freedom of expression and pretty absolute freedom of speech (except for Fire! in a movie theatre, of course),

But it's hard for me to say that Austria and Germany should allow people to lie about the Holocaust. And Holocaust deniers do lie about the holocaust all the time. Jailing a liar who purports to be a historian is a lot different than someone presenting his opinion.

Irving didn't say "I don't think that the Holocaust was such a big deal". He basically claimed as a historian that it didn't really happen. And that's just not true.

Second, Irving's not Austrian, he's British. And the rules for a visitor can be different. If an Austrian says something that fine in Austria. But if some outside agitator feels he can just wander in and scream and yell, that's a bit different.

For the US, I could accept rules limiting the speech of foreigners visiting the US. i.e. make it illegal for foreigners coming in here advocating killing americans, or denying that we never treated African Americans or native americans badly. But I would be adamantly against saying Americans aren't allowed to say any of that.

Regardless of one's views on Austria's laws, one thing is certain: Irving's a complete moron. All he had to do was stay the heck out of Austria.

I'm sure Irving will land on his feet with a plum position at The Heritage Foundation.

"Why Irving having the reputation of being a liar and a scoundrel isn't sufficient punishment is a mystery."

No, it really isn't. He has that reputation with you and me, but to 99% of the world he doesn't have any reputation at all. And when he shows up to those people, with his unopposed "proof" the holocaust never happened, its part of a jewish plot, it makes converts. Even with people who should know better, it will make converts, because that is the proven power of the Big Lie.

Sure, if we were to dedicate people to follow Irving around to immediately refute his bullshit, it might be an viable, safe alternative - except once he gets published, how do you refute his books to people who will look no further?

And why waste the manpower, and risk missing some people? He has proven himself irredemable in honest society, what does leaving him on the street gain us? Does he serve any useful function at all? Is he worth following around, refuting his bullshit over and over and over and over again?

Jail is a great place for him. I hope he gets sodomized by a jew gang.

BTW - Sorry about the typos.

Also wanted to make clear that I don't think it's a good idea for Americans to deny our history either. I just would be very uncomfortable just banning that speech.

I think the core issue with Irving is that he just lied - all over Europe and the US. And to do so in Austria and Germany just invited getting hammered for it.

It'd be like going to an Arab country with those Danish cartoons on a t-shirt.

I'm pretty much opposed to hate-speech legislation as well.

But there has to be a line somewhere, between "I hate xxxxxxx-ians" and "let's go kill the xxxxxx-ians".

And every single time a Muslim cleric reads something to the effect of "let's go kill the infidels" from the Koran - that should NOT be protected speech.

And the biggest problem Liberals have right now, is that they've been framed as supporting Muslim Clerics' right to say "let's go kill the infidels". For those of us on the left that do not support this right, this stance should be made loud and clear.

For those that DO support such a right - do you also support the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater?

Here's my motto, "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend to your murderer's death, your right to say it".

Free speech but if you attract looney-tunes, pay your own security bills.

Would we jail somebody, or even pass a law in the first place, if the issue were slavery denial? It seems to me that our version of slavery, while not so heinous as the holocaust, is at least roughly parallel to it. Or maybe it was as heinous; at least the Nazis tried to hide what they were doing. Still I think we'd let public opinion take care of a slavery denial.

Mysticdog: If its not OK to yell fire in a crowded theater, and its not ok to lie publicly to harm a person's character, why on earth should it be OK to lie to harm a peoples government, or an entire peoples reputation?

How about we drop this tired "yelling fire in a crowded theater" analogy as an example of acceptable restrictions on speech? It is not: Trying to cause panic in a crowded place which will surely cause injury is a criminal act. That's what's punishable. The yelling is incidental. Indeed, if one were to yell "Fire" thinking there's a fire when there was no fire, I don't think many courts would convict even if the yelling caused panic. Don't confuse criminal acts that involve speech with speech itself.

What's more worrisome though is the idea implicit in your argument that there is a supernatural way of detecting lies and we can therefore enact laws to criminalize lying, period. Who exactly decides what is a lie and what isn't? You? Me? The government?

Think about it: Are ID opponents lying? Are anti-environmentalists lying? Are conservatives lying most of the time? Is Rush Limbaugh is lying scumbag 24 hours every day? I happen to think that in most cases, most of these people are lying, and when they are not they are just stupid, ignorant idiots. But I'm not arrogant enough to want my opinion on what constitutes a lie to become law. Or my opinion on what constitutes stupid, ignorant idiocy. I mean, why criminalize just lies? How about stupidity or ignorance, the primary sources of most "wrong" opinions.

Friends:
I had family and many friends who served in post-WWII Austria and Germany and they universally stated that the Austrians were the most unreconstructed and unaware Nazi sympathizers on the continent. They hid their Nazi affiliations behind the false "history" of their invasion by Nazi Germany to deny everything about the Nazi past and their willing involvement. Indeed they were greeting the Germans as their liberators with flowers.
I bow to no one (particularly anyone in this current fascist wannabe US govt) in my support for free speech. Yet I clearly see that denying the Holocaust in Vienna as the moral equivalant of shouting fire when there is none in the proverbial movie theatre.
Sometimes we need to remember history and give sovereign govts the right to decide when fire is being yelled in their own opera houses.Irving can use the 3 years to reflect upon his casual assertion of the untenable.
Irving 6 years ago used british libel laws to attack the writer Lipstadt who challenged his calumnies, she won, but it was a blatant attempt to financially break her for telling the truth. Irving's time for reflection and penance has come. There are thousands of genuine and important brave free speech advocates languishing in jails around the world;consult Amnesty International for a list. Irving will never be one of them!

