Der Standard, January 21, 2020

German original: https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000113571792/holocaust-leugner-wegen-facebook-postings-in-wien-verurteilt

A reply to the Mauthausen Committee ends with a 18-month prison sentence with 6 months waived conditionally.

A 64-year old man was sentenced to a partially suspended prison term of 18 months for re-engagement in National Socialist activities (Wiederbetätigung). The man from the Mühlviertel area had denied (by grossly trivializing) the Holocaust. He accepted the sentence. After the prosecution waived its right to appeal, the judgement is already final.

Reply to the Mauthausen Committee

According to his own account, the man stumbled on a website containing several conspiracy theories. There he found a reputed report by the Red Cross that mentioned 272,000 Jews killed by the Nazis. Shortly thereafter, according to his testimony, he came across a Facebook post by the Mauthausen Committee mentioning six million victims.

This prompted the former bricklayer, in March 2019, to post a reply questioning the number of victims. Thereupon, the prosecutor’s office initiated preliminary proceedings. A house search did not bring any Nazi memorabilia or relevant literature to light; however, the man was indicted for the crime of denying or grossly trivializing the National Socialist genocide.

Defense

In front of Judge Sonja Weis the defendant emphasized that he knew that many Jews were killed during the Third Reich, but not how many. In his posting he wanted to ask how many victims there really were. At the time, according to his account, he was under the influence of strong painkillers and therefore he did phrase his question “awkwardly.”

The jury found the Mühlviertel man guilty as charged with 5:3 votes. Out of the 18 months, half a year must be served unconditionally; the rest was waived conditionally for a three year probation period. In addition, the 64 year-old was deprived of right to vote. The sentence was compounded by the commission of the crime during two probation periods for other, unrelated convictions. At the same time, the court considered the defendant’s “low intellectual ability,” as well as the singular commission of the crime as mitigating circumstances.