NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the Auschwitz thread.

Should Holocaust denial be illegal, or should it be protected as free speech?

Discuss.

I personally don't believe it should be illegal, due to the constitutional right to free speech (I don't know if other countries have it, but Norway does). Then again, I don't believe it should be illegal to beat the facist that denies that the Holocaust ever took place to within a millimeter of his or her life either...

1) It is illegal in several countries

2) Let stupid people speak their minds. Its good for a laugh! Trust me. I told Ron Paul supporters that Ronny boy was out of the race and they were not to happy with me :D

Inspired by the Auschwitz thread.

Should Holocaust denial be illegal, or should it be protected as free speech?

Discuss.

I would make it illegal, but then I would be attempting against free speech, which is a right we all have so... I don´t know. This one´s complicated.

If it were illegal the punishment should be explaining this to all the people who lost family members to it.
I think denial should be illegal, the sheer wieght of evidence is undeniable, the implications of refusing it dangerous, it would only encourage hatred, no benefit i can see so deny the holocaust.

I'd rather have them around to entertain me, then have them locked up because they're too stupid to understand reality.

I don't like it but we can't stop people from spouting bullshit. It shouldn't be illegal.

I personally don't believe it should be illegal, due to the constitutional right to free speech (I don't know if other countries have it, but Norway does). Then again, I don't believe it should be illegal to beat the fascist that denies that the Holocaust ever took place to within a millimeter of his or her life either...

Well Fascism itself isn't a racist ideology but thats for another thread. Anyways, the act of Holocaust denial is illegal in a few countries in Europe especially Germany were its punishable to up to 2 years or more in prison depending on the degree.

Yes. Implicitly anti-Semitic, it is a form of hate speech, and permitting its propagation corrupts rather than expands the public forum.

While personally I wouldn't mind if it was, I would never support anybody who attempted to outlaw it because my belief in a right to free speech outweighs my distaste for what I consider to be undesirable speech or opinions.

Banning holocaust denial doesn't do anything but drive it underground, where it can't be refuted.

holocaust denial is the way many people learn about the holocaust in any depth. if you are going to refute denial of accepted fact you have to know what those facts are.

Banning holocaust denial doesn't do anything but drive it underground, where it can't be refuted.

True.

Distasteful though I find such denials, no, they should not be illegal.

As with most other forms of censorship, I take the view that people should be free to express their opinions. By allowing these views to be expressed publicly they can be refuted openly. Banning open discussion of extreme interpretations of events a la holocaust denial would not prevent some people believing them to be true, and would most likely simply push such beliefs out of sight.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied – chains us all, irrevocably."

Words of wisdom.

No matter how shortsighted or ignorant, free speech is essential to a free society.

I fail to see how denying the death of 6 million jewish people is entertaining?! Maybe you would like to explain that joke.

Protected as free speech, but it should be legal to spit on and laugh at those who deny it. Just cause I'm mean like that :D

No. It is free speech, and even though nothing pisses me off more then revisionist history, my personal pet peeves shouldnt really be made into law, as much as Id like that.


We can only ban holocaust denial if we also ban all other revisionist history. Just to be fair.

Banning holocaust denial doesn't do anything but drive it underground, where it can't be refuted.

Quite.

1) It is illegal in several countries

2) Let stupid people speak their minds. Its good for a laugh! Trust me. I told Ron Paul supporters that Ronny boy was out of the race and they were not to happy with me :D

*Grabs baseball bat*

*Pats it in hand in a threatning manner*

*Hears sirens*

*Runs away*

Firstly, how you could you justify making it illegal?

America has something we like to call "free speech". While it is not protected in other nations for whatever bigoted reasons, I think people have the right to speak their mind, as long as it is not actual or implied physical threat to a person.

Banning holocaust denial doesn't do anything but drive it underground, where it can't be refuted.

Holocaust denial can and has been refuted many times. But it's not about rational argument.

We can only ban holocaust denial if we also ban all other revisionist history. Just to be fair.

This. Yes, it's a stupid ideology, and we definitely shouldn't let its proponents unopposed, but it is not the only stupid ideology by far, and I've never understood why this double-standard. We should either ban all such ideas, or none. And I personaly lean towards the latter, because of a little something called "Free Speech".

The point is that by bringing it out into public discussion, many people who otherwise would be infected by it can see the rational arguments. Its the same with debate with racist (or, 'racist', as in the case I'm about to quote...) political parties; recently the British National Party debated in Oxford University, and many people tried to stop it because they perceive the BNP as fascists, but in my opinion its better to dissuade the majority via clear, open debate, than force it underground where it can easily be spread.

Holocaust denial can and has been refuted many times. But it's not about rational argument.
I disagree. I've seen plenty of reputable and rational arguments against some holocaust events. The fact that these things aren't even taken into consideration by people since we all "know" that the Holocaust happened exactly like it did is an insult to history. What is the world when we can't have open forums to debate? I don't much care to live under such authoritarian control.

The point is that by bringing it out into public discussion, many people who otherwise would be infected by it can see the rational arguments. Its the same with debate with racist (or, 'racist', as in the case I'm about to quote...) political parties; recently the British National Party debated in Oxford University, and many people tried to stop it because they perceive the BNP as fascists, but in my opinion its better to dissuade the majority via clear, open debate, than force it underground where it can easily be spread.
Calling the BNP racist or fascist is ridiculous in the first place. I don't understand why folks find ad hominem insults toward their "political opponents" to be considered actual arguments. This is what seems to happen a lot, especially with colleges.

Isn't it already banned in Germany?

Isn't it already banned in Germany?
... And a good plenty of other countries as well. Folks in Canada have landed themselves in jail for it, too.

Calling the BNP racist or fascist is ridiculous in the first place. I don't understand why folks find ad hominem insults toward their "political opponents" to be considered actual arguments. This is what seems to happen a lot, especially with colleges.

Well, yeah, because colleges and unis are full of leftist students who can't actually argue against the BNP without firing off ad hominems. Its such a pity the word fascist became a slur.

I disagree. I've seen plenty of reputable and rational arguments against some holocaust events.


:rolleyes:

Calling the BNP racist or fascist is ridiculous in the first place. I don't understand why folks find ad hominem insults toward their "political opponents" to be considered actual arguments. This is what seems to happen a lot, especially with colleges.

And the thread.... ladies and gentlemen... has gone completely off track!!!
http://oilfans.com/forum/images/smiley_icons/clapping.gif

:rolleyes:

Beat me to it.

... And a good plenty of other countries as well. Folks in Canada have landed themselves in jail for it, too.

Canada, wtf!?! I can understand Europe and Israel, but what's the deal with Canada banning it?

:rolleyes:
... and most of the world feels the same way, which is the sad part. No one cares to study, to learn, or debate anymore. Aren't we supposedly an enlightened civilization, we humans?

Well, yeah, because colleges and unis are full of leftist students who can't actually argue against the BNP without firing off ad hominems. Its such a pity the word fascist became a slur.
Agreed, but like it's been noted, I don't want to throw the thread off too much. I felt it necessary to clear up misconceptions regarding the BNP, however.

No one cares to study, to learn, or debate anymore.

Not "to study, to learn, or debate" as such. Just when it comes to the sort of bullshit Holocaust deniers spew and you're buying into.

Calling the BNP racist or fascist is ridiculous in the first place. I don't understand why folks find ad hominem insults toward their "political opponents" to be considered actual arguments. This is what seems to happen a lot, especially with colleges.

eh.
BNP is not racist? got any proof of this idea?
I am much confused by this.

