-
Velda 2022-04-08 09:01:13
Brief introduction
This is a film based on true events, the history of the Jewish Holocaust heroine Deborah Lipstadt and the Holocaust denial David Owen confrontation in a British court. Deborah's book refers to those who distort the facts and deny the objective existence of the Holocaust as "deniers", so Owen sued...
-
Duane 2022-04-04 09:01:08
wonderful courtroom scene
The third court trial was very exciting. And the discussion on freedom of speech is also interesting.
Owen sued Deborah for defamation in the hope of proving that the Holocaust was a Jewish lie through a court hearing. In order to better question and humiliate the survivors, he personally went into...
-
Hellen 2022-04-05 09:01:07
After the Japanese right-wing hotel denied the Nanjing Massacre, this was probably the one that touched my heart the most. It said a similar truth and a scene. Worth the aftertaste.
-
Coleman 2022-04-06 09:01:07
Some are beyond expectations. One is that the British legal system originally "needed Deborah to provide evidence that the Holocaust actually happened", but the team of lawyers changed their strategy to prove that "Owen was an anti-Semitic". I love that the lawyer team separates "whether there was a Holocaust" from the success of this defense. The second point is the justice's last paragraph on "freedom of speech": if a person really believes what he thinks and expresses it, should he support it? the answer is negative. Of course, the only shortcoming of the movie is also here. The point of "not all opinions are equal" is not explained logically. Instead, it is boring to start to value.
Related articles
-
Richard Rampton: The coward threatens only where he is safe.
[Quoting Goethe: "Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist"]
-
Richard Rampton: My lord, during this trial, we have heard from Professor Evans and others of at least 25 major falsifications of history. Well, says Mr. Irving, "all historians make mistakes." But there is a difference between negligence, which is random in its effect, and a deliberateness, which is far more one-sided. All Mr. Irving's little fictions, all his tweaks of the evidence all tend in the same direction: the exculpation of Adolf Hitler. He is, to use an analogy, like the waiter who always gives the wrong change. If he is honest, we may expect sometimes his mistakes to favor the customers, sometimes himself. But Mr. Irving is the dishonest waiter. All his mistakes work in his favor. How far, if at all, Mr. Irving's Antisemitism is the cause of his Hitler apology, or vice versa, is unimportant. Whether they are taken together or individually, it is clear that they have led him to prostitute his reputation as a serious historian in favor of a bogus rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and the dissemination of virulent Antisemitic propaganda.
