"it took Prof Richard Evans and two assistants over a year of preparation, as part of the defence team in the court case Irving brought against Deborah Lipstadt, to unpick the ways he twisted the facts."
But they did it!... and so we probably shouldn't have to, or be subjecting lesser, more fallible minds to the task. I'm not saying it should be banned. Those fallible minds should still be free to buy their own copies. But the government shouldn't have to provide them one.
It's a matter of the nature of the crime: A crime against humanity.
(, Sat 29 Apr 2017, 4:06, Share, Reply)
So holding a view which isn't supported by the 100% of facts,
is a crime against humanity? Careful.
You're essentially talking about criminalising independent thought, and classifying it more dangerous than all other crime.
Also specifically in this case, by banning Irving's work you'd lend credence to the notion that there is some kind of left wing conspiracy to prevent "the truth" of the Holocaust being widely known.
(, Sat 29 Apr 2017, 10:54, Share, Reply)