Calling George Clooney!

All across Europe , with the support and assistance of the Bush Administration. people are being imprisoned because of what they've written about history. Whether one refers to the imprisoned writers as Holocaust “revisionists” or “deniers,” there is no arguing that they are being prosecuted merely for expressing an opinion. One can argue that their opinions are wrong, but the fact remains: they are being imprisoned for expressing an opinion, nothing more.

The imprisoned writers describe themselves as historians who subscribe to a respected historical tradition called “revisionism,” which dictates that the historical record of major world events (especially wars) must be reexamined freely and dispassionately by new generations of historians, who might be able to uncover new evidence, or call into question generally accepted beliefs. The foes of these imprisoned writers claim that these “revisionists” are actually nothing more than Nazi sympathizers who want to whitewash one of the 20 th Century's greatest crimes.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the worst about these imprisoned writers. Let's say that their historical conclusions are wrong, and their motivations are tainted by ideology. Should that be a reason to throw them in jail? If they have never committed, advocated, or supported any violent or criminal acts, and if their one offense has been to write an essay or post something on the Internet that takes an inaccurate view of history, should that be worth a decade behind bars?

Last year, one of the most well-received films to come out of Hollywood was George Clooney's “Good Night and Good Luck,” which recounted Senator Joe McCarthy's merciless war against Americans who were accused of being “Communist sympathizers.” Clooney was widely praised by civil libertarians for reminding us of a time when people were persecuted by their government for the real or imagined crime of being sympathetic to a totalitarian state.

It's a tragic irony that while Hollywood's progressives and civil libertarians were celebrating a movie that commemorates the downfall of Senator McCarthy a half-century ago, the U.S. and Canadian governments were working with the governments of Europe to imprison a whole new crop of people for the “crime” of expressing ideas that these governments consider “wrong” or “dangerous.”

Remember that the imprisoned Holocaust “deniers” have been accused of nothing more than expressing a belief. The laws under which they've been imprisoned have made it a crime to hold or express certain opinions. Isn't this what Edward R. Murrow, and the other foes of McCarthy, were fighting against?

Fifty years ago, Edward R. Murrow displayed undeniable bravery when he took the position that, even during a time when America was locked in a cold war against the Soviet slave-state, and even as the Chinese Communists were murdering millions of people, it was still WRONG to persecute people for the real or imagined “crime” of being sympathetic to the Communists.

Dos that same principle apply today? Should people be imprisoned merely because of their supposed political sympathies? If it was wrong fifty years ago, how can it be right now?

Where are today's Edward R. Murrows? Who will have the courage to say that persecuting people for their political beliefs is wrong, whether those beliefs are far-left or far-right? Who will argue that even if the “revisionist” historians are wrong, they should still not be thrown in prison for simply writing a history book?