MovieChat Forums > Denial (2016) Discussion > How stupid do you have to be...

How stupid do you have to be...


...to sue someone for saying that you did something that actually did do (as in, deny the holocaust)?

Surely the smart thing would be to maintain a 'dignified silence', rather than force the issue out into the open with a lawsuit. Because unless you've buried all the evidence, shot all the witnesses, etc., the other side is going to find something to crucify you on.

Unless it blinding arrogance on Irving's part, to think he could win his case, or just garden variety idiocy?

When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears...

reply

Unless it blinding arrogance on Irving's part, to think he could win his case, or just garden variety idiocy?

Both. Because the really skewed UK libel law is so heavily tilted to the one who sues, Irving has made a chunk of change by people who decided to settle rather than go to court. The difference with Lipstadt is that she refused to settle. Irving miscalculation number one. So Irving thought maybe he'd have an "Inherit the Wind" scenario with Lipstadt in the stand. Irving miscalculation number two.

Of course, Irving also thought that his Holocaust denial is an intellectually defensible position. And that is his biggest miscalculation of all.

reply

I see

reply

Exactly, I don't think he was suing because he was accused of being a holocaust denier, he was suing because she called him a liar and he didn't think she could prove that the holocaust happened (and that his opinions were therefore just a valid hypothesis).

reply

I'm not sure Irving has made much money out of libel actions. IIRC, he lost all the ones that went to court. And British courts customarily require the loser to pay the winners legal fees.

Probably he just believed his own propaganda. It is amazing how people do.

reply

Arrogance and idiocy go hand-in-hand with Nazism so...

reply