Holocaust denier sentenced to 3 years

anyone read it out of intrest?

Why should you be sent to prison for something you say and not something you do? Why should anyone/any country have the right to tell you what you can and can't say? It's totally out of order! If people don't agree with what he said then call him a dick and get over it!

exactly, freedom of speech and all that.

If you lock this guy up we should be able to lock all the muslims up for holding banners saying death to no muslims.

Freedom of speech is alright but this was inciting racial hatred. Fair sentance IMO

yeah but we can, and we should, cos that's illegal un all

words are the most powerful weapons man holds.

every genocide known to man was incited through words, speech needs to be restricted to protect society.

everyman is entitled to his own perspective and belief spectrum, but if his views threaten the safety of his fellow citizens he shouldn't be allowed to voice them in public.

For example I wouldn't want Adolf Hitler hosting anti-semitic lectures in Iran, history has proven that when a man like Adolf is given a platform to peddle his prejudice towards a receptive audience - the results are genocide.

Would you allow the holocaust to happen again in the name of free speech?

So are you saying that if people don't shut their traps there will be another holocaust? That's complete crap! One of the reasons for ousting Saddam was because he wouldn't let his country have a point of view. Do you think we should all be silenced?

In view of a few things you've said in the last few weeks, you think there is nothing wrong with animals being skinned alive because 'shit happens in life' yet denying the holcaust means you should spend 3 years of your life in prison. Which of these two is the worst crime?

You've not understood my inital post, I'll simplify it.

Followers of Hitlers national socialism, were followers of an ideology that was sold through Hitlers words, without words there would of been no Nazi party... Had the German authorities of the time been able to censor him he would never of reached a position of power.

His views of jews weren't shared by every German, he planted his perceptions of jews into their minds. Germany needed a scapegoat - Hitler provided them with one.

The result was 6 million dead jews.

Some people need to be censored as they are a threat to society.

And Irving didn't simply deny the Holocaust! You talk of him as if he was an unbiased historian, he was a right wing propogandist that created fallacious accounts of the past to substantiate an acceptable form of antisemitism... He has been one of the biggest recruiters to anti-jewish hostilities since Hitler.

look at abu hamza... everyone kicked off at him and the various other islamic 'scholars' that we're spouting western hatred and supposedly brainwashing young muslims into radical beliefs, fundamentalism and suicide bombing.

i fail to see how irving is any different... unless its the fact us white christian westerners aren't the targets this time...

one mans words can be another mans ammo

ah, now I properly understand what you were saying the other week about not believing in free speech when we were arguing about the cartoons the other week, but it's a frighteningly fine line between that and '84 style thought police