Not "to study, to learn, or debate" as such. Just when it comes to the sort of bullshit Holocaust deniers spew and you're buying into.
You're just proving a prime example of how ignorant people force themselves to be intentionally.

eh.
BNP is not racist? got any proof of this idea?
I am much confused by this.
Get me started on the BNP and this thread will really get off track.

There's a difference between holocause denial and holocaust correction.

Someone who claims the Nazis only killed Jews is just as stupid as someone who claims the Nazis never killed any Jews.

You're just proving a prime example of how ignorant people force themselves to be intentionally.

I have yet, as a very good student of history, yet to see any peice of holocaust denial that is "reputable".


Its all anti-semetic, revisionist history crap.

Which is why I respond simply with:rolleyes:

There's a difference between holocause denial and holocaust correction.

Someone who claims the Nazis only killed Jews is just as stupid as someone who claims the Nazis never killed any Jews.
Exactly. I don't think that no Jews whatsoever were killed, that's just ludicrous. I just question the possibility of some of the numbers based on scientific evidence (or lack thereof) and the questionable nature of some "eye witness" reports that, on occasional, prove false. I don't belittle the deaths of those who did die, however.

I have yet, as a very good student of history, yet to see any peice of holocaust denial that is "reputable".


Its all anti-semetic, revisionist history crap.

Which is why I respond simply with:rolleyes:
Anyone who even ventures to think, "You know, maybe we don't know everything 100% correctly in regards to the holocaust" is immediately deemed "disreputable", negatively "revisionist", and an "anti-Semite". You again prove a point.

Why is this event, out of all of history, not open to interpretation? They are finding new information about historical events every day, but when it comes to the holocaust, anything that does anything other than add numbers to the ominous "six billion" is marked as being racist and bigoted. Hell, it's illegal! I haven't seen anyone get arrested lately for denying we ever went to the Moon.

Exactly. I don't think that no Jews whatsoever were killed, that's just ludicrous. I just question the possibility of some of the numbers based on scientific evidence (or lack thereof) and the questionable nature of some "eye witness" reports that, on occasional, prove false. I don't belittle the deaths of those who did die, however.

I consider you lucky then. A girl in my 20th century history course first year university claimed, without exception, that the Nazis only targeted Jews. I believe she also said something like 11 million Jews were gassed to death, and crap like that.

Stupidity occurs on all sides of right and wrong.

Anyone who even ventures to think, "You know, maybe we don't know everything 100% correctly in regards to the holocaust" is immediately deemed "disreputable", negatively "revisionist", and an "anti-Semite". You again prove a point.

No, thats not what I said and you bloody well know it. Dont put words in my mouth.


Im open to debate historical sources. I am not open to the idea that the holocaust never happened.

Anyone who even ventures to think, "You know, maybe we don't know everything 100% correctly in regards to the holocaust" is immediately deemed "disreputable", negatively "revisionist", and an "anti-Semite". You again prove a point.

Why is this event, out of all of history, not open to interpretation? They are finding new information about historical events every day, but when it comes to the holocaust, anything that does anything other than add numbers to the ominous "six billion" is marked as being racist and bigoted. Hell, it's illegal! I haven't seen anyone get arrested lately for denying we ever went to the Moon.

You sure you don't mean six million? Six billion would wipe over half of the human population off the planet.

To note: I am not here to try and make people come over to my point of view. However, I do think that everyone should be open minded enough to understand that making thinking illegal is nothing more than Orwellian bigotry.

Last thing the world needs is thought police knocking on its door.

You sure you don't mean six million? Six billion would wipe over half of the human population off the planet.
My mistake, I meant million.

Im open to debate historical sources. I am not open to the idea that the holocaust never happened.
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that statement? That is like saying,

"I am more than willing to debate you on whether or not man set foot on the Moon, but no matter what you say, I am never going to change my opinion."

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that statement? That is like saying,

"I am more than willing to debate you on whether or not man set foot on the Moon, but no matter what you say, I am never going to change my opinion."

:rolleyes:


Claiming an event that is well document to have happened didnt happen is absurd.


Claiming that we may be off in our understanding of that event is not.

Its more like saying "Im willing to debate what happened during the crusades, but Im not open to debating whether or not the Crusades happened."

If you want to deny the holocaust, just come right out and say it.

A Jewish atheist says No.

Claiming an event that is well document to have happened didnt happen is absurd.
Yet, how accurate is that documentation? I have heard this argument a lot, that the holocaust is the most documented event in history - which is more or less a lie. This insanity that it is impossible that any aspect of the events of the holocaust could even possibly be infinitesimally wrong is ridiculous!

Claiming that we may be off in our understanding of that event is not.
Again, you are being hypocritical. You're literally saying to me, "The holocaust is well documented and therefore irrefutable, but we may be wrong."

Its more like saying "Im willing to debate what happened during the crusades, but Im not open to debating whether or not the Crusades happened."
The holocaust "deniers" aren't even denying that it didn't happen at all. Anyone who says it didn't happen at all is, I agree, a fool.

If you want to deny the holocaust, just come right out and say it.
Now you're trying to call me out in some need to feel superior. Unfortunately, I won't satisfy you.

And with that, I don't have anymore time for this thread.

The holocaust "deniers" aren't even denying that it didn't happen at all.


*sigh* Actually, the ones many of us are talking about are saying just that


Anyone who says it didn't happen at all is, I agree, a fool.


Then we're saying the exact same thing. Wtf are you so defensive about?

*sigh* Actually, the ones many of us are talking about are saying just that




Then we're saying the exact same thing. Wtf are you so defensive about?

Might be Oakondra denies the Holocaust? I hope not.

No one cares to study, to learn, or debate anymore.

This is especially true of Holocaust deniers.

Get me started on the BNP and this thread will really get off track.

I don't mind. Go for it.

The holocaust "deniers" aren't even denying that it didn't happen at all. Anyone who says it didn't happen at all is, I agree, a fool.

A lot of deniers do say that.

To speak of a historical event, and an opinion upon it, must never be illegal. There are several reasons for this.

First, to make any type of speech, not only including but specifically including political speech, illegal, makes a mockery of the concept of free speech and communication.

Second, History must always be ready to be challenged, reinterpretated and reexplored in order that the truth therof can be considered ever more accurate.

Third, to allow any government to declare the truth of a historical event to be what it says it is, is to allow a power beyond any other, a power far too great for any government, no matter how benign, to possibly be permitted to possess.

Fourth, to disallow an opinion, for any reason whatsoever, is to simply drive that opinion underground, where it will fester in the dark places and among those who see themselves, rightly or wrongly, as oppressed. To defeat an opinion requires that said opinion be openly expressed, debated, communicated, and, eventually, defeated, in the light of day.

Fifth, the existence of an official position on an historical event acts as a dampening effect upon those who would research and explore all the aspects of that event, both those who would go against the prevailing dogma, and those who would support it, lest they be perceived as heterodox.

Sixth, due to the natural and correct mistrust of government common to the educated person in the modern age, the espousal of a doctrine by a government automatically confers upon the counter-arguments to that doctrine an often unwarranted legitimacy.

There is no valid reason to make holocaust denial a crime.

I am sorely tempted to say it should be illegal, but that would trample free speech. However, Holocaust deniers should have their intelligence and masculinity/femininity called into question in addition to being socially and intellectually stigmatized.

... and most of the world feels the same way, which is the sad part. No one cares to study, to learn, or debate anymore. Aren't we supposedly an enlightened civilization, we humans?

Woah, woah, that´s exactly what we´re doing here. We´re debating an issue that, honestly, is disgusting. How can a group of idiots deny something that altered the very history of humanity? Something that´s so well documented, that has been shown, that has been proven? It´s beyond me! How can you say that no one cares to study, to learn or to debate? You´re either buying into what the deniers cater or you truly are a simpleton. I care, and I´ve seen several members here care too. That´s why Magdha made this thread, to do exactly what you so blatantly say no one cares about anymore. And by doing this very thing, we´re learning. Which is more than I can say about the Deniers.

