When censorship becomes counterproductive

    The British “historian” David Irving is now on trial on Austria for violating its laws against the denial of the Holocaust in a 1989 interview he gave in that country.  Holocaust denial is a crime in many European countries and Mr. Irving who is a racist and anti-Semite is famous for statements where he not only denies that the Shoah ever happens but where he talks about Jewish conspiracies and although hateful ideas.  Right in order to defend himself and to play the role of martyr, Mr. Irvin is saying that he changed his mind on the Holocaust because he encountered new evidence that showed that it indeed happened and that it is ludicrous for him to be tried for something that happened form that 17 years ago.  My point is this, I believe that the laws that there is in numerous European countries against hate speech and against the denial of the Holocaust are not only counterproductive, but are on the contrary helping those with hateful and anti-Semitic view to attract attention and to find a bigger arena on which to try to diffuse their hatred.  I understand the noble sentiment behind having laws that forbid people to deny history especially one as significant as the Shoah, but I believe that by making hatred speech the forbidden fruit they make it more attractive instead of making it less so.  David Irving and people such as him are able to attract media attention and thus to reach many people when they open their filthy mouths to revise history and to talk about groups of people as being inferior.  Having such media attention is an excellent means to not only achieve fame, but to make a living out of the idea that they are being victimized by governments who cannot tolerate free speech when it express an unacceptable idea.  I think that what we should do with people like David Irving is to deny them what they crave the most, that is public attention.  We must ignore them because then, they will understand that they cannot gain attention with hate and that they will only encounter silence when they attempt to whip our collective memory with venomous speech.  Silence would not mean approval, appeasement, or surrender.  Silence would mean delegitimation and it would stop the perception that they are victims by making them invisible.