I note that the law was passed in 1992, I think, and his main writing / speech / whatever it was was in 1989. Isn't that an ex post facto law? I mean, punishing someone for an act done before the law made the act illegal?

Now, if his writings and speeches since then have been in the same vein, and his mea culpa and recantation is too recent, then maybe he is "guilty" of breaking the law, whatever we think of the law. But if he has said little on the subject since 1989, that instance should not be held against him.

Ed

osama_been_forgotten: And every single time a Muslim cleric reads something to the effect of "let's go kill the infidels" from the Koran - that should NOT be protected speech.

Obviously, incitement to violence should be a criminal act. That's totally different than some pseudo-historian who is being either a liar or an idiot. If Irving had encouraged Austrians to go out and kill Jews, then he should have been prosecuted for inciting violence.

Hate to seem to be defending him since I find his opinions odious -- and yes, dangerous too -- but they are opinions, not explicit incitements to violence.

But at some point they have to decide if they've matured enough since World War II to trust their own citizens not to fall prey en masse to the ranting hatred of loons like David Irving. It's unfortunate that apparently they don't feel they have.

No, what's unfortunate is that they actually haven't.

Shermer and Kevin better watch out. Arguing in favor of Irving's right to free speech is what got Noam Chomsky labeled a holocaust denier in many circles (including, if I recall correctly, Lipstadt's book)

Irving didn't have a lawyer in the Lipstadt case, he represented himself, what that generally means is that the courts give him all kinds of extra consideration and the bringing of the action itself forced Lipstadt, a not-rich professor, to scrape together funds for a lawyer. I think her publisher ended up paying the lawyers, but it was expensive. At the end of the case, they got an uncollectible judgment for attorney fees against Irving for $250,000 or so.

Irving deliberately used the English courts as a forum to haul an American professor into court, and he is no fan of free speech when it hurts him, so whatever the merits of the Austrian law, don't shed any tears for Irving the individual.

As I already stated at TPM cafe discussions, the right on free speech has limits. In Germany in Austria, the limit is when the border to Nazi propaganda is crossed. Don't start a "holier than thou" discussion as long as you can't demonstrate in the US with a sign saying: "Don't criminalize Osama! He had nothing to do with 911!" without being arrested. It should be obvious that Hitler was a more dangerous terrorist than even Osama. We simly won't allow anyone doing propaganda for his cause. Period.

Nothing has harmed our world more than the power of big lies.

I'd argue that punishment of expression of views considered "dangerous" has harmed our world more than "big lies" and that, indeed, most of the harm caused by "big lies" itself was enabled by the suppression of views considered dangerous by the government perpetrating the big lies.

Nothing stabs at the heart of democracy more than lies designed to keep citizens ignorant and fearful.

Democracy works fine even when people are lying, so long as other people aren't prevented from countering them.

But democracy doesn't work when unpopular ideas are suppressed with punishment because they are "dangerous".

it's at least understandable that countries like Germany and Austria have laws that ban Holocaust denial. There's some history there

In the sense that they haven't changed much since the 1930's?
.

Another example: Recently, three US supporters of Al Qaueda have been sentenced. One was charged with downloading a plan to build suicide bomb vests. Great right of free speech on the US, no right to listen or read freely? Where is your outcry on this issue?

Sure, if we were to dedicate people to follow Irving around to immediately refute his bullshit, it might be an viable, safe alternative - except once he gets published, how do you refute his books to people who will look no further?

Laziness on the part of the supposedly virtuous is no excuse for totalitarianism.

joe compton: There are thousands of genuine and important brave free speech advocates languishing in jails around the world;consult Amnesty International for a list. Irving will never be one of them!

You cannot be an advocate for free speech if you differentiate between "good free speech" and "bad free speech." Free speech is free whether you or I think it's good and genuine and brave or not. And please retire the "yelling fire" canard. It's not applicable here, or in fact in most situation where it's brought up. See my comment above.

In Michael Shermer's article, he quotes a passage from "A Man for All Seasons":

Roper: So now you'd give the devil benefit of law.

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

More: Oh? And when the law was down — and the devil turned round on you — where would you hide? Yes, I'd give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Free speech is not a privilege for Irving or the devil, but a necessity for all of us, and that will include the devils of this world.

Another example: Recently, three US supporters of Al Qaueda have been sentenced. One was charged with downloading a plan to build suicide bomb vests.

Source?

That sounds like conspiracy -- an agreement with others to commit a crime couple with a concrete act in furtherance of the criminal end -- which is not a free speech issue, as it is substantive action designed to acheive a criminal -- violently so -- goal.

The law seems silly in it's specificity. Is it illegal in Austria to say the Holocaust was a good thing or to argue that we could make the world a better place by aborting all fetuses of a specific race (e.g. Bill Bennett)?

Also, could someone in Austria please invite Mel Gibson and his father there to recieve the key to Vienna?

