Some of you obviously have no real knowledge about this, so it seems to me when I read the posts.

The sentencing is not 'outrageous' but a simple consequence of the law. The judge had no alternative to a prison sentence (one could only debate the number of years). The law in question is not a normal law regarding free speech or stupid opinions, it is a law specifically regarding lies about the holocaust and nothing else.

You can lie about Stalin's, Pol Pot's, the Turks', Bin Laden's crimes or whoever you want to and it is merely a question of bad taste. Not so in this case.

These specific laws (in Germany and Austria) have been a demand of the Allies after the war to which there has been no alternative. In the case of Austria, the 'Staatsvertrag' which left the whole of Austria outside of the Warsaw pact and neutral and meant a retreat of the Red Army also binds Austria not to change that law (I don't know whether there is a time limit) as far as I know.

So if you attack the sentence it only shows you are not informed, the law itself may be debated (as Greg has).

I see no majority both in Austria and Germany for a change of these laws at this time in history. When the last survivor of the holocaust will have died then there might be the time for a change of these laws to the usual European standards of free speech. Up til then, they are a special legacy of our murderous past.

BTW, Irving has recanted during the trial and said he now accepts the holocaust as having happened.

Wolfgang