Freedom of speech has suffered another blow today.

David Irving received today a 3-year jail in Austria because of comments he made 17 years ago denying the Nazi genocide of Jews, claiming that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. As a matter of fact, his views on the matter have changed since and he now claims that millions of Jews have indeed been murdered, but he holds the position the Hitler not only was not aware of it, but he “extended his protective hand” towards the Jews.
Although his motives might not be that ‘innocent’ and his opinions not to be taken seriously, he should have the right to express them without the fear of being prosecuted by anyone, let alone one of the states that was responsible for these atrocious acts that he claimed never happened. The only way of fighting lies and nazi propaganda is with the truth and not with censorship.

Is it not hypocritical to support the right of a Danish cartoonist to make fun of Mohammad and deny the right of a British (self-proclaimed historian) to deny the holocaust? What happened to the “I don’t agree with what you say but I’ll defend to death your right to say it?”

To read: BBC NEWS - Holocaust denier Irving to appeal

Freedom on trial from Guardian Unlimited:

The So What! blog says: “Is it not hypocritical to support the right of a Danish cartoonist to make fun of Muhammad and deny the right of a British (self-proclaimed historian) to deny the Holocaust? What happened to the “I don’t agree with what you say but I’ll defend to death your right to say it?”.

It is debatable how transferable these ideas of protection are between the two cases. Irving’s conviction in Vienna might also invite comparisons with the recent failures to convict the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, on hate charges. He faces a retrial on one charge in October.