Obviously, incitement to violence should be a criminal act. That's totally different than some pseudo-historian who is being either a liar or an idiot. If Irving had encouraged Austrians to go out and kill Jews, then he should have been prosecuted for inciting violence.
Posted by: Aris on February 22, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Right - and this country has had "free speech" for over 200 years - there's a line between free speech and incitement to violence. It's been probed and tested many times.

I haven't read all this guy's writings, and I'm not going to. Did what he said consitute inciting violence? I don't know. I guess that's up to the judges and laywers to decide.

Hate to seem to be defending him since I find his opinions odious -- and yes, dangerous too -- but they are opinions, not explicit incitements to violence.

Absolutely, that's the basic point I was trying to make.

But there's the larger point (and likely the reason why this story is a big story, in that it dovetails with the Mohammad Cartoon issue) - is; is it a valid criticism by muslims that the west does not have free speech, because we jail jerkwads like Irving? Is it valid for religious leaders to call for the execution of a cartoonist? (and should such condemnations themselves be allowed under free-speech rules?) - and do Liberals have a problem with free speech, as in, making special laws to punish people who bash gays or blacks or whatever? Does the cartoon constitute "incitement to violence" because it was provocative? And how do we reconcile our western "free speech" beliefs with the FACT that in a recent poll, westerners who recently self-identified as Christians were evenly divided on whether the Mohammad Cartoon should be protected free speech, and even the POPE criticised it?

The first amendment is pretty clear, and speech laws are fairly well established here, in the US - but frankly, a lot of westerners still "don't get it" - including people who post to this blog, and we're expecting the muslim world to "get it?"

I'd argue that punishment of expression of views considered "dangerous" has harmed our world more than "big lies" and that, indeed, most of the harm caused by "big lies" itself was enabled by the suppression of views considered dangerous by the government perpetrating the big lies.

And you'd be correct.

You cannot be an advocate for free speech if you differentiate between "good free speech" and "bad free speech." Free speech is free whether you or I think it's good and genuine and brave or not. And please retire the "yelling fire" canard. It's not applicable here, or in fact in most situation where it's brought up.

And you'd be correct also.

Those of you arguing for a magical distinction between harmful and acceptable free speech are scaring the bejesus out of me. Do we not have enough idiots on the right carrying this ill-conceived and very dangerous torch?

Speech has effects, which is why freedom of speech is not absolute.

One of the effects of speech has been to stir up genocides. In the 20th century, in "civilized" Europe, we have Armenia, the Holoccaust, and "Ethnic Cleansing" in the Balkans. National Geographic had a longer article in January, 2006.

Advocating violence against others is almost always prohibited speech. But there is a continuum from directly instructing the mob to rampage and murder through glorifying, condoning, and justifying violence, to simple disagreements that (nearly) all agree is safe and legitimately protected speech.

I can understand and accept that different places will choose to demarc unacceptable, prohibited speech at different shades of gray.

The principled argument for maximum deference to freedom of speech is compelling. However, I'm not especially shocked that historical realities occasionaly motivate societies to depart from what appear to be intellectualy compelling lines of argument. Lets get real - events such as the Holocaust have long-lasting effects on affected societies - isn't this just too fresh to expect it to be treated like any other freedom of speech issue? Aren't societies within their rights to impose some sort of mortorium on malicious mis-portrayals of such events not only in order to uphold community standards but also to show respect to those affected?

Mad Blogger: so whatever the merits of the Austrian law, don't shed any tears for Irving the individual.

The discussion is on the merits of the Austrian law. Irving the individual is incidental and inconsequential.

Questions for those who have no problem with censoring speech they consider odious: What other speech should be outlawed? How about, the denying the Armenian Genocide by the Turks? There's as much evidence that it happened as there is on the Holocaust. I think both are established historical facts. But if we make denying it a crime, we'd have to arrest not only historians but most of Turkey's population, including its government and army leaders. Anybody for it? Is the Turkish prime minister yelling "fire" every time he denies it happened?

cmdicely, it's been in yahoo news, pls search for yourself or look at the Matt Yglesias discussion at TPM. I#m working on a BCCI summary now....

"I've already mentioned this briefly before, but I agree. As usual with free speech issues, this isn't a question of whether Irving's speech is odious, it's a question of whether the state should be allowed to declare it illegal."

Even just MENTIONING that Irving's speech is "odius" makes this statment completely off the mark. It's like pointing out that the victim of a mass murderer had his fly unbuttoned.

Only one thing matters here and that is that a guy just went to jail for his expressions. It is so unbelievably disgusting it just drains you of all hope for the "old" continent.

cmdicely, it's been in yahoo news, pls search for yourself

If you want to make the case that it is a free speech issue rather than the criminal conspiracy that your summary here makes it appear, you can present the evidence and argument yourself.

The discussion is on the merits of the Austrian law. Irving the individual is incidental and inconsequential.

Amen.

"Is it illegal in Austria to say the Holocaust was a good thing"

If you do it publicly, YES. I have no problems with that. But why don't you demonstrate in front of a US police station with a sign "911 was a good thing! I love it!"? Good luck.

BTW, I'm with Kevin on this. Revisonist histories and the distortion of scientific or demographic data can be odious, racist, and moronic -- but making statements illegal in the long term leads to authoriatarianism and in the short term provides the ideas with sympathy, plublicity, and in some circles a sense of credibility.

