Irving is being freed early
December 20th, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |but this is no particular victory for free speech. David Irving, while traveling to give a lecture at a fraternity in Austria, had been arrested under a 1992 law that criminalizes “den[ying], grossly play[ing] down, approv[ing] or tr[ying] to excuse the National Socialist genocide”. This, the court decided, Irving had done 17 years before when he denied that there had been gas chambers at Auschwitz.
Irving claims that he has since changed his views.
On the free speech watch front, there are currently 11 countries with such laws. They are:
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Switzerland
I’m sorry but I guess I’m just too immersed in freedom of speech. Such laws are an abomination.
24 Responses to “Irving is being freed early”
By Jersey McJones on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Ya’ know, how the hell can you denounce the ACLU for taking on unpopular causes while you do this?
Denying the Holocaust in some parts of Europe is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. It can provoke violence and all sorts of trouble. He knew the law, he travelled to another country, he willfully disobeyed that law, and he got busted. It would be like walking into a bar in Harlem and announcing that slavery never happened and it’s just an excuse for black people to get government cheese. Now, I’ll grant you, sentencing someone to more than a month for such an offense seems draconian, but in the end he’s free, he did only 13 months, and in America we hand out sentences much longer than that for things much less despicable.
But again, how the hell do you square this sentiment of yours, which I assume is sincere, with your aversion to the ACLU???
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Jersey, you’ve got me all wrong. I have no aversion to the ACLU. I agree with many of their most controversial stands including their defense of the North American Man-Boy Love Association and the rights of the neo-Nazi group to have marched in Skokie during the 70’s. They stand up for the rights of people regardless of the popularity of the person or group or lack thereof. Their only concern is the defense of constitutional rights. They’re a fine group. I simply disagree with some of their stances, that’s all.
By Jersey McJones on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought I read you blast them once or twice. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Given the libertine stance that you are taking on this controversial issue, which I grant to you is at least debatable and that the sentence was riducuous, what sorts of issues have the ACLU engaged in that you disagree with?
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
I believe I mentioned, on another thread, the one from which you picked up on my blasting the ACLU (although I wouldn’t characterize myself as having blasted them even there) was the suit against the county of L.A. for the nonsensical removal of a picture of the mission that was at the historical heart of L.A. from their seal because the mission has a tiny cross at the top. Well, as it happens, the mission was a Christian mission, not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Wiccan mission. Of course it had a cross. The mission is of purely historical importance and the presence of the cross on the seal in no way implicates the government in endorsing the Christian religion, at least in my opinion. The other one involves a large Cross as a memorial on public lands. The ACLU would have it removed. I think the whole thing silly. It is an expression not of the government’s religious views but of individuals who erected the memorial. As expression, it should be protected speech under the first amendment.
By Jersey McJones on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Well, the ACLU did not just invent these issues. Someone felt civilly damaged and came to the ACLU for help. That’s how the ACLU works. Regardless of the popularity of an issue, if there’s a case to be made, any case at all, in the name of the Bill of Rights, the ACLU will make it. Now a cross on a government seal does strike me as unconstitutional - or at least debatably so. The cross in the state park less so because of it’s historical significance - but again, debatably so. Are you arguing that the ACLU should cherry-pick it’s causes?
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
I understand that the ACLU represents people who feel that their rights have been abused but not everyone who feels their rights have been abused have had their rights abused. As for the seal, in my opinion, there is zero reasonable cause to believe that the presence of a mission on its seal can be taken as an impermissible establishment of religion. It is simply a recognition of the history of the county. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it. It harms no one and it does nothing to implicate the state in religion. The state and county are among the most liberal and secular in the country. The idea that, because they sport a historical landmark on their seal that they are pushing religion down people’s throats is ludicrous to the nth degree…again in my opinion.
I think that there are issues where the ACLU should sit down with some of it’s complaining would-be clients and explain the facts of life to them. They don’t have to take every case that comes before them and I doubt that they do. I simply would draw the lines in a different place in some issues than the ACLU has. That’s all. Not everything is a constitutional issue.
By Jersey McJones on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
You do not understand the purpose of the ACLU. Just because you are sure of your position, that does not mean everyone else is. The ACLU is there for everyone, not just you. And your “facts of life” are not the same facts of life for everyone else. The ACLU stands up for everyone with a Bill of Rights or some other Rights complaint, no matter how obscure the validity of it be seem. And they do not take every case that comes before them. They carefully sort through thousands of cases every years and take some 6,000 of them annually (which, by the way, shows just how important they really are). They are a bottom up organization where local chapters have great liberty in deciding what to take and what not to take. They specifically zero in on:
That’s it. So, if a local chapter receives a request for help, and they think they can help in any way possible, and the complaint fits the above requisites - they take it. If not, they don’t.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
Precisely. They make choices. I simply disagree with some of those choices. I presume that that’s okay with you. If not, well, I’ll have to live with that knowledge. :^)
Look, my head is pounding like an ess-oh-bee, if you get my meaning. My ability to think clearly is fading fast. I’m going to have to leave the debate there … for now anyway.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
Since when has being able to think clearly been a requirement to take part in debate here? Never stops me. ;)
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Not a requirement…call it a personal decision. :^)
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
I think of it as a life-style choice.