Anyone who even ventures to think, "You know, maybe we don't know everything 100% correctly in regards to the holocaust" is immediately deemed "disreputable", negatively "revisionist", and an "anti-Semite". You again prove a point.

That's not true. There's real Holocaust scholarship, and lots of it.

And then there's denialist bullshit that repeats stuff that's been refuted dozens of times--lies whose main purpose is to delegitimize Jewish suffering and exculpate Nazism.

No, because holocaust denial is obviously bullshit, and if you make it illegal, then people will take it up as a freedom of speech issue, which gives it a lot of press.

Well, yeah, because colleges and unis are full of leftist students who can't actually argue against the BNP without firing off ad hominems. Its such a pity the word fascist became a slur.

Sometimes we are obligated to call things as they are, rather than pussyfooting around the issue. Good day to you. :rolleyes:

I don't mind. Go for it.
We should take any members of the BNP into the street and shoot them, in my opinion. And I know that's "ironic" and suchlike, but if we can just kick the whole thing in the head, and leave no-one to mourn after the martyrs, then job's a good 'un.

I think you guys are getting Oakondra wrong on what he/she is saying. But I care not to correct, so I'll just point this out.

In many ways there are three groups of people when it comes to holocaust debates. "Supporters", "Scholars", and "Refusers". I mean this in a very basic sense. Supporters and Refusers are VERY VERY vocal about their beliefs, and avoid reality. To them it happened or it didn't, and whatever is told to them by someone is absolute fact and can not be changed. Thankfully both groups are fairly small compared to the other, Scholars. Scholars either believe that it did or did not happen as the "holocaust", but they really just want to know the facts behind it, they apply research and debate and questioning. And to Supporters, they are "Holocaust deniers", and to Refusers, they are "Holocaust supporters". This I believe is the fabric where Oakondra is getting to, that many who are called holocaust deniers, are called so because they choose to question the "facts".

We should take any members of the BNP into the street and shoot them, in my opinion. And I know that's "ironic" and suchlike, but if we can just kick the whole thing in the head, and leave no-one to mourn after the martyrs, then job's a good 'un.

Scum like that don't deserve to be made into martyrs.

To speak of a historical event, and an opinion upon it, must never be illegal.But denying the holocaust is not an expression of an opinion. One may hold opinions about details or numbers of the holocaust, but not about its reality. It's like claiming the World Trade Center towers never existed.

And yes, denying the holocaust should be made illegal. Just as the deliberate spreading of any misinformation should be illegal.

But denying the holocaust is not an expression of an opinion. One may hold opinions about details or numbers of the holocaust, but not about its reality. It's like claiming the World Trade Center towers never existed.

Thats my point I was getting it. You just couldnt tell because I kept having words put into my mouth.

Scum like that don't deserve to be made into martyrs.
Err, can't really help people doing so, to be honest. Would have been extremely nice if we could have told the IRA to just forget about the people the UK forces shot for being degenerate baddies, but one can't, so there we go.

On the general question of Free Speech, I have a radical position. It should not be abridged in any way ... even if it is openly hateful, if it incites violence, conspires to commit any crime, perpetrates lies harmful to another's reputation, discloses business secrets or violates someone's "copyright."

However, I don't have to defend that position in order to take a position on Holocaust denial.

Perpetuating this extreme minority opinion which has no supporting evidence DOES NOT harm any person's interests. I recognize NO crime which does not have a victim (and am dubious about crimes where the 'victim' is the perpetrator, eg drug usage).

The argument "it prevents the resurgence of nazism" is actually self-defeating. If the intention of the censorship is to influence the course of politics, it directly interferes with the most important aspect of Free Speech, which is political speech.

But denying the holocaust is not an expression of an opinion. One may hold opinions about details or numbers of the holocaust, but not about its reality. It's like claiming the World Trade Center towers never existed.

ie, laughably stupid ...?

And yes, denying the holocaust should be made illegal. Just as the deliberate spreading of any misinformation should be illegal.

Theists claim a God or Gods exist. Atheists claim no God exists.

They can't both be right. Which one ya gonna jail?

EDIT: Dododecapod's answer was even better than mine. But it was a bit of a free hit.

But denying the holocaust is not an expression of an opinion. One may hold opinions about details or numbers of the holocaust, but not about its reality. It's like claiming the World Trade Center towers never existed.

And yes, denying the holocaust should be made illegal. Just as the deliberate spreading of any misinformation should be illegal.

So, you would give the government the power to decide what is or is not the truth?

Welcome, Big Brother.

Yes. Implicitly anti-Semitic, it is a form of hate speech, and permitting its propagation corrupts rather than expands the public forum.I would rather have the radicals speak then to have my right to speak freely limited.

It's funny that Holocaust denial is illegal in many of the countries where 9/11 conspiracies are widely believed and accepted as fact.

Holocaust deniers and 9/11 "truthers" have the same mentality. One small detail that is out of the ordinary and all of a sudden it's an elaborate hoax. I don't believe I've heard of a Holocaust denier that wasn't a 9/11 truther, frequently blaming Israel and the Mossad rather than the U.S. government. A few weird coincidences or myths about something and all of a sudden it's all a lie.

To answer the question, no it shouldn't be illegal. Just like other conspiracy theories. It should help to identify the idiots.

Inspired by the Auschwitz thread.

Should Holocaust denial be illegal, or should it be protected as free speech?

Discuss.

No. Whenever a vile evil belief is pushed underground it attracts followers in secret and its secret beliefs go unchallenged, making it sound entirely reasonable to people who hear it for the first time.

When rumors began that there's a secret cure for AIDS, it was debunked as nonsense. Same for the supposed fake moon landing.

Enough people know the truth that holocaust denial is trivial now, but part of what makes it obvious is how conspicuously ridiculous the deniers are.

No, and the question does not dignify an explanation.

No, but only an idiot not worthy of attention would hold that the holocaust never happened.

Yes. Implicitly anti-Semitic, it is a form of hate speech, and permitting its propagation corrupts rather than expands the public forum.

Hate speech is protected by the first amendment. All speech expands the public forum.

While personally I wouldn't mind if it was, I would never support anybody who attempted to outlaw it because my belief in a right to free speech outweighs my distaste for what I consider to be undesirable speech or opinions.

My position exactly.

Protected as free speech, but it should be legal to spit on and laugh at those who deny it. Just cause I'm mean like that :D

I am down with that.

There's a difference between holocause denial and holocaust correction.

Someone who claims the Nazis only killed Jews is just as stupid as someone who claims the Nazis never killed any Jews.

No, I don't believe they are. The attempted extermination of the Jews is the most publicized part of the Holocaust. Many people mistakenly believe that only Jews, or even mostly Jews, were killed, because that's what's emphasized. This is not the same as Holocaust denial, which is not a lack of information, but a studied choice to deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence and popular belief.

Exactly. I don't think that no Jews whatsoever were killed, that's just ludicrous. I just question the possibility of some of the numbers based on scientific evidence (or lack thereof) and the questionable nature of some "eye witness" reports that, on occasional, prove false. I don't belittle the deaths of those who did die, however.

1. Argument from ignorance
2. Base rate fallacy

It shouldn't be made illegal to deny the holocaust, but everyone who does deny it should enter the race for this years Darwin Awards...

Well, I believe the world is round, and you probably believe the world is round, but would we lock up a flat-earth believer?

