If you really believe in free speech, are you angry about the conviction of Ernst Zundel?

Answer 1

Of course I am angry!

Freedom of speech doesn't have a stipulation which states that what you say has to be tasteful, agreeable, or anything of the sort. Restricting free speech because someone might get offended is an act of totalitarianism, not an act of respect. Laws restricting free speech in any manner set a precedent which can and have been used to make laws even more restrictive. The excuse the state uses to pull it off is irrelevant.

Anyone who truly supports freedom of speech should be outraged that a man was IMPRISONED for what he SAID. However, most people only support freedom of speech for opinions that they agree with and many people are quick to say that they would support censorship of certain unpopular viewpoints. This attitude that is so prevalent in western society is frightening and it reeks of "1984".

Answer 2

While I think Zundel has his head firmly embedded in his rear, I also think he has every right to believe what he likes.

However, the real question here, at least as far as I am concerned, since the person who posed this question sought me out and asked me to answer it based on my answer to a freedom of speech question, is not about free speech, but about law.

In the US, Zundel was deported for visa violations. In Canada he was convicted of publishing false news reports and other criminal activities leading to his ultimate deportation to the land of his birth, Germany, where the laws are pretty rough.

In Germany, where Zundel was convicted of Holocaust denial, Holocaust denial is against the law. In the United States and Canada, it is not. In the USA, Holocaust denial would be protected by the First Amendment, and as such he would have every right to spew his fanatical hate ridden garbage.

In Germany, there are clear laws on the books about Holocaust denial committed by German citizens. He broke the law. Period. You do the crime, you do the time.

What people here seem to be forgetting is that the First Amendment only applies in the USA. Regardless of what we may or may not believe is right or wrong, our laws and rights and privileges do NOT apply in other nations, and we as a nation and a people have no right to force our ways on other countries.

Answer 3

As Justice Brandeis (I know, Olover Wendell Holmes gets the credit, but he got the line from Louis Brandeis) said; freedom of speech does not include the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.

Answer 4

I don't say I am angry, but I don't think people should be jailed merely for saying idiotic things. The free marketplace of ideas is the best way to combat malicious nonsense.

Answer 5

"Rubbing salt in the deep wounds of milions of people is not part of free speech."

Denying something doesn't "rub salt" in the wounds - maybe mocking the situation would, denying is nothing to jail someone for, asshat.

Perhaps consider that many try to bury the Holocaust because it invites shame and hatred against the German/European people. Should people who try to remind people of the Holocaust, then, be locked up for their misuse of "free speech"?

Something to think about.

Answer 6

Yes, but I'm American, hopefully that will never happen here.

We would just berate him to insignificance with our own free speech.

Answer 7

What he does is not exercise free speech... it's hate propaganda. I would have no second thoughts about pulling the trigger to blast him to his beloved Hitler.