I wonder why some people go out of their way to help others, while others can be so cruel.

I don't understand why anybody should be punished for denying holocaust. Well put in jail at least. What crime is that? Is stupidity a crime? Why don't they put people in jail for denying anything else? They have just exercised their right to free speech, no matter if we like it or not. Were they trying to get somebody killed? Were they calling anybody names? Let's take a survey what society thinks and if you think something else what majority does - you go to jail.

Don't get me wrong. I don't deny holocaust. Personally I thing people that do are stupid. And I feel sorry for anybody who went to concentration camp. But why should somebody be sent to jail for being stupid and trying to dismiss the historical evidence? Then we could send to jail all literal believers of Bible (especially old testament). They dismiss the evidence too. They are offending the scientists, geologists, historians and so on.

He is being tried because at some point in thier past Austria felt it expediate to pass a law making it a crime to deny the Holocaust. I think it is an interesting sidepoint to this discussion that Austria felt it important to pass such a law, perhaps to prevent books and comments like David Irvings from taking place.

'But why should somebody be sent to jail for being stupid and trying to dismiss the historical evidence? Then we could send to jail all literal believers of Bible (especially old testament). They dismiss the evidence too.' [imro]

I do think that Imro has a point there.

I understand his point also. Not sure of Austria's constitutional laws, but if free speech is included, there must be provisions that are added for special circumstances such as this revising portions to "no free speech over certain subjects".

I also understand Austria's government wanting to preserve the histrocity of the event for future generations by enacting a law protecting the validity of the Holocaust, but I'm not sure that is the correct way to go about it. When I first heard the news about the law I thought about it but didn't form an opinion one way or another at that time. Still haven't. But, I would probably lean toward the law being infringing on the rights of free speech which I consider a basic human right. People say things all the time that I don't like or disagree with. Makes you wonder what other subject they would outlaw. As imro says, we all agree the event was horrific, but should it be unlawful to deny it? Crass, immmoral, ignorant, insensitive perhaps but should one be jailed for writing against it? I'm thinking not because I don't like where that could lead......

if you make holocaust denial a serious crime, don't you take the idiots who do it more seriously than they deserve??

I agree with you in theory--I do find it interesting that Austria has a law on the books (it evidently goes back to 1947)--banning Nazi revivalism and making it a criminal act to justify the actions of the 3rd Reich. I would tend to interpret this law as being along the same lines as laws that are intended to combat "hate crimes." It is interesting to note that the basis for the arrest and trial is not his books--but statements made in speeches in Austria--so is the issue really free press--or is it a possible issue of inciting hate crimes. He was arrested after entering Austria to address a student "pro nazi" organization. This issue tends to tie in with another out there right now--the Mohamed cartoons.

It can get very complicated, can't it?

Should it really be illegal to have doubts that the holocaust happened?
Is it illegal to doubt that the moon landings happened?
What if it became illegal to doubt that Jesus was the son of God?

Is it really illegal, or is it just illegal to allow those doubts to cause a public affray?

I know that historians discuss and debate the reality or the importance of many historical 'facts' - why not the Holocaust?

Personally, I feel that there is enough evidence to support its reality. So much that I find it one of the saddest and most depressing aspects of history that I have studied. That doen't mean that I think it's wrong to question it. Questioning surely leads to greater knowledge.
But there is a time and a place for everything.
Stirring up trouble is another matter.

I haven't found the exact text of the law (wouldn't be able to read it anyway) but I don't think it is illegal to have doubts--but is illegal to express your doubts in a public forum, such as books, because that is interpreted as fostering Nazism. To some extent isn't the case in Italy about the legality of broadcasting belief in Jesus as the son of God?

whats the point in it being legal to have doubts if its illegal to express them? thats a free speech issue, isn't it?