I believe the Holocaust took place, and most of you probably do, but should we lock up someone who doesn't, simply for thinking that way? Even if we do, they're just going to come out of prison in 10 years still thinking the 'Caust was a Zionist (or, in some circles, Soviet) hoax, and we haven't changed anything.

So, you would give the government the power to decide what is or is not the truth?So the fact that the World Trade Center buildings existed is a decision made by a government? :rolleyes:

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion; but historical and scientific fact isn't a matter of opinion. If they want to deny the holocaust they'd better back it up with evidence, otherwise they can stick to disbelieving.

Inspired by the Auschwitz thread.

Should Holocaust denial be illegal, or should it be protected as free speech?

Discuss.

It should be legal, you shouldn't ever be able stop someone's right to free speech. If someone want to say something that make no sense, with little support or evidence then let them.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied – chains us all, irrevocably."

who's the quotes? i like it

By denying the Holocaust you are calling the victims of the Holocaust liers and that is offensive against them. If you allow offensive behaviour against whole groups of the society you are denying them their freedom and right to live in peace. A democracy should always stand up for its citizens and enforce their rights, that's why child pornography, extreme violence and offensive material are banned and excluded from the freedom of speech.
I fully agree that it is a very tricky question, and that exclusions from the freedom of speech should be carefully thought-over and extremely rare.

who's the quotes? i like it"Star Trek: The Next Generation", The Drumhead (1991)

Capt. Picard: [citing] "With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aareon Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

I don't know if other countries have it, but Norway does

So do Germany and Italy afaik.

Anyway, I think that, expecially in countries where neo-fascist or neo-nazi organisations are on the rise, it is a good idea to have a law against holocaust denial - even if it's bordering the infringement of free speech.

After all, free speech doesn't grant the right to speak in favour of committing crimes, or to insult other people, or to say that someone has committed a crime without showing the proof to the judiciary, so there are reasonable limits to the right of free speech.

So do Germany and Italy afaik.

Anyway, I think that, expecially in countries where neo-fascist or neo-nazi organisations are on the rise, it is a good idea to have a law against holocaust denial - even if it's bordering the infringement of free speech.

After all, free speech doesn't grant the right to speak in favour of committing crimes, or to insult other people, or to say that someone has committed a crime without showing the proof to the judiciary, so there are reasonable limits to the right of free speech.

Germany does. Italy does not.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial)

I think denial should be illegal, the sheer wieght of evidence is undeniable, the implications of refusing it dangerous, it would only encourage hatred, no benefit i can see so deny the holocaust.

Denying the Holocaust may well be 'dangerous', but I'd be far more scared of a government with the power to decide what is and isn't an acceptable belief than I would of a few nuts. As long as speech isn't inciting violence, revealing official secrets or breaching legitimate laws (like slander and libel) then the government has no right to tell its citizens what they can and can't say, that's like putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum...

That said, the Deniers need to get it into their heads that freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from criticism (although it does imply freedom from physical attack, which is something I condemn completely).

So the fact that the World Trade Center buildings existed is a decision made by a government? :rolleyes:

Hint: reductio ad absurdem on your own argument does not constitute a win.

Hint: reductio ad absurdem on your own argument does not constitute a win.There is no reason to allow someone to claim that the WTC did not exist. Same applies to the holocaust. Holocaust denial does not happen because the folks making such claims do not know any better but because they pursue certain political aims through lies. There is no reason for a society to allow the pursuit of those aims or the spread of those lies, hence banning holocaust denial is completely justified. This has nothing to do with free speech or other freedoms of expression.

*sigh* Actually, the ones many of us are talking about are saying just that

Most Deniers are a little more sophisticated than that, I outlined their main claims in the Auschwitz thread:

There are three key points which they deny:

1. That the Nazis intended to commit genocide.

2. That there was an extermination programme using gas chambers and crematoria in place.

3. That five to six million Jews died.

For example, while a Denier wouldn't claim that Auschwitz didn't exist or that nobody died there, they would argue that the gas chambers were used for processes such as delousing; that the victims died from malnutrition, overwork and disease rather than being systematically slaughtered; and that the number of Jews killed wasn't as high as is usually reported.

There is no reason to allow someone to claim that the WTC did not exist. Same applies to the holocaust. Holocaust denial does not happen because the folks making such claims do not know any better but because they pursue certain political aims through lies. There is no reason for a society to allow the pursuit of those aims or the spread of those lies, hence banning holocaust denial is completely justified. This has nothing to do with free speech or other freedoms of expression.

Your thinking is convoluted, leaping from example to example instead of establishing a principle which can be applied generally.

To reply to this post as a whole: bollocks.

Now, let's break it down:

There is no reason to allow someone to claim that the WTC did not exist.

No, wait. There is at least one reason to allow someone to claim that.

If you will not allow someone to say what they believe (and they might believe the WTC never existed) then you cannot honestly debate it with them. You abandon your chance to persuade them when you slant the debate unfairly.

Same applies to the holocaust.

No it doesn't. If you set out to prove to me the WTC existed, you'd probably start with photographs. You could direct me to the building approval and the budget records, particularly compelling since WTC was built by a statutary authority of the New York government. You could provide millions of eyewitness accounts of big buildings in that location, testimony which stands up to questioning from actual living people who worked on building the WTC, or worked in it. Most compelling of all, you could appeal to my own memory (since I saw the actual buildings while they still stood.)

The holocaust is not an object in a specific location, whose existence can be defined that way.

To prove the existence of the Holocaust you could direct me to records kept by the Nazis, very incomplete but there were some they didn't manage to destroy in time. (Records of building camps, arresting Jews, transporting them, selling their belongings, disposing of their bodies. Military orders. Speeches of intent to kill Jews.) You could show me pictures of the camps, the gas chambers, the piles of shoes. You can direct me to many autobiographies of camp survivors, interviews on video, or testimony I could challenge from actual survivors.

All these are good evidence, but each is incomplete. Together they make a picture of this "thing", the Holocaust. To deny the Holocaust completely, to assert that not one Jew was killed by the Nazi government just for being Jewish, I would need to debunk each item of evidence.

That is not "the same" in many ways.

Holocaust denial does not happen because the folks making such claims do not know any better but because they pursue certain political aims through lies.

This is the core of your argument. You don't like their political aims, the lies serve their aims. Therefore you would ban the lies.

That, purely and simply, is a direct attack on free speech in it's most important aspect: political speech. Speech intended to sway others, to form a political movement and implement a political aim.

I have a problem with that.

There is no reason for a society to allow the pursuit of those aims

There is at least one reason to allow the pursuit of those aims.

So we can argue them down fair and square. So the majority in our democratic society (you do live in one, don't you?) can judge the merit of their claims (lies if you will) and decide on public policy after fair consideration of their position.

So we can win. Without cheating.

or the spread of those lies

You have no faith in the judgement of the majority, who decide policy in a free society? You think that lies will prosper more than truth?

I think perhaps you are succumbing to a fallacy, though I don't know it's name. You are assuming that the lies can only spread, not retreat. Fallacy of the zero base ... something like that.

, hence banning holocaust denial is completely justified. This has nothing to do with free speech or other freedoms of expression.

I have this creepy feeling that you think free speech is something about being able to wear a t-shirt with rude words on it, or choose between Coke and Pepsi.

Political speech is the very core of Free Speech. It's the point of it! Being able to badmouth the government down at your local might feel good, it might be a personal freedom, but it's when your words are picked up by others and debated seriously, it's when the word becomes deed, that speech is really important.

Free Speech isn't a consumer good, it isn't a private indulgence. It's fundamental to a functional democracy.

Or, as I said above: bollocks.