The principled argument for maximum deference to freedom of speech is compelling. However, I'm not especially shocked that historical realities occasionaly motivate societies to depart from what appear to be intellectualy compelling lines of argument.

I'm not especially shocked that the response to the abuses of the French monarchy and clergy, combined with what was, at least for the poor, a famine combined to produce the horrors of the Terror and the subsequent dictatorship of Napoleon.

I'm not suprised that the miserable economic conditions and the national humiliation in interwar Germany produced Hitler's Nazi party.

Lots of bad things are not surprising. That doesn't lessen the need to advocate against them when they occur or appear probable in the near future.

IIRC, Chomsky not only called it an important work in his introduction, but declined to weigh in on its veracity. Chomsky deserved every ounce of trouble he got from that "endorsement".

This kind of "one the one hand, but on the other" analysis is so typical of the treatment that anyone who "insults" islam gets especially in Europe.

Editors living with 24-hr bodyguard protection and afraid for their lives because they printed a cartoon? Point out that the editor is a fundie Christian and was probably looking for trouble. Artist has his throat slit in broad daylight? Wasn't he at least a little bit to blame for producing such provacative films? Politician living in a jail (not figuratively speaking) because living outside is too dangerous after he criticized Islam? Righ-winger!

All the same and equally disgusting.

Gray -- what law are you going to use to prosecute someone who glorifies 9/11? Sure someone with an "I love Osama" shirt might get dragged behind a pick-up truck in many neighborhoods and shouted down or kicked in the nuts most everywhere else -- but what law are you going to use?

The German and Austrian laws against neo-Nazi activities look back on a time when freedom was not protected. If governments protect all freedoms then the laws against lying become moot -- you can lie about Nazis, but you can't take it further, to the point where you actually begin to take away other people's freedoms. In this sense, defending freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly protects all people, as long as we understand that these freedoms apply to all people, and that they will not be taken away. These post-Nazi laws are the reflection of lingering insecurity that it could all happen again. A more distanced perspective might determine that the existence of NATO, the passing of half a century, and the modern communications structure have made these laws obsolete.

It is also true, in my experience, that a lot of people, when faced with our American concept of freedom of expression, just don't get it, even when they have lived here. They can't quite make that distinction between freedom and the need to have big brother protect us from ourselves.

Why the generalization based on what happened in Austria to include Germany as well? No other nation on the planet has made as much of an effort to atone for genocide (not to say that this effort has been flawless by any means). Austria's denial of involvement in the Holocaust may not be on par with Japan's of its war crimes, but I understand it's pretty significant. This difference should not be discounted.

The fact is, any discussion of the Holocaust beyond the borders of the countries and indivisuals that instigated or suffered it can never really be anything more than academic.

No, it really isn't. He has that reputation with you and me, but to 99% of the world he doesn't have any reputation at all.

So, why break a butterfly on the wheel? Irving is a nothing. A pest. A moron. A scoundrel. Light has erased his shadow just as it has erased those of other Holocaust deniers. (And endorsers. As Chomsky has discovered. Whatever Chomsky utters is automatically flagged, "said David Irving praiser, Noam Chomsky...")

"Gray -- what law are you going to use to prosecute someone who glorifies 9/11?"
Propaganda for Al Quaeda? Pls check Patriot Act, I'm busy on another topic now. Also I'm not convinced that any open supporter of Osama won't simply disappear for some weeks, lawful or not. Why don't you go ahead and try it?

"How about we drop this tired "yelling fire in a crowded theater" analogy as an example of acceptable restrictions on speech?"

Because it makes the point in an obvious and clear manner, with a century-old understanding of hat it means?

Ok, how about:
Its not ok to lie to the cops that a person just tried to get you to pay to sleep with his 6 year old daughter.
Its not ok to incite a riot.
Its not ok stand outside a business lying to every potential customer that their product put your wife into a coma.
Its not ok to follow a person around insulting them all day.
You cannot lie on the witness stand.
It's not ok to recite pornographic poetry (or read aloud a scooter libby novel) to a classroom of first-graders.

Got a problem with any of those?

"What's more worrisome though is the idea implicit in your argument that there is a supernatural way of detecting lies and we can therefore enact laws to criminalize lying, period. Who exactly decides what is a lie and what isn't? You? Me? The government? "

There is no supposition of a supernatural lie detector, where in the hell did that come from? What is "more worrisome" is your assertation that there is no way of determining lies from truth than the supernatural. It must be very hard to be you.

All law enforcement is subject to societal and judicial determination and review. That is what makes the judicial system of a liberal democracy strong. Maybe a junior civics course is needed. Courts make decisions all of the time on what is truth and what is not, and with a fairly good record of achieving justice. Do you not trust democratic institutions? Why not? Perhaps it is becuase of the effect that lies have had on them - that has been the source of most of their failures.

"I'd argue that punishment of expression of views considered "dangerous" has harmed our world more than "big lies" and that, indeed, most of the harm caused by "big lies" itself was enabled by the suppression of views considered dangerous by the government perpetrating the big lies"

LOL, really? Trying to chicken vs. egg the argument never works - evolution tells us the egg came first, lol.

Big lies lead to the suppression of truth. It is not the other way around, because the reason people have demanded the suppression of truth is to protect the big lies.