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
I understand that it’s not for everyone…heh!
By Jersey McJones on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Craig, you okay man? Migraines again?
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Affirmative.
By Jersey McJones on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Dude, you can’t keep suffering like this. Hey, I just got some good advice - have you tried a nutritionist? Diet? I heard, “When it’s undiagnosable, try a nutritionist.” Now, you know I’m the consummate athiest, but I heard that from Christian Spiritualists (several), so it ain’t just me, man. Consider a change in diet. Afterall, we are what we eat, right? Look at how caffiene affects migraines. Look at protiens or carbs (who knows?). Look at allergies! Migraine headaches can feel a lot like allergies. Do it bro. I would never encourage a good bro like you to take bullshit drugs for pain - I don’t, and I have plenty of pain (I have a multiple-fracture C7, 5 inguinal hernias, and a smashed hand - let alone the damage I’ve done to my guts over the years). I get the feeling that you ain’t a fuckin pussy looking for a druggy way out - good for you. But suffering for nothing is painfully pointless.
Write me man!
JMJ
By tammara on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
us prairie dogs of mclennan county have an aclu attorney… to defend us for camping in mr bushit’s ditch in texas. cuz mr bushit’s county (and specifically the 9 sq miles right around the pig farm) passed a law that says there isn’t no camping in the ditch, cuz the ditch is really the road, and if we camp in the ditch, we block the road, so it is just for our own safety. cuz texans drive in the ditch a lot, as they can’t tell the difference between a ditch and a road.
the real reason is not about camping in the ditch, it is about keeping mr bushits pig farm area free of thinking and talking.
i say, thank god, goddess or whoever you like for the aclu. the christians don’t own america, though they think they do. religious symbols do not belong on the seal of our states, counties or cities. references to religion do not belong in our state documents.
it is fine to preserve a mission, a church, a temple or any religious site as a treasure of the state or nation, as a part of our history. but not fine to put symbols of those treasures on our government documents, seals or buildings.
By SteveIL on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
Anybody who wants to deny the Holocaust should be mocked, derided, insulted, ridiculed, and be looked upon as foolish and stupid. But not thrown in jail.
And the ACLU does not protect free speech, it does its best to deny it. “Politically correct” speech is the result. There is nothing there in the link Jersey supplied that mention their protecting the 2nd Amendment. Another statement is patently false:
The ACLU was nowhere to be found during the Kelo decision, a judicial travesty which is completely wrecking the 5th Amendment. Per the Libertarian Exchange on their view of the ACLU on Kelo:
And this statement is a bold-faced lie:
When they take and “win” Establishment Clause cases against towns or school boards, they get paid by the government, and it is never cheap. The ACLU will shop a case to a judge they know will give them a favorable ruling. That is why they are so effective; the threat of an ACLU lawsuit is enough to convince these towns to settle, even if they are right or could win. They are no better than one of the Black Hand Mafia extortion gangs of a century ago, except the ACLU is a more dangerous form of protection racket. While I don’t have a problem with an ACLU attorney from earning his/her take, the least they can do is tell the truth about how they make their money.
When the ACLU actually decides to help preserve the entire Constitution, then maybe they can be thought of as a protecter of the civil liberties of all Americans. They can’t pick and choose which rights they’re willing to defend and still be thought of as “defenders of civil liberties”. They’re shysters, shakedown artists, and an organization that should have the RICO statutes thrown at them.
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
Um, well, yeh. Like I said…I don’t agree with everything they do (and I could have added “that they don’t do”) but I’d rather we have them than that we not have them. RICO…um, okay. Let’s throw the whole lot of them in prison like the, um, Black Hand, because they murder people by the hundreds, maybe thousands, run prostitution and gambling rings out of the back rooms, firebomb entire cities if they refuse to pay them “protection” money and because, well, there’s just no distinction really between the ACLU and the mafia. Mario Puzo was really writing about the ACLU in his famous novels. He figured he’d better change the name to the Corleone family for fear of retaliation from the dread ACLU.
If you’re picking up a bit of sarcasm here, you’re not wrong.
By Jersey McJones on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
Jesus SteveIL, do ever actually listen to yourself?
Read this. Now, are you being ignorant, or are you just lying?
Now, I don’t know about you, but that seems pretty clear to me. Emminent Domain is a tricky issue because it is not as simple as government/private property. The governments involved are usually local, like with Kelo, and urban, like with Kelo. The plans usually, and should, involve mixed developement, like with Kelo, are approved by ballot initiatives or popular support and involve run-down areas - and that’s where Kelo got sticky. The local governments are elected by the people and before they even get elected they usually make it quite clear what they’re planning. They bring it to the community, and usually run at least in part on the issue. It is primarily an urban issue, and therefore usually effects Dems. Urban areas run down. It happens. Like everything else, urban areas get old and run down. Eventually someone has to step in and do something about that. I know that you are against anything “community” or “government,” but your simplistic view of the issue is pathetic.