What barbaric punishment should be inflicted on holocaust deniers?

Thumb screws? Burning at the stake? Fines? Imprisonment?

All are equally barbaric, because only barbarians punish people because of what they believe or don't believe.

What barbaric punishment should be inflicted on holocaust deniers?

Chess.

Barbarian: You can have white.

1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4 checkmate

Denier: Best of three!

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7 checkmate

Denier: Best of five then.

1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4 checkmate

Denier: OK, that's two to you. Now I kick arse!

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7 checkmate

Denier: This game was invented by Jews. I see them playing it all the time.

Barbarian: Thanks for playing.

Inspired by the Auschwitz thread.

Should Holocaust denial be illegal, or should it be protected as free speech?

Discuss.

Illegal no, but anybody that does should be tattoed on the forehead with the word 'IDIOT' and if they complain we can deny that they have such a tattoo.

What barbaric punishment should be inflicted on holocaust deniers?

Being pied in the face by LG? *shrug*

Once upon a time, (11-12th century) a wise guy (Peter Abelard) hit upon the idea that questioning leads to understanding.

Maybe it is a good thing that there are Holocaust deniers- it keeps people studying the issue, going over the facts, instead of chucking them in the basement of history and forgetting.

After all no one denies the Rape of Nanking, and yet compared to the Holocaust it's a fairly unknown thing. And the German genocide against the Roma- mostly forgotten, every now and then, someone throws in a righteous "oh yeah, and them too!". And Stalin and Mao both perpetrated genocides as great, in numbers, as the Holocaust, or at least, similar. Maybe if someone starts denying these things, they will be better known.

Questioning causes a response. If you claim to know something, WHY do you know it? How? And this creates understanding.

Once upon a time, (11-12th century) a wise guy (Peter Abelard) hit upon the idea that questioning leads to understanding.

Maybe it is a good thing that there are Holocaust deniers- it keeps people studying the issue, going over the facts, instead of chucking them in the basement of history and forgetting.

After all no one denies the Rape of Nanking, and yet compared to the Holocaust it's a fairly unknown thing. And the German genocide against the Roma- mostly forgotten, every now and then, someone throws in a righteous "oh yeah, and them too!". And Stalin and Mao both perpetrated genocides as great, in numbers, as the Holocaust, or at least, similar. Maybe if someone starts denying these things, they will be better known.

Questioning causes a response. If you claim to know something, WHY do you know it? How? And this creates understanding.


Very good point. Heh sometimes though you can't really know how you know what you know!

My son and I where talking about WWII a few weeks back and he sak me 'how do you know that Dad?'

I replyed with the classic 'Son if I knew how I know half the things I know, I'd only know half the things I know' He seemed satisfied!

No.

1. Freedom of speech applies even to those who seek your destruction.
2. Banning Holocaust denial drives it underground, not to mention gives credit to the whole "Jews run the world" theory. Better to have it in the open, so we can fight it.

I do think that some Holocaust deniers (specifically, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) should be forced to visit the death camps. Here's an idea:

1. We kidnap Ahmadinejad - and for good measure, the Ayatollah. We allow them to bring a handful of bodyguards.
2. On the plane, they are greeted by their tour guide - Eli Wiesel - and recieve Farsi translations of Night. They are to be seated separately, so reading Night will be the only available activity.
3. Once on the ground in Poland, Eli Wiesel will give them a personal tour of Auschwitz and other death camps.
4. Once the tour is done, they are returned to Tehran.

But I don't think we should make Holocaust denial illegal.

I'm noticing something funny - UB, an atheist with a particular dislike for Judaism, thinks Holocaust denial should be illegal, while I, a Jew, think it should be legal.

A lot of the arguments presented by thoe who would see holocist denial criminalized seem to boil down to "It should be banned because it's just so wrong!"

I've heard that defense used to ban other forms of debate having to do with the origin of life. Funny that.

At any rate, I vote no. Free Speech must never be curtailed.

Very good point.

It was actually.

Heh sometimes though you can't really know how you know what you know!


The downside of that is that you don't really know anything unless you know how you know it. You just think that you know it.

I guess that's usually enough. I know stuff I don't even think that I know. I just go with the opposite of stuff that I know I DONT know.

In my youth, I plowed through most of Being and Nothingness. It seemed to make sense, only not to me. So now, I know that if something sounds like it was probably from Sartre, it's one of those things I know I don't know.

Then, I feel inadequate because I can't be bother learning French so I can not understand Sartre in French. Then my thoughts turn to suicide and beautiful dark-haired girls who are taller than me.

Ah, I wouldn't be young again for quids. :D

It was actually.



The downside of that is that you don't really know anything unless you know how you know it. You just think that you know it.

I guess that's usually enough. I know stuff I don't even think that I know. I just go with the opposite of stuff that I know I DONT know.

In my youth, I plowed through most of Being and Nothingness. It seemed to make sense, only not to me. So now, I know that if something sounds like it was probably from Sartre, it's one of those things I know I don't know.

Then, I feel inadequate because I can't be bother learning French so I can not understand Sartre in French. Then my thoughts turn to suicide and beautiful dark-haired girls who are taller than me.

Ah, I wouldn't be young again for quids. :D

Bwhahahah theres a lot of knowing unknowing in there. Young again, well perhaps 21-26, but a teenagre *shudder* never.

Once upon a time, (11-12th century) a wise guy (Peter Abelard) hit upon the idea that questioning leads to understanding.

Uh, Socratic Method? Just a bit older than that.

Bwhahahah theres a lot of knowing unknowing in there. Young again, well perhaps 21-26, but a teenagre *shudder* never.

We could really hijack this sucker. But lets show our maturity and anachronistic mental agility by somehow relating it to Holocaust denial.

Holocaust Denial. Time Paradoxes. Beautiful dark-haired women. Lightbulb.

...

Nope. I've got nothing.

We could really hijack this sucker. But lets show our maturity and anachronistic mental agility by somehow relating it to Holocaust denial.

Holocaust Denial. Time Paradoxes. Beautiful dark-haired women. Lightbulb.

...

Nope. I've got nothing.



Umm errr ohh ohh yeah, if ummm *cough* if you deny the holocaust you must have the menatl age of a 12 year old?

Allow it. Let the stupidity of the deniers be public as is that of religious zealots. so that it may be mocked.

"This conspiracy must be true, because the people who are trying to control what I think want to put me in jail for believing in it."

In other words, bullshit which is just lying in the field has very little value or interest. When someone picks it up and tries to lock it away, it becomes currency. It has worth simply because someone would deny it to you.

I'm tempted to apply this to all knowledge or speech, but that would be off-topic.

No. It should not be illegal to deny the holocaust. It should no be illegal to say Bush planned 9/11. It should not even be illegal to be a Christian.

Personally, I do not believe Holocaust Denial should be illegal. I do not believe in laws to be sincere. I consider prisons to be uncivilized (to say it gently).

On the side-topic that arouse. BNP advocates racism (as a WN party). Especially, in its beggining it advocated National Socialism. That's why Tyndall once said that Mein Kampf was his Bible. I do not consider that calling someone racist or fascist is an accusation. I do not use these words as an epithet. I use them only in order to characterize political ideologies. Just as I use the word anarchist to explain my ideology.

It should not even be illegal to be a Christian.


I say I think you are going too far there!:D

I say I think you are going too far there!:D

:rolleyes:

Absolutely not.

The answer to speech you find "offensive", for any reason, is more speech, not less. If you believe certain speech is wrong, use your own right of free speech to back up your belief. Make your own case about why that speech is wrong and see if anyone else agrees with you.

Those who would ban Holocaust denial are morally equivalent to Moslem cartoon rioters.

