If anything should be learned fom history it is this: as members of any country's society, we have certine right and in countries such as the USA we have a right called free speach, but we should know by now that the government reserves the right to disband out rights in wartime, or when they feel threatend.

For example, during the civil war, Lincoln declared marshial law (that is, he has compleat controle the constitution and the bill of rights, and everything is null and void). Durring this time many paper writers and publishers were thrown into jail with no trile for simply disagreeing with the president.

Another example. Durring WW2(or perhaps more after) many Japonise Americans were put into Japones concentration camps because the US gov. was afraid that they might attack the US.

Another example. Durring and after the Cold War many Americans were accused of being communists with no proof and either thrown in jail or blacklisted from just about every US buissness.

The most recent example of this is the US patriot act! This basicly takes away the right of US citicens to say anything negitive about the US.

This has happened all through history yet it still surprizes people when their rights are violated. The point is that it doesn't matter if this guy was overstepping the bounds of free speech because the only free speech (espesialy durring wars) that exist is that approved by the government. Which when you think about it is not free speech at all.

BLA BLA BLA...have any of you ever actually read his theories???...I doubt it...He did not say "...the holocaust never existed..."

You are all just blowing smoke and patting yourselves on the back for your intellectual honesty...NO ONE SHOULD BE JAILED FOR IDEAS OR OPINIONS!...it's ridiculous and people like you that repeat crap that you heard somewhere without checking the facts yourself are the reason that it does happen. David Irving raises some questions about a dark and barbaric time in human history and NO ONE has answered his questions, they just denounce his audacity to question something that is thought of as "Established Fact"...remember the inferiority of the Negro race was an "Established Fact" in the American southern states not long ago...and Martin Luther King was jailed for questioning that fact. Use your heads not your emotions and your mouths...Shut up and think!...Anne Frank's Diary was written before her death,she died in 1944... HOWEVER, parts of it were written in ballpoint pen...the ballpoint pen was not INVENTED until the eary 1950's...what does this mean? am I an anti-semetic, Nazi sympathizer because I want to know the truth about that fact??? David Irving brings up many questions and NO ONE answers them.

WHile he should not be jailed for having incorrect viewpoints, I think it MIGHT be justifiable for him to be jailed if he's trying to persuade others to share his viewpoint. Someone who says that the holocaust never existed is either insane or has an agenda that shouldn't be allowed to continue. I wouldn't jail him though. I'd just have him assassinated.

What he chooses to do with his mouth is his business. I don't have to agree or disagree. I have no personal interest in either position. I have always accepted the "accepted" account of the holocaust. I have no substantial basis for challenging it internally, let alone externally.

For any stated position or "story" about any time in history someone is going to present an alternative account of the same events.

His speech does not itself constitute a violation of other's rights, any more than NAMBLA violates little boys by stating that they believe it is acceptable and healthy for boys and men to be involved in love relationships. It is the act of engaging in those love relationships where rights can be violated.

I don't even see how this account can be used as justification of the violation of rights. The only thing one could possibly fear from his statements is if it could be used to somehow justify the extermination of Jews. But he didn't say that. His denial of it's occurence doesn't constitute a statement affirming the act of exterminating Jews.

Here in the US we tend not to jail individuals who hold controversial positions which can lead to "illegal" activities. And he didn't even do that...

For example, there is a anti drug prohibition movement in the US which is active and vocal, yet no one calls for their incarceration, in spite of the fact that their arguments can be used to justify the use of illegal drugs.

So can someone explain the case for jailing him for this speech.