The nazis blamed the Jews for all of Germany's problems. Plenty of people spoke out against it - they were killed or defamed until they learned to shut up. It wasn't the other way around.

"Democracy works fine even when people are lying, so long as other people aren't prevented from countering them."

The neocons lied about the connection between 9/11 and saddam, about Saddam having WMD and an intention of using them against the US. There was no governmental suppression of the truth - in fact, there were a smattering of journalists who did refute these things. But the power of the big lie prevailed - who could believe the government would lie so blatantly? And my, wasn't it better infotainment? So we were told that Saddams son-in-law claimed the program was active and ongoing, even though he really said the exact opposite, and in fact the very same newspapers that originally reported that he said the exact opposite were now reporting the lie as fact. Did "democracy work fine"?

The swiftboaters lied about Kerry. There were lots of sources that refuted the lies, in a very conclusive manner, but the press still treated the lies as having an equal footing as the truth. Did "democracy work fine"?

"But democracy doesn't work when unpopular ideas are suppressed with punishment because they are "dangerous"."

Its not a matter of "unpopular" ideas or "dangerous" ideas. It is a matter of false facts that prevent people from even having a proper base to evaluate the ideas.

Almost all abuse of laws limiting free speech (and there are plenty already, most of which are required for a democratic society to function at all) starts with lies about threat or validity of the speech in question.

Does this mean you cannot promote ID/creationism? No. It affects how you can promote ID/creationism. What you shouldn't be able to do is, for example, claim that there is no fossil evidence of evolution. What you shouldn't be able to do is claim that the law of thermodynamic prevents systems from organizing, especially after its been explained to you a dozen times that thermodynamics refers to the movement of energy, NOT the organization of matter (and had someone shake a box of magnets in front of you several times to prove it).

I think it would be much easier and more effective to expose and humiliate deniers rather than prosecute.

Well, why is everyone so suprised? Austria, like Germany, is a country that is founded on autocratic, rigid structure that sees everything in black and white. As much as I dislike Irving, I do not think he should be jailed for opinions, but am I suprised that this nation did just such a thing?
Nope.

Any country that has any sort of slander or libel law is already going down this road. Don't act so high and mighty, because free speech is ALWAYS abridged.

Perhaps Austria could use their own version of the Radical Acid Test.

"So, why break a butterfly on the wheel? Irving is a nothing. A pest. A moron. A scoundrel. Light has erased his shadow just as it has erased those of other Holocaust deniers."

Except, of course, that he hasn't been erased. He gets invited to conferences denying the holocaust. Neo-nazism and the Klu Klux Klan are again on the rise in this country, and around the world. His ideas don't affect you and me. We know better. Are you going to go try to correct every klan member and skin head who believe everything he has written, who in fact may have become bigots, or more entrenched bigots, because of his speeches and writtings?

the trial and jailing him has done two very useful things - made it less likely that he can influence more people who are isolated from the truth about the holocaust, and made it more likely that people have been exposed to his ideas and the truth at the same time, perhaps giving some level of innoculation against holocaust denial.

Do not cry for David Irving. He made his choices with a clear understanding of the consequences.

As I already stated at TPM cafe discussions, the right on free speech has limits. . . Don't start a "holier than thou" discussion as long as you can't demonstrate in the US with a sign saying: "Don't criminalize Osama! He had nothing to do with 911!" without being arrested.

What part of the country do you live in? Rural Oklahoma? Because I live in Berkeley, and I see shit like that all the time, and much worse. This includes a peculiarly deranged group of Iranian exiles rallying in support of a terrorist organization, diehard Maoists praising the Cultural Revolution and attacking the Bill of Rights, LaRouche cultists, and all sorts of people advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. And even before I moved here I'd seen similar things elsewhere on occasion. Ward Churchill is a perfect example of how much you can get away with in the US.

I wouldn't have it any other way. I despise these people and everything they stand for, and I'm aware that they'd probably have me killed if they could, and if their revolution ever comes I'll be waiting for them with an assault rifle. Until then, I'm content to let them make fools of themselves and scream incoherent threats at the rest of America. Judging from most of the comments here, I'm not alone in this opinion - so stop making shit up in order to claim we're inconsistent.

Its not a matter of "unpopular" ideas or "dangerous" ideas.

Yes, it is.

It is a matter of false facts that prevent people from even having a proper base to evaluate the ideas.

See, it is about "dangerous" ideas. Somehow, exposure to these "false facts" will prevent peopel from even having a proper base to evaluate ideas. That's the "danger" you believe exists.

Of course, the marketplace of ideas has a solution to the problem of people providing "false facts", its called other people providing "true facts" with evidence and argument to support them.

Does this mean you cannot promote ID/creationism? No. It affects how you can promote ID/creationism. What you shouldn't be able to do is, for example, claim that there is no fossil evidence of evolution.

What, that should be criminal, now, too? No, you certainly should be able to claim that, and people who believe otherwise ought, likewise, to be able to claim that you're wrong, and present the evidence which demonstrates that that is, in fact, correct.

What you shouldn't be able to do is claim that the law of thermodynamic prevents systems from organizing, especially after its been explained to you a dozen times that thermodynamics refers to the movement of energy, NOT the organization of matter (and had someone shake a box of magnets in front of you several times to prove it).