No, it shouldn't be illegal - but I understand why it is in Germany...

No, it shouldn't be illegal - but I understand why it is in Germany...Because Germans do not want lies to be spread, unlike other countries where everyone can claim every bullshit?

It should not even be illegal to be a Christian.No kidding.

Allow it. Let the stupidity of the deniers be public as is that of religious zealots. so that it may be mocked.

Quoted for truth ;)

Absolutely. So should questioning the government. Freedom is stupid and its easier to just believe fanciful propaganda without questioning.

Germany does. Italy does not.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial)

Yep. My bad. I checked some italian sources and a specific law against holocaust deniers is still in "proposal of law" status here.
Some holocaust deniers, though, have been sentenced here for fascist propaganda and for encouraging racial hate. Some even for reconstitution of the National Fascist Party (which is forbidden by the Constitution).

Because Germans do not want lies to be spread, unlike other countries where everyone can claim every bullshit?
No. They allow (http://www.bild.de/) lies to be spread in Germany.

It's because of the history...

No.

After all, nutcases should be allowed to speak. But they should then be made to meet survivors and go round the camps. That should knock some sense into them.

I don't think banning it would really achieve anything, except convince the crazies that the jews really are running the world in secret. If we allow it, we can readily identify the crazies and duly ignore them or refute them.

Inspired by the Auschwitz thread.

Should Holocaust denial be illegal, or should it be protected as free speech?

Discuss.
nope, cus what's the next 'denial' that would become illegal

Religion?
Science?
Union?

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that statement? That is like saying,

"I am more than willing to debate you on whether or not man set foot on the Moon, but no matter what you say, I am never going to change my opinion."

hes not really saying that he just means hes willing to debate if say the nazi did so and so on what ever time but hes not willing to say the holocaust didnt happen

Hate speech is protected by the first amendment.

Maybe. So?

All speech expands the public forum.

Nonsense. Some speech undermines the public forum by delegitimizing parts of society.

Inspired by the Auschwitz thread.

Should Holocaust denial be illegal, or should it be protected as free speech?

Discuss.

I think they can say it, just as long as the rest of us can say they're full of crap.

Nonsense. Some speech undermines the public forum by delegitimizing parts of society.

Huh? If I take a big ad in the paper laying out why blondes are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote ... it deligitimizes some part of society?

Unless you mean that would deligitimize ME, in which case I would agree ...

Ignorance is what should be made illegal. It´s ignorance or a total lack of human empathy the cause of Holocaust denial...

Huh? If I take a big ad in the paper laying out why blondes are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote ... it deligitimizes some part of society?

Yes, it may.

Of course, the more it sounds like the idiotic ranting of a fool, the less of an effect it has.

I can see why it was made illegal in places like Germany & Austria after the war, as they didn't want to encourage any sort of glorification, martyrdom or return of the Nazis. I think the laws served their purpose in that time, but should be changed now. I believe in freedom of speech as a principle, and on the practical side, often when things are suppressed, it lends a sort of credibility to the idea of a cover-up.

Ignorance is what should be made illegal.

I see you are already in imagination land, can I join you?

I don't think banning it would really achieve anything, except convince the crazies that the jews really are running the world in secret. If we allow it, we can readily identify the crazies and duly ignore them or refute them.

My thoughts exactly.

I see you are already in imagination land, can I join you?

people in my land? now hold on a minute you'l need your imaginary passport and an imaginary briefcase of money to enter my borders.

I see you are already in imagination land, can I join you?

Em... come again? How does my statement implies that I´m already in imagination land? I truly think ignorance is the cause of some people denying the Holocaust ever happened.

But, since according to you, I´m in Imagination Land, why don´t you tell me why would some people go as far as denying a tragedy like the murdering of 6 million souls, or of any other mass ethnic massacre the world has ever seen? Please...

people in my land? now hold on a minute you'l need your imaginary passport and an imaginary briefcase of money to enter my borders.

That´s corruption!!:eek:

That´s corruption!!:eek:

how so? I didn't say i was going to take the briefcase, the person would merely offer it as a token of gratitude or be chased by the imaginary armoured bears, so it's not really corruption he has a choice in the matter.

how so? I didn't say i was going to take the briefcase, the person would merely offer it as a token of gratitude or be chased by the imaginary armoured bears, so it's not really corruption he has a choice in the matter.

pft. Imagination land has nothing on dream world. and dream world is free to enter.:p

how so? I didn't say i was going to take the briefcase, the person would merely offer it as a token of gratitude or be chased by the imaginary armoured bears, so it's not really corruption he has a choice in the matter.

MHiJ, what would we do without you or LG, or Junii?:D

pft. Imagination land has nothing on dream world. and dream world is free to enter.:p
yeah but dream world is full of lunatics wanting to kill me, so i try to avoid that place. Imagination land has far more flexability, and you know what's going to happen next, dream world is messed up man, it's scary.
MHiJ, what would we do without you or LG, or Junii?:D

I'd have to invent me if i didn't exist, but if i didn't exist i couldn't invent me, so i suppose i'd be a bit stuck to invent myself if i didn't exist, i'd need some help from a person who doesn't know i exist to make me exist. um i don't think i've thought this one through.
A world without me? well technically this is impossible, because i'm a part of this world it wouldn't be the same one if it was a world without me, so in a sense it is plausable, but very confusing, now what was this thread about?
Ah yes denial of holocaust, wow, they must be in nightmare land then. That's even more scary than dream land.
*shudders*

Em... come again? How does my statement implies that I´m already in imagination land? I truly think ignorance is the cause of some people denying the Holocaust ever happened.

But, since according to you, I´m in Imagination Land, why don´t you tell me why would some people go as far as denying a tragedy like the murdering of 6 million souls, or of any other mass ethnic massacre the world has ever seen? Please...

I don't deny that ignorance is why people deny the holocaust. I was referring to you trying to outlaw ignorance.

I don't deny that ignorance is why people deny the holocaust. I was referring to you trying to outlaw ignorance.

I think it should be outlawed, yes, nothing outrageous about it. But I know that´s impossible too.

If it were illegal the punishment should be explaining this to all the people who lost family members to it.
I think denial should be illegal, the sheer wieght of evidence is undeniable, the implications of refusing it dangerous,.

So... denying, say, gravity, should also be illegal? There is overwhelming evidence to support it's existence, and the implications of refusing it can also be quite dangerous.

Therefore, it should be illegal to deny anything that has supportive of evidence, or could be potentially dangerous.

I will have you know that I have heard near-reasonable arguments arguing against the Holocaust, did it still happen? Well, of course, but you are attempting to fault people for their (potentially harmless) beliefs.

it would only encourage hatred, no benefit i can see so deny the holocaust.

And your intolerance doesn't breed hatred?

I think they can say it, just as long as the rest of us can say they're full of crap.

Well put.

The way to end intolerance is not to be intolerant. By allowing all people to express all of their beliefs, and opinions, society gains by shedding light to ignorance.

Maybe. So?

Umm... well... it's legality is exactly the point here, I don't know how to make it any more obvious.

Nonsense. Some speech undermines the public forum by delegitimizing parts of society.

Ok, so everyone who ever has said anything bad about Republicans, conservatives, or President Bush should be jailed, because they are deligitimizing a valid political view.

EDIT: 1,000 posts.

Umm... well... it's legality is exactly the point here, I don't know how to make it any more obvious.

Yes, but the question is not "is", but "should."

Ok, so everyone who ever has said anything bad about Republicans, conservatives, or President Bush should be jailed, because they are deligitimizing a valid political view.

Obviously not. But political views are not at all comparable to arbitrary, immutable characteristics like race, gender, or sexual orientation.

