David Irving

I agree with the major points of George F. Will's argument why the imprisonment of David Irving means Less Freedom, Less Speech (Free registration required to view article):

What folly. What dangers do the likes of Irving pose? Holocaust denial is the occupation of cynics and lunatics who are always with us but are no reason for getting governments into the dangerous business of outlawing certain arguments. Laws criminalizing Holocaust denial open a moral pork barrel for politicians: Many groups can be pandered to with speech restrictions. Why not a law regulating speech about slavery? Or Stalin's crimes?

Some defenders of the prosecution of Irving say that Europe -- and especially Austria, Hitler's birthplace -- rightly has, from recent history, an acute fear of totalitarians. But that historical memory should cause Europe to recoil from government-enforced orthodoxy about anything.

American legislators, using the criminal law for moral exhibitionism, enact "hate crime" laws. Hate crimes are, in effect, thought crimes. Hate-crime laws mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed as a result of, or at least when accompanied by, particular states of mind of which the government particularly disapproves. Governments that feel free to stigmatize, indeed criminalize, certain political thoughts and attitudes will move on to regulating what expresses such thoughts and attitudes -- speech.

Emphasis Mine

I suppose that this moral pork barrelling fits in with the idea that we are not supposed to think only obey. Why should we evaluate the arguments for and against the Holocaust, when the Government has a law saying that it happened?

Nearly every week when I am out selling the Party newspaper, I have arguments with a Holocaust denier. This has been going for years, but I persist. He is willing to listen to me in spite of my speech impediment, and I am willing to try to counter his arguments. I am not very good but, at least, I try. Other Party comrades just shut him out. We will not convince each other, but a dialogue is opened up.

In defending the right of David Irving and other Holocaust deniers to the right of free speech, I am defending my rights to the same.

But this challenges the orthodox views of those who believe because someone in authority said something was true. If they had to think for themselves, they would be lost. Their whole lives have been built around the fact that correct thinking brings material rewards: they get the promotion at work because they agree with the boss.

People do not realise how important free speech is to the working of Capitalism (as well as Socialism and Communism). Capitalism primarily relies on innovation: things that have not been done before. Those in authority are not the fount of all wisdom. No human being can know everything or is right all of the time. Assumptions and ways of doing things must be constantly challenged. This is in order to achieve continual improvement. This leads to competitive advantage. Those businesses who asquiesce to the owner in all things will eventually go broke. No one knows who will come up with the next killer application. This is the dynamism of Capitalism. We all have a part to play. And we cannot have innovation without free speech.