I will. We were talking about this yesterday. Although in all fairness he was arrested in Austria for breaking an Austrian law. A bullshit law, yes. But it's not quite the same thing as the perfectly legal cartoons that had half the world's panties in a bunch calling for beheadings of the artist. Both are crap, yes. But you have to respect the laws of the country you are in. Many a poor, drug-laden Austrailian has found that out the hard way while travelling to Indonesia. It's no different.

What steel-bellied editor is going to print a page of his poisonous invective to show the world that any opinion, no matter how offensive, should have a forum?

Possibly Dan Savage? So far he has maintained a reasonable position for its consistency. I would be curious to see if his passion includes solidarity with David Irving. I remain consistent in my support of unfettered editorial discretion.

Jerod: You write, "You have to respect the laws of the country you're in." I guess so, but this is a much more complicated proposition when you're dealing with words and images in the age of the internet. For example, if you were to read, in Austria, the anti-Semitic poem that Brendan just posted on the Slog, would that be an illegal act? Would it only become an illegal act if you read Brendan's Slog post outloud in an Austrian internet cafe?

I'm working on a piece for next week's Stranger that touches on some of these issues, in the context of censorship by U.S. tech companies in China. And I don't have an answer here, but I just want to complicate your response a bit.

We want free speech to be an easy issue. Unfortunately, it's not.

Remember, folks: what's illegal in Austria and several other European countries is NOT being an Anti-Semetic douchebag, or saying Anti-Semetic bullshit, but denying the historical reality of the Holocaust. So Irving's poem would not be illegal.

And the Daily Northwestern recently printed a column by our very own local Holocaust-denier, aptly-named electrical engineering prof. Arthur Butz. But they wouldn't print the Danish cartoons. Cowards.

You're right, the internet does complicate things. Particularly when the illegal act is an idea as in this case.

Bill puts the point on it above... I have no problem with people's opinions being allowed, no matter how offensive they may be.

I do, however, have a problem with someone who wants to publish outright falsehoods and inaccuracies.

Is that dangerous. Perhaps in a "Galileo says the Earth revolves around the sun" kind of way, but I'd sure love to put an end to the pseudo-science of many Republicans in this country.

Parsing about 'falsehoods and inaccuracies' is exactly the problem with fettered free speech - and rigtheousness about 'western' freedom. What should a mullah say to his flock about the 'free' west now? And, how about public/private, for that matter? Check the link for Yahoo editing 'Allah'...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/20/yahoo_upsets_religious/

I wrote in, uh, the Slog comments the other day that I thought the laws in Europe banning Holocaust denial were unjust and should be repealed.

There's a difference between the David Irving story and the cartoon controversy. David Irving broke a law; the Danish cartoonists did not. Without a law being broken, the Muslim protestors were demanding a surrendering of the Danish cartoonists' freedom of expression, just to appease the Muslims' religious sensibilities. The law that David Irving broke was there for a long time. There is no surprise that he was penalized for breaking it, and thus, no outrage. It's not David Irving who needs our support in the name of freedom; it's the people of Austria, who live in a country where this law exists, denying them the seemingly basic Western belief that a person should not be penalized for expressing a point of view. If no one was moved to change this law before, David Irving's conviction should have no effect on it now.

"I do, however, have a problem with someone who wants to publish outright falsehoods and inaccuracies."

Me, too. That problem was properly addressed by Deborah Lipstadt and the U.K. court that ruled she did not libel Mr. Irving by calling him incompetent and a holocaust denier. It was improperly addressed by the Austrian court.

"Is that dangerous. Perhaps in a "Galileo says the Earth revolves around the sun" kind of way, but I'd sure love to put an end to the pseudo-science of many Republicans in this country."

I'd sure hate to do it by putting a single person in jail.