We have reason to dislike political views. The public forum is expanded when we are granted more freedom in arguing about them; that's the point. But when we engage in hate speech, when we marginalize certain people and undermine the basic participatory principles of democracy and free speech, we have moved to another quite different level.

Yes. Implicitly anti-Semitic, it is a form of hate speech, and permitting its propagation corrupts rather than expands the public forum.
Hate speech should be legal.

Also, since semitic people were hardly an overwhelming majority if of the victims (and possibly not a majority at all), I don't see how holocaust denial would be anti-semitic more than it would be anti-gay, anti-communist, or anti-gypsy.

Maybe. So?


Nonsense. Some speech undermines the public forum by delegitimizing parts of society.

So, she said it should not be allowed because it's hate speech. Hate speech is protected speech. So, it should not be made illegal because it is already constitutionally protected.

Some tries. Some even succeeds. But in a truly open forum, others are free to respond to such speech with their own ideas and points, creating a dialogue. I think in general that dialogue is good--even with stupid people who have stupid ideas (yes, I have qualified myself to judge what is stupid :p). All of us come up against arguments on NSG every day that we find totally ridiculous, incendiary or plain obnoxious, but when we engage in dialogue about them we bring those issues into the public forum, we acquire new information and supply new facts and ideas to others, and we clarify and reassess our own positions.

Another thing is: If we make Holocaust denial illegal, should we also make denial of any genocide illegal?

Yes, it may.

OK, we really seem to disagree so I'll drop the silly example and go back to your general case.

Hate speech is protected by the first amendment. All speech expands the public forum.

Nonsense. Some speech undermines the public forum by delegitimizing parts of society.

Firstly, I do not precisely agree with Ryadn either. "Expanding the public forum" sounds fine ... but more is not necessarily better. The vast bulk of "speech" is just rubbish, a mindless clutter of entertainment and me-tooing. It's very easy to be distracted, to be entertained by intriguing information. Our age lacks introspection.

To a large extent, I believe knowledge has become a personal choice. What people believe is far more what they WANT to believe, than what they are told to or what there is an informed, debated consensus about.

So I see the danger of misinformation as being danger to the misinformed. If someone deludes themselves that molesting children or beating up Pakies is perfectly fine, they'll lumber right in and get caught committing a crime with far more ease than someone who'se been forced to hide their intentions.

And I believe that we should have NO laws to protect people from themselves.

Before we go any further, can you please define what you mean by "delegitimizing"? Is it a term from some school of social sciences?

Yes, but the question is not "is", but "should."



Obviously not. But political views are not at all comparable to arbitrary, immutable characteristics like race, gender, or sexual orientation.

We have reason to dislike political views. The public forum is expanded when we are granted more freedom in arguing about them; that's the point. But when we engage in hate speech, when we marginalize certain people and undermine the basic participatory principles of democracy and free speech, we have moved to another quite different level.

Opinion.

But, since according to you, I´m in Imagination Land, why don´t you tell me why would some people go as far as denying a tragedy like the murdering of 6 million souls, or of any other mass ethnic massacre the world has ever seen? Please...

Actually, it was more like 11 million souls. I don't mean to nitpick, but since we are discussing disinformation... let's not forget all the murdered who weren't Jewish, they still died.

Firstly, I do not precisely agree with Ryadn either. "Expanding the public forum" sounds fine ... but more is not necessarily better. The vast bulk of "speech" is just rubbish, a mindless clutter of entertainment and me-tooing. It's very easy to be distracted, to be entertained by intriguing information. Our age lacks introspection.

I'll conceed that was a somewhat sweeping statement. I've encountered quite a few posts on NSG that did nothing to expand the public forum. :p A better phrasing might be that there is little speech that limits or injures the public forum. A thousand fools might spout nonsense and biggotry that adds very little to the general discussion, but their nonsense does not silence or take away from opposing viewpoints, and by speaking, they are giving the opposition a chance to confront them.

Of course, this is assigning a certain degree of reason to the majority of people... what can I say, I'm a humanist.

Actually, it was more like 11 million souls. I don't mean to nitpick, but since we are discussing disinformation... let's not forget all the murdered who weren't Jewish, they still died.



I'll conceed that was a somewhat sweeping statement. I've encountered quite a few posts on NSG that did nothing to expand the public forum. :p A better phrasing might be that there is little speech that limits or injures the public forum. A thousand fools might spout nonsense and biggotry that adds very little to the general discussion, but their nonsense does not silence or take away from opposing viewpoints, and by speaking, they are giving the opposition a chance to confront them.

Of course, this is assigning a certain degree of reason to the majority of people... what can I say, I'm a humanist.

Agreed.

So, she said it should not be allowed because it's hate speech. Hate speech is protected speech. So, it should not be made illegal because it is already constitutionally protected.

You're considering the question too narrowly.

Should we pass a law that contradicts the fundamental law of the nation? No.

But should the fundamental law of the nation prohibit laws that restrict hate speech? Also no.

Some tries. Some even succeeds. But in a truly open forum, others are free to respond to such speech with their own ideas and points, creating a dialogue.

Maybe in a world where we are already equal. Unfortunately, in this world the capacity of marginalized voices to respond to the people who seek to undermine and silence them is attenuated by the very fact of their marginalization. To pretend that an abstract, formal "equal opportunity" is sufficient is thus to diminish the critical role of free speech: the capacity for such voices to CHANGE our society.

If we want to ensure that such a capacity is substantive and real, we must protect the equality as well as the freedom of the public forum. And that means opposing the hate speech that emerges from and seeks to reinforce existing power relations.

(Is the status of Jews in the United States at risk in this way? Not really. But Jews have been in such conditions in the past, and the symbolic role of prohibiting Holocaust denial in line with such reasoning is still important.)

I think in general that dialogue is good--even with stupid people who have stupid ideas (yes, I have qualified myself to judge what is stupid :p).

I agree. "In general." When any such dialogue would be in a sense a false one--an expression of power instead of a productive, rational discussion between equal partners--the matter changes.

All of us come up against arguments on NSG every day that we find totally ridiculous, incendiary or plain obnoxious, but when we engage in dialogue about them we bring those issues into the public forum, we acquire new information and supply new facts and ideas to others, and we clarify and reassess our own positions.

And we should never prohibit a viewpoint because we find it "ridiculous, incendiary, or plain obnoxious." At least, not only because.

Another thing is: If we make Holocaust denial illegal, should we also make denial of any genocide illegal?

When its truth has been firmly and indisputably established by scholarly research, and denialism towards it carries a clear bigoted subtext? Yes.

So I see the danger of misinformation as being danger to the misinformed. If someone deludes themselves that molesting children or beating up Pakies is perfectly fine, they'll lumber right in and get caught committing a crime with far more ease than someone who'se been forced to hide their intentions.

Trouble is, we live in a democracy. Misinformed individuals have consequences for the rest of us.

More importantly, as a public we should not WANT to be misled: we should want to hear marginalized voices, to fully include everyone in our public discussions, so that we can arrive at truth and right.

That's why we should protect free speech in the first place. And that's why we should restrict hate speech.

Before we go any further, can you please define what you mean by "delegitimizing"?

Casting people as something other than rightful members of society--as inhuman, as inferior, as undeserving of consideration.

If we want to ensure that such a capacity is substantive and real, we must protect the equality as well as the freedom of the public forum. And that means opposing the hate speech that emerges from and seeks to reinforce existing power relations.

I see you have your plate full and I'm quite happy to read you and Ryadn instead of having an answer to my post...

but I can't sit still for this. It's some kind of affirmative action stance, on speech. Really bizarre!

It's some kind of affirmative action stance, on speech.

