No Stupid Questions

People who deny genocides (either the current ongoing one in Palestine as committed by Israel, or the one carried out by the Germans in WWII) are the lowest of the low. Absolute scum. To see people make excuses for atrocities as the Nakba, Sabra and Shatila, and the Holocaust in real time, as one is happening has been the most disturbing development of our age.

I don't think downloading things illegally is OK, and I also don't think spending money on genocide deniers like Irving is ethical. I also don't think reading Irving will help you in any way, because genocide deniers are pretty much all the same, and there's not a shred of credence or validity to what they have to say. If you still wish to see genocide denial and defense of people who say stuff like "Erase them, their families, mothers and children. These animals can no longer live", and the denial of that which is obvious, you'll find plenty of it available for free in modern day conservative shitrags talking about the ethnic cleansing Israel has been carrying out for 77 years.

If you're just worried about the law, steal it from somewhere in Austria. That dumbass did prison time in Vienna for his holocost denial, so maybe they seized all proceeds and profits and all that shit.

In most cases, it's wrong to violate the social contract, especially while benefiting from it. However: the harm done by violating the social contract should be weighed against the harm of not violating it.

In this case, the harm of violating the social contract is pretty minimal, as copyright law is not a fundamental part of the fabric of society. One can even argue it's kind of dubious, as something that moneyed interests favor very heavily with no similar moneyed interests favoring a strong public domain.

The harm of not violating it is not only do you give money to a holocaust denier, you're giving it to him for denying the holocaust. Even worse, you're giving him money for being wrong, and so effective at deception that you are compelled to spend money disproving him.

The whole point of copyright is to encourage useful works and spreading of knowledge and art. In this case the work is not spreading knowledge, but un-knowledge. Irving is exploiting a loophole in copyright law that allows him to work against its very purpose.

Thus I'd say violating the law is ethical as the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Google the book title + “.epub”

Threw out Gaiman's books , needs to be purged from history ( except Good Omens of course, because of Pratchett)

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Just live your life

Anyone with enough money to influence society already has enough money to influence society. Given them another $3 doesn't make you complicit

If they have problematic views but aren't pushing them on society... Well, no one is perfect.

Ultimately, voting with your wallet is a lie. Best sellers aren't the best books, they're the ones boosted by publishers and public figures. Just like the record industry - there's people who are literally choosing the winners and losers

What's the ultimate ethical implication of using ketchup at McDonald's vs buying a dipping sauce? There certainly is one, tiny as it might be. Use that energy to do good things, you'll make a far greater difference calling a senator than buying a lifetime of books

Or just sidestep it all and pirate it or check it out at a library

Do you have to agree with everyone you give your money to? What sort of economy would that be?

Buy the book on the premise that you want access to the content he spent energy and time to produce. Just like you’d pay to get access to any kind of content that you want to consume because it is the fair thing to do.

Or get it at the library like everyone else said.

Pirating it is not ethical of course, but furthermore it becomes hypocritical and intellectually dishonest if you would criticize some else for pirating content produced by any other author.