Again, this claim should be criminalized? No, it is readily demonstrable as false, and people who want to discredit themselves by making it ought to be free from criminal threat in doing it, and ought to be refuted in the marketplace of ideas.

We don't need Big Brother punishing thoughtcrime. We just need the truth combatting the lies.

"Why doesn't it? Why aren't freedom lovers everywhere offended by Irving's court conviction?"

Everyone I've read thinks this is an awful decision. Can you name any civil libertarians or defenders of cartoonists who've applauded his conviction or even begrudgingly supported it?

I think the comment above is dishonest and feeds into the notion that civil libertarians only care about their own freedom of speech and not that of others. The ACLU, for example, has a long history of defending speech in this country even when the speech is odious.

Any country that has any sort of slander or libel law is already going down this road.

No, its not. Principally, because there is a categorical difference in kind between civil, compensatory process and awards of damages and criminal process and imprisonment.

I wouldn't object if Austria had a super-libel law that allowed damages to be sought by categories of persons who were implicitly defamed by Irvings work, insofar as it involved willful or deliberate misrepresentation of facts. I might think that such a law was overbroad, bad policy that would be prone to clogging up the legal system with invalid claims, but it wouldnt' violate free speech.

Since Irving chose to go to Austria himself, I'm guessing he thinks of this as a sort of book tour that will inflate his cult status among anti-authority neo-nazis around the world.

And no it is not against the law to say things like: 1) there is no fossil evidence of evolution, 2) up is down, 3) clear-cutting forests makes them healthy, and 4) the bush tax cuts will raise federal revenue.

And Mr. Gray, the Patriot Act makes it very easy to spy on and investigate someone but it does not make it easier to prosecute someone for saying 9/11 was a glorious act of God brought on by lesbians, gays, abortionists, and the ACLU.

"I think it would be much easier and more effective to expose and humiliate deniers rather than prosecute."

Of course! It is easier to do anything than prosecute. Prosectution SHOULD be hard. That is the whole presumption of inocence thing.

But effective?

Exposure and ridicule only goes so far - at a maximum, it only goes as far as the people who heard the ridicule, and in reality, gets reduced by the people who don't take the ridicule seriously, people who forget about the exposure, people who don't weight the people doing the exposing as much as the person who committed the lie.

And as anyone who has argued with a creationist knows, it doesn't matter how much you explain the science, they will turn right around and lie about the science to the next person they talk to. It doesn't matter if David Irving was put on America's Favorite New Reality Show, "Big Liar", and revealed as a liar to 20,000,000 viewers. The next day, he could publish "My Rainy Day Zionist Evil Fun Book for Kids - How the Jews made up the Holocaust to Control the World", and the any of the other 250,000,000 americans who didn't watch the show could pick up the book and not know it is bullshit.

Andrew Grimson in the Telegraph wrote:
"But although these laws can seem rather beside the point, we should be careful before we condemn them out of hand. When I spoke yesterday morning to a Viennese friend, he said: "One reason why the Austrian state exists is to make absolutely sure that Nazism isn't going to come back again. Austria was allowed to exist again after the war because we swore to remain neutral and to ban fascism forever. This is our historical obligation. If Irving had been allowed to get away with it, we would have been on a very slippery slope." And in Austria you do hear people such as Jörg Haider pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable.

"Part of the Austrian establishment's idea of itself is that it will never allow the horrors of the Third Reich to recur..."

Foreign governments have the right to make laws that protect their people. The Austrian government, based on both history and the nature of their people, decided that Holocaust Denial or Nazi promotion is such a danger to democracy that it could not be allowed. I do not think we should second guess their decision.

One other point: After WWII, the Nazi party was banned in Germany as was the the worship of Shinto in Japan. Each of these examples may be a violation of our Constitutional standards but one cannot argue the beneficial results.

"Well, why is everyone so suprised? Austria, like Germany, is a country that is founded on autocratic, rigid structure that sees everything in black and white. As much as I dislike Irving, I do not think he should be jailed for opinions, but am I suprised that this nation did just such a thing? Nope."

Oh, please. Do you base this opinion on repeated watchings of Hogan's Heroes and Raiders of the Lost Ark? Smart!

"There's some history there." I think that's putting it a bit mildly, Kevin. Lipstadt was interviews on NPR at lenght yesterday, and as an earlier poster also pointed out, she explains clearly 1. that the issue was fraud under Austrian law, not free speech; and 2. that the matter of Holocaust denial must be viewed in the context of Austria's role in the Holocaust, not from an American viewpoint, in order to understand the case. I think your view does not take those complexities into account. You ought to listen to the interview with Lipstadt.

Lipstadt was interviews on NPR at lenght yesterday, and as an earlier poster also pointed out, she explains clearly 1. that the issue was fraud under Austrian law, not free speech;

"Free speech" is not orthogonal to "fraud"; the proper parameters within which a government may regulate "fraud" are constrained by "free speech".

So saying that the issue was "fraud under Austrian law" does not negate the argument that free speech rights are implicated.

The issue boils down to whether insanity should be illegal. Its an interesting point to discuss but, really, it becomes a question of what insanity exactly is. If you know, keep it to yourself.

