The darkest hour of free speech....

First things first: Link

Anyone whot claims that Holocaust did not happen, is a f*cking moron, period. And David Irving is an grade-A asshat. That said, throwing people in jail because they dispute the Holocaust is STUPID. I really fail to see how Europe can claim to support free speech (the Muhammad-drawings), and then say nothing when someone is thrown in to jail (in Europe even!) for holding an opinion that is not kosher.

Like I said before: free speech means that you have to accept comments and viewpoints that you might not agree with and that are downright stupid. If such comments are not allowed, then we do not have free speech. Here we have a textbook example of this "pseudo-free speech", where "you are free to talk about anything you wish. But not about this. Or this. Or this. Or this". Either we have free speech, and tolerate viewpoints that differ from ours, or we don't have free speech, in which case we should just stop pretending that we do. They should just come out and say "you are free to discuss anything you like as long as it's acceptable to the powers-at-be. Don't confuse this system with free speech, however".

What next? they start throwing people to prison because they believe in Santa Claus? or that Earth is flat? Hell, most people believe in God, a being that can't be proven and that relies on blind faith. Should those people be thrown to jail, because believing in such a creature is dumb?

Maybe Irving has some "evidence" to back up his claims. To be honest, I have no idea. But either he has some evidence, or he relies on blind faith. Why is he being sent to jail, but the millions of people who rely on blind faith in their belief of God (or Santa) are not in jail? because God is a "Good Thing" (tm), whereas Holocaust was a very, very bad thing? Hell, maybe they start carting atheists in to prison in the future. I mean: what is the difference, really? David Irving doesn't believe that something happened. Atheists don't believe in God. Is the difference that David Irving is disputing the existence of a terrible period in human history, whereas atheists are disputing the existence of a "Good Thing"?

Holding a viewpoint that differs from the mainstream is not something that should be punished. The viewpoint might be stupid and wrong, but they have the right to their viewpoint. Who decides what viewpoints are acceptable and what are not? The politicians? Corporations? The teeming horde of ignorant masses?

No comments: