My alumni magazine ran an interesting article this month about Emory Professor Deborah Lipstadt. Dr. Lipstadt published a scholarly book about Holocaust revisionists, a group that attempts to bring some legitimacy to Holocaust denial by inserting themselves into historical debate and society. She was surprised to find herself being sued for libel for calling writer David Irving a Holocaust denier by name. Mr. Irving is infamous, according to the article, for writing the book Hitler’s War, which portrays Hitler in a favorable light. Mr. Irving is infamous for making public statements like, “Hitler was the best friend the Jews had in Europe”, the Holocaust is a “fabrication” and a “legend”, and the delightful, “more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz”. Lovely. [ - More after the jump - ]
The case was tried in England, where the libel laws are apparently more difficult for the defendant. Dr. Lipstadt had to prove to the court that Mr. Irving was, in fact, a Holocaust denier. Would that mean that she would need to prove in court that the Holocaust is an historical fact? Mr. Irving defended himself - “declaring no one else as capable of doing so”. A court analyst for the defense found that “dishonesty permeated his [Irving’s] entire written and spoken output…his numerous mistakes…are calculated and deliberate”. Irving lost the case - the court finding that it was “incontrovertible” that he was a denier. He clearly lost whatever point he was trying to make by bringing the suit, and he had to pay Dr. Lipstadt’s $3M legal bills.
The interesting part of the ordeal, to me, is the aftermath. Now five years after the decision, Dr. Lipstadt has written a book about the case called History On Trial. Dr. Lipstadt was asked to talk about her book on C-SPAN, which she accepted. She found out later that the network planned to follow her interview with a discussion with Mr. Irving - in order to provide balance. Dr. Lipstadt decided not to appear on the network. Her view was that there is not a legitimate other side to “balance” - her appearance would, in essence, validate the Holocaust denial position. Over 500 historians signed on to a letter criticizing the network. They ended up interviewing neither one, but instead ran a show about the controversy.
Gives you lots to chew on during Banned Book week.