In the interests of avoiding hypocrisy

[andrewducker]

I'd like to make it clear that I'm totally, utterly 100% against the jailing David Irving for denying The Holocaust..

This is for two reasons. 
One of them is less important - he recanted fifteen years ago. 
The other is summed up by the person he unsuccessfully sued for libel "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth."

Locking people up for expressing an opinion is something I find totally repellent, _no matter what that opinion might be_.  Unless the person is actively inciting others to commit harmful acts, I believe they should have freedom to express themselves as they wish.

Comments

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

If it's ok to pick and choose which laws we break, why have laws at all? As which ones are deemed ok to break will vary from person to person.

[andrewducker]

Whether to obey unjust laws is a constant question for the educated citizen, creating a necessary tension between them and the government which pushes forward changes.

I think democracy is useful, but I don't consider it somehow magically able to create Absolute Good, and my actions are responsible only to what I believe is right.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

What's "the educated" got to do with it? Does your law treat the educated any different from the less-well educated?

As to what is and isn't unjust will also vary between individuals, whether educated or otherwise.

The proper response to laws you think are unjust is to attempt to get them changed.

[andrewducker]

The proper response to laws you think are unjust is to attempt to get them changed.

Indeed. And also to disobey them until them, if they are sufficently unjust. Whether any particular law is merely unjust enough to lobby for change, or so unjust as to be ignored is a matter for the conscience of the individual.

I believe that at the end of World War 2 they pretty much categorically put an end to the excuse of "I was just following orders."

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

I'd say the reason to obey laws you consider unjust is so others will obey the laws you consider just.

[andrewducker]

That would be the case for the middle ground - laws which are merely unjust enough to lobby for change.

Aer you saying that you would obey a law, no matter how unjust it was? If you lived in a country where the law was that women who showed an ankle should be reported to the morality department for it, so they could be punished, would you do so?

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

No, I wouldn't. but we live in middle-ground countries, and Austria is such a middle-ground country too. If you take you next holiday in Austria, will you deny the existence of the Holocaust just to make a point about free-speech?

[andrewducker]

Nope. _I_ wouldn't. And I haven't - I've merely said that I think it's wrong, and I hope that it gets changed.

And I'm still standing by that - I think it's a reprehensible law, and I'm against the jailing of people for breaking it.

Was that unclear?