--A. Peculiar

Mysticdog, you seem to be missing the point. None of your examples have anything to do with outlawing speech because you or the government designates it a "lie." All your examples are examples of criminal acts, not examples of generally acceptable limits on free speech that expresses an opinion which may be wrong or a lie. One does not have to be a lawyer to see that. I mean, sleeping or trying to sleep with a 6-year-old is a crime, regardless of what you say to the cops; inciting a riot is a crime regardless of how you do it; standing outside a business and harassing customers is trespassing, harassment, etc; following a person, whether you're insulting them or professing love, is stalking; lying on a witness stand is perjury; exposing kids to pornographic material is a sexual crime. I mean, come on!

The problem is that lying is not as obvious as you think it is. Sure, just to pick one obvious example, I agree with you that the swiftboaters lied about Kerry and that was a dastardly, disgusting thing to do with dire consequences for democracy. And if I were advising Kerry I'd tell him to sue their asses for libel. But that's an entirely different thing from prosecuting everyone who would argue that the swiftboaters' version of events was "true." That's just someone's opinion, and it may be wrong or a lie, but that's the correct comparison with the Irving case. Apples and oranges.

The whole idea behind both democracy and science is that we cannot know with transcendental certainty what is true and what isn't. We can only know provisionally, which means that we follow the evidence wherever it leads, knowing all the time that we may be wrong, the evidence may be faulty or incomplete, someone may have lied about it, etc. In other words, there is no opinion, theory, conclusion, etc. that is sacrosanct since any opinion, theory, conclusion, etc. can change at any time. That's the principle by which liberal societies work, politically, ethically, legally, in terms of research, etc. There is no supernatural way of establishing absolutely what is "true" and what is "false."

You state, for instance, that, "What you shouldn't be able to do is claim that the law of thermodynamic prevents systems from organizing, especially after its been explained to you a dozen times that thermodynamics refers to the movement of energy, NOT the organization of matter." This is a chilling statement for anyone who loves and trusts science as the only way of advancing human knowledge. You may think a law preventing ID supporters and other pseudoscientists from espousing nonsense will advance the cause of science, but what you will be doing essentially is codifying a prevailing paradigm that may legitimately, through scientific research, change in the future. You fight nonsense with evidence not laws.

I wouldn't object if Austria had a super-libel law that allowed damages to be sought by categories of persons who were implicitly defamed by Irvings work, insofar as it involved willful or deliberate misrepresentation of facts. I might think that such a law was overbroad, bad policy that would be prone to clogging up the legal system with invalid claims, but it wouldnt' violate free speech.

Thanks cmdicely. Very well put. The distinction should be evident.

The only reason to engage in Holocaust denial is to whitewash the Nazis' crimes and pave the way for their resurgence. That's why Germany and Austria have laws against it. Irving went into Austria fully aware of all this. He went not to boost his own status among neo-Nazis -- which is already considerable -- but to bolster their status in the country. His willful historical falsifications are an attempt to bring Nazis back into power. I have little sympathy.

"Again, this claim should be criminalized? No, it is readily demonstrable as false, and people who want to discredit themselves by making it ought to be free from criminal threat in doing it, and ought to be refuted in the marketplace of ideas.

We don't need Big Brother punishing thoughtcrime. We just need the truth combatting the lies. "

Again with the hyperbole.

The government is the will of the people in a democracy. If it isn't, there is something wrong (and it probably has a lot to do with a lack of transparency and the use of big lies). This isn't 1984. There is no big brother. Every facet of government is made of American citizens, laws made by american citizens, and procedures made up by american citizens.

Yes, the big lie is demonstratably false. Yet it still takes hold.

It is criminal because it is intended to harm the ability of people to make good judgements. That is the basis for nearly every criminalized activity in a democracy - is it intended to do harm. Why is it not that way for big political lies? It is not OK to falsely advertise - is that Big Brother keeping the dishonest merchant down? It is not OK to falsely accuse - is that Big Brother keeping the jilted girlfriend down? It is not OK to tell a twelve year old all the naughty things you'd like to do to her - is that Big Brother keeping the pervert down?

So why is it OK for a person to publically lie to a massive audience in a way designed to harm them? Because it can be publically refuted? The girl can be taken away from the pervert - no harm done? The customer can stop using the product - no harm done? The guy can point out he didn't rape his jilted girlfriend - no harm done?

There is a related case in Italy right now where a priest is being accused of fraud for construing papal dogmatic definitions as historical fact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4653200.stm

But at some point they have to decide if they've matured enough since World War II to trust their own citizens not to fall prey en masse to the ranting hatred of loons like David Irving.

Why Kevin? Why must they trust them not to be stupid or ignorant or bigots? Our citizens have been falling pray to it since... well the end of the Civil War.

"The whole idea behind both democracy and science is that we cannot know with transcendental certainty what is true and what isn't."

LOL, where in the hell do you get that? And who needs "transcendental" certainty? What the hell does that mean? Is truth so out of style that it has to be defined in a mystical way?

Is there a remote possibility that the Holocaust didn't happen? That Germans did not put jews in mass quantities onto trains and ship them to concentration camps, where they were gassed or worked to death, then cremeated or tossed into mass graves?

Is there a remote possibility that there is no gravity in our universe, or that people are not made up of cells, that genetic code is a fabrication of scientific community?