Have a link? No, you don’t. Lawyers get paid. Live with it. I don’t hear you complaining about other lawyers getting paid.
Well, what would you have them do? Take action against a town and then get stuck in front of THAT town’s judge? You can only “shop” a case within the limits of local, state, and federal law. Complain about ALL shopping or none at all, SteveIL.
Exactly what part of CIVIL LIBERTIES do you fail to grasp?
As for the rest of your sick rant, I’ll let Craig’s comments stand on that.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
As for organizations that don’t defend ALL of the Constitution, how about that NRA? For some sick reason, they seem stuck on the Second Amendment. They STILL haven’t taken a stand on the Kelo case…can you believe it?
RICO! RICO! RICO!…
By SteveIL on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
NRA
National Rifle Association. Kind of makes it fairly specific. Made up of people who own guns.
ACLU
American Civil Liberties Union. Lawyers. People who work with the law, which in the US, is to be based on the guaranteed rights in the Constitution. The ACLU claim to preserve all of what was in the Bill of Rights. They don’t. Bait-and-switch. As far as the ACLU as being more dangerous than the Black Hand (and I was only talking about the Black Hand, not organized crime under the Mafia later), they affect far more people than the Black Hand ever did; they just do it with a briefcase instead of knives, guns or bombs.
Jersey, your explanation of the Kelo decision is a bad copy of how a conservative would argue against Roe v. Wade. Only problem is that Kelo violated the 5th Amendment. The Fifth Amendment explicitly states taking for public use, not public purpose, and must be provided just compensation. This didn’t happen.
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
The ACLU is what it is. It isn’t the well rounded organization that I would like it to be but when I look at the specifics of the cases that it does take on, I generally, much more often than not, agree both that (a) the case is a worthy one and that (b) I agree with the position that they take in the case. To invoke RICO on them…
As for Kelo, I think, based, as you say, on the fifth amendment “public use” clause, that the court came to a faulty conclusion. However, reading through the decision, I see that prior decisions were heading in the direction that they took for some time. Like it or not, ours is a system of law that includes not only the Constitution and statutes but also prior decisions of court judges and justices that ruled on those constitutional and statutory issues. If this were not the case, for example, the only instances where the first amendment free speech would come into play would be when Congress actually passed a bill and the bill entered law in which that law infringed upon people’s free speech. The courts have extended the language of the first amendment to include many things that have nothing to do with the Congress, or the state legislatures via the fourteenth amendment, passing laws.
I personally think Kelo stinks like fish that’s been left out on the counter for a week. Like you, I think taking privately owned property that is not condemned (or condemning property that is perfectly suitable for dwelling in) in order to then allow private contractors to build property for other private owners to buy at vastly inflated value all so that the government that takes the property can benefit from the resulting higher taxation is a bastardization of the “private use” clause but it was, unlike Roe v. Wade, little more than a baby step advance of some previous court holdings. The result has been a backlash by state legislatures passing a slew of anti-Kelo laws. We’ll have to see how effective these laws are at turning back the tide of such takings that are so out of line with the fifth amendment.
Like it or not, even the fifth amendment doesn’t demand, and has never been interpreted to demand, that the government’s remuneration for taken property be the value of the property after development but the fair market value at pre-development valuation. No one ever thinks that the value placed on their taken property is high enough but as long as the offer is in line with surrounding similar properties and with the property tax valuation that the owner has been assessed upon, it passes muster.
Hopefully with the addition of Alito and Roberts and the deletion of O’Connor, the Supreme Courts will be reversing the trend that culminated in Kelo.
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
As for “And the ACLU does not protect free speech, it does its best to deny it. “Politically correct” speech is the result.” (comment #17), there is this in refutation. From the link:
This is one of my favorite modern sacred songs and one that is often used as a praise chorus in Church services at some of the most “fundi” denominational congregations. If it were true that the only thing the ACLU were interested in was promoting “political correctness” and a purely secular society scrubbed clean of religion and religious influences, the ACLU could be expected to have stood beside the School’s decision to not allow the song. The conclusion that the ACLU does defend free speech rights seems indisputable.
What the ACLU does not defend is speech that can be confused with state endorsement of religion such as a massive 10 Commandments monument at a court house unless it is clearly a part of a historical display that gives prominence to other historical sources of our justice system. No one can deny that the 10 Commandments have their place in the history of Western jurisprudence (and so the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of such historical displays) but a display of only the 10 Commandments gives the impression that the Commandments have a prominence that is out of proportion to the many other sources, gives the impression that our justice system is of a religious rather than secular nature, that our government endorses the source of the Commandments (the scriptures of the Jewish and Christian religions) and that our justice system enforces the purely religious Commandments.
Just because one disagrees with some of the choices that the ACLU makes is scant reason to charge them with not defending free speech. The song, Our God Is an Awesome God, is hardly PC.