This ignores the responsibility of the acting agent.
No it doesn't. No where do I address the punishment for acting on such propoganda as such punishments are not being dusputed here. What is being disputed is whether punishment for propoganda designed to lead others to violence is appropriate..
I can say all day that I hate Jews or blacks or white folks from Michigan, but I'm not killing them. If some wanker decides he likes what I say and decides to kill someone, the killer is responsible for the murder. Placing blame on what someone says and not on the actual murderer's act is the same logic that the Nazis themseleves used.
The murderer and the one inciting to murder both have responsibilities.
"Hitler ordered me to do it! It wasn't my fault! I was only following orders!" No, it doesn't work that way. We all have ultimate responsibility for our actions.
Yes, I agree we all have ulitinate responsibility for our actions. The one following the orders, the one giving the orders, and the ones creating propoganda ro create an environment where such orders could be carried out.
That is why propogandists connected with the Rwandan genocide have been sent to jail, even if they never said 'hit that man' or weilded a machette themselves.
Saying something negative about a person doesn't harm that person.
Simplistic spherical objects. If nothing results from saying something negative about a person then they are unharnmed by such speech. You also miss out an important factor. This isn't "Monty Lovering is a bad boy". This is, ultimately "Jews are stinking evil scum who deserve what they get as they're trying to take over the world".
This isn't some personal assault based on something someone may or may have not done. This is race-based hate speech direcetd against millions of innocent people not even known to the author of that speech, based on fantasy, speech that not only CAN lead to violence against Jews, BUT DOES LEAD TO VIOLENCE AGAINST JEWS.
Basic human rights don't include the right not to be offended.
This is not about offence.
Draw silly pictures of Allah, Jesus and Abraham in a circle jerk for all I care. No Westerner has killed a Muslim because some Dane drew a picture of the prop[het Mo' with a fuse coming out of his turban.
This is about how some forms of speech lead to violence or injustice against others.
Whereas there are those whom Irving has given lectures to, there are those who consume his writings, there are those who are members of groups he has contacts with... they have acted violently based upon the lies in his lectures and writings.
Once we squelch speech, we only make it more attractive to engage in. I never considered burning a flag, but if it was illegal here, I would promptly burn one, just because it is a violation of my natural rights to restrict my speech where no one is harmed by it.
Again, you seem to be mixing up acts which harm no one (flag burning) and acts which can reasonably lead to violence (inciting racial hate). Chalk and cheese old chap. There's a direct link between Irving and violent neo-Nazi's, what else do you want?
And STILL not a single word from anyone about how the alternative (letting scum like Irving spread their propoganda) unavoidably infringes the freedoms of the group targetted by such propoganda.
Why is everyone so concerned about the freedom of speech of people like Irving and are not even willing to answer questions regarding the rights of groups whose freedoms are infringed by such speech?
I love the fact he was hoist by his own petard. Again - the UK court case in which he was so severelty criticised by the court was actually a libel action he bought against someone who called him a holocaust revisionist, LOL.
He's a nasty, racist old man whose hate has financially ruined him and turned him into a pariah amongst all but those who hang upon his words. He was banned from entering Austria, he broke the ban in additon to breaking the law back then. I don't know if it was hubris or a misguided attempt to bolster sales of his books by getting publicity. As I mentioned earlier, entering court he was making damn sure people got a good pack shot of Hitler's War. This book in itself is a good indication of his true atttitudes. Later editions of the book have had all mention of the Holocaust and Death Camps removed. And he denies he's a revisionist! LOL.