Your assertion is total, confused, bollocks. Democracy has nothing - NOTHING - to do with knowing truth or "transcendental" certainty. It is a method of organizing people, in a way that hopefully reflects their will and serves their needs. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims "We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal..." ... (which is in fact questioned by many, many Americans (like "The Bell Curve" supporters)). Does it sound like they were leaving wiggle room for what truth really means?

Science is ALL about getting to absolute truths .. in a logical, ordered way with checks and balances on how we determine what is true. Certain "soft" sciences deal with the problem that there are no absolutes with choice or behavior, and try to work off of probabilities. But then, even those probabilities are defined as truths.

This "there is no truth" psuedo-nihilistic nonsense is great for Matrix movies - but has no relation to reality.

Bullshit Mysticdog. Science is probability not certainty. NOTHING in science can EVER be Absolute.

"Mysticdog, you seem to be missing the point. None of your examples have anything to do with outlawing speech because you or the government designates it a "lie." All your examples are examples of criminal acts, not examples of generally acceptable limits on free speech that expresses an opinion which may be wrong or a lie. "

No, you are missing the point. The point is exactly that - we criminalize lots of free speech that results in harm. But not political lies. Is it because they don't cause harm? No. they do cause harm, typically on a scale that dwarfs any other harm imaginable. Is it because the harm is preventable or reversable? No, because lots of harm from other free speech restraints could be prevented or reversed (lots of fire escapes for the theater, to use the example we love so much, lol).

We accept that there is such a thing as harm to a person. We accept that there is such a thing as harm to a person's psyche. We accept there is such a thing as harm to a person's reputation. We accept the concept of class actions, of crimes against the community as opposed to against the person (it is the fundemental nature of our legal system, and its why you can still go to jail even if no one presses charges).

Why don't you accept that certain lies intended to do harm to the community should be treated as criminal?

Personally, I believe the world is 6000 days old and all that supposedly happened prior to that is an invention of the mushu pork monster imprinted on our brains, books, and rocks to tempt us into losing our faith in the flying spaghetti montster. No halabja, no holocaust, no spanish inquisition, no crucifixation of christ, no plagues of egypt, no great flood, no K-T impact, no period of life-extinguishing impacts, no birth of the solar system.

Is Rush Limbaugh is lying scumbag 24 hours every day?

Well actually he is, but I still don't think we or anyone else should jail him for his lies.

Now being a drug dealer is quite another thing.

Really? What science do you do?

Please, show me the scientific reference that there is a certain probability that DNA is not the blueprint for protein construction.

Please, show me the scientific reference that there is a certain probability that a wire passing through a magnetic field does not create a current.

Please, show me the scientific reference that there is a certain probability that energy does not behave entropically.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Science accepts that we do not yet know the truths about many things, not that truths do not exist.

LOL, where in the hell do you get that? And who needs "transcendental" certainty? What the hell does that mean? Is truth so out of style that it has to be defined in a mystical way?

I got that from years of studying epistemology. My BA minor was in Philosophy of Science.

Please understand that I'm not listing credentials in order to impress you, but in order to impress upon you that my statement is the standard definition of science, as understood by scientists and philosophers of science. The terms "transcendental" and "provisional" are standard terms used to describe the different types of certainly that distinguish faith-based convictions (such as religion) from science.

Indeed, the statement that "Science is ALL about getting to absolute truths" is not only nonsense, it is a description more aptly applied to religion. Science is about validity, not "truth." And no, this is not nihilism: What the scientific method acknowledges is that as fallible, limited human beings we cannot be certain (transcendentally, absolutely certain) that something is true. We can only be provisionally certain -- i.e. certain until new evidence or a better theory comes along. The "truth" may be out there, but since we are limited by perceptions that take place within space and time and brains that are neither omniscient not omnipotent, any conclusions we reach about anything should be considered provisionally valid.

To think that anything is the "absolute truth" is to stop progress, in any realm. It says that education and research are obsolete since we now know absolutely. This is a sure way to kill scientific progress. It is to negated science.

This is a very dangerous position, attacking science at its core, and far more dangerous than the specific nonsense espoused by creationists -- hey, I wonder if we should make lying about what science is a prosecutable offense?

Mysticdog,

Re. this science tangent: I don't think anyone here was denying that there are truths -- who (over the age of 25) would say it's true that there's no truth? The claim is instead that while there are indeed truths that obtain independently of our opinions about them, our grasp or knowledge of them is not 100% infallible (outside math). But this often has no impact on our lives, since in practice there's no real difference between a statement's being 99.999...% likely to be true and its being 100% certain.

You can dispute this -- there's no law against that after all -- but it's a different view from the strawman you're stalking above.

"But at some point they have to decide if they've matured enough since World War II to trust their own citizens not to fall prey en masse to the ranting hatred of loons like David Irving. It's unfortunate that apparently they don't feel they have."

As a german citizen, I have to protest this. It's good that we stay aware and show that we stand by our history by not allowing Nazi followers to spread lies. After all, there still are Holocaust victims alive! Does anybody suppose to scratch these laws now? OK, maybe in 2045...

Please, show me the scientific reference that there is a certain probability that DNA is not the blueprint for protein construction.

Actually it's fairly unlikely that the first proteins were translated from DNA through the biochemical path you are familiar with. Other paths were almost certainly once dominant.

Please, show me the scientific refere