That's not a bad description. Opponents of affirmative action similarly insist on an overly abstract understanding of the concepts at issue.

Really bizarre!

How so?

When its truth has been firmly and indisputably established by scholarly research, and denialism towards it carries a clear bigoted subtext? Yes.

Tell me, do you support the suppression of David Irving's work? Because it seems to me that his attempts to participate in the scholarly research was a step in that exact direction, to "firmly and indisputably establish by scholarly research" the facts of the Holocaust. By challenging the accepted view he actually strengthened it.

Is there any field of speech, say peer-reviewed academic papers, where it would be OK to deny that the Holocaust happened?

... Casting people as something other than rightful members of society--as inhuman, as inferior, as undeserving of consideration.

OK, I'll try to work that out. At first blush, it looks like you took one vaguely-defined term and replaced it with another ("casting".)

I think the poll´s clear. Holocaust denial should not be illegal. It attempts against free speech.

By challenging the accepted view he actually strengthened it.

Perhaps. But the "accepted view" does not need to be strengthened; the refinement it needs can come from legitimate scholarly research rather than denialist nonsense.

The substantive effect of denying the Holocaust is not serving the quest for truth, because it does not emerge from rational inquiry; it only serves the denial of legitimacy to the suffering of Jews and the other victims of the Nazis.

Of course, Holocaust denial is actually pretty ineffectual. Any prohibition would be symbolic. But that is not the same thing as unjustified.

Is there any field of speech, say peer-reviewed academic papers, where it would be OK to deny that the Holocaust happened?

Talking to your friends? Similarly private interactions (even if they occur in public)? I'm not interested in oppressing people.

OK, I'll try to work that out. At first blush, it looks like you took one vaguely-defined term and replaced it with another ("casting".)

"Portraying"? I don't see how I'm being unclear at all.

I think the poll´s clear. Holocaust denial should not be illegal.

Polls on NSG decide truth?

That's not a bad description. Opponents of affirmative action similarly insist on an overly abstract understanding of the concepts at issue.

It's not just on the matter of employment discrimination, or non-discriminatory language, that it is wise to consider what precedents we set.

In other words, we SHOULD consider the principle which underlies each well-intentioned solution to a specific problem.

You would surely agree that affirmative action (which I am undecided on, btw) is part of a broader principle, say equity?

I kind of agree that always shifting from the specific to the general, in debate, is an effective way of preventing any firm conclusion which could be implemented as policy. It can be used as a tactic and I'll try not to do that.

How so?

Perspectives. From within the established order, to the beneficiaries (those who already have the greater power) it seems unnecessary or even unfair. To those outside, it seems necessary and fair.

You seem to feel that those outside, dissidents or progressives who want to change the structures of power are necessarily more correct in their understanding of the situation.

What's bizarre is that you call for terms of debate where one party is necessarily more correct than the other, before the issue at debate has even been put on the table. It is the one who begins at a disadvantage, by being of a more minority view or by having a less-amplified voice. That doesn't seem bizarre to you?

What if that person is disempowered, disadvantaged by precedent and minority because they are WRONG? What if they are, for instance, an advocate of violent eugenics?

Polls on NSG decide truth?

I never stated that. I only pointed out that the post here was pretty clear on the subject;) Now, though, if Holocaust denial is made illegal, that´s another thing. And no, Soheran, NSG polls do not decide truth.

Polls on NSG decide truth?

Didn't get the memo? We took over the world last tuesday.

WE decide what is true, but the ignorant peons shouldn't worry. We use polls! :p

Didn't get the memo? We took over the world last tuesday.

WE decide what is true, but the ignorant peons shouldn't worry. We use polls! :p

You make NSG sound like a dictatorship...:eek:
Now, when was the coup d´etat?:confused:

"Portraying"? I don't see how I'm being unclear at all.

I don't either. I'm just not getting a clear understanding, there's something bothering me about what all those words have in common.

Let me ponder it for a while. Ryadn had strong points ... I'm not sure I'm making as much sense. And I need breakfast. ;)

Another thing is: If we make Holocaust denial illegal, should we also make denial of any genocide illegal?

Perhaps we should make it illegal to deny anything that someone else believes.

After all, it is only by desecrating freedom of speech, and the ideology of tolerance, that we can bring both to glory... or something....

Perhaps we should make it illegal to deny anything that someone else believes.

After all, it is only by desecrating freedom of speech, and the ideology of tolerance, that we can bring both to glory... or something....

I voted for making Ignorance illegal and was told I lived in Imagination Land.:rolleyes: It doesn´t work.

You make NSG sound like a dictatorship...:eek:
Now, when was the coup d´etat?:confused:

Coup? Someone overthrew LG's unanimious NSG rulership?

:p

So... denying, say, gravity, should also be illegal? There is overwhelming evidence to support it's existence, and the implications of refusing it can also be quite dangerous.
Therefore, it should be illegal to deny anything that has supportive of evidence, or could be potentially dangerous.

I will have you know that I have heard near-reasonable arguments arguing against the Holocaust, did it still happen? Well, of course, but you are attempting to fault people for their (potentially harmless) beliefs.



And your intolerance doesn't breed hatred?

Not quite, gravity can't be persuaded to forget some people now and then, the holocaust has moral implications, the two are very different. Gravity is a physics issue, the holocaust is a social issue.

Reasonable arguments against the holocaust?:confused: where?

I suppose you could argue my intolerance on this issue could breed hatred, but clearly if you acknowledge the holocaust having occured this will bring about less hatred than denying it's existance, therefore it makes sense to agree it did occur.
Also the implications of denying the holocaust mean, why can't we deny other horrific genocides? Why believe any of them?
It's strange to think it never happened, you might as well argue humans don't exist, therefore pain doesn't matter.
Clearly this too would be nonsensical, to prove this wrong all you need to do is set fire to your hand. Because you take in by sense experience your idea of self.

Polls on NSG decide truth?

...are you trying to say they don't? What the hell have I been doing with the past 11 hours of my life then?

Coup? Someone overthrew LG's unanimious NSG rulership?

:p

I´m at a loss, just like you. But yes, apparently LG´s unanimous NSG ruledom has been overthrown by a bunch of Generalites. I´m appalled.

In other words, we SHOULD consider the principle which underlies each well-intentioned solution to a specific problem.

Of course. The problem is that too often we do not deal in any concrete terms at all, principles or otherwise. We miss the real-world significance of the concepts by removing them from their practical contexts.

We talk about "equal treatment" independently of considering its end: what an equal society meaningfully entails. We talk about "free speech" and "tolerance" without considering their ends: what a tolerant society, a society genuinely willing to pursue truth and right according to reason, actually looks like.

So we end up with absurdities. A non-discriminating application of "colorblindness" inspired by an overly-abstract notion of equality obscures or even worsens racial inequality, and a non-discriminating application of "free speech" inspired by an overly-abstract notion of tolerance obscures or even worsens the intolerance of society.

You seem to feel that those outside, dissidents or progressives who want to change the structures of power are necessarily more correct in their understanding of the situation.

I assume nothing of the sort. I assume that those "outside"--those marginalized, those denied meaningful participation--are entitled to be inside. They are entitled to be given the same consideration as everyone else.

What's bizarre is that you call for terms of debate where one party is necessarily more correct than the other, before the issue at debate has even been put on the table.

Are you talking about Holocaust denial specifically, or hate speech in general?

In the case of Holocaust denial, recall that my problem is not with the immediate content itself but with its bigoted subtext. True, I am willing to prohibit the content, but only because this debate has essentially already been decided. There is no real question: the Holocaust happened. (I would not do the same in cases that have similarly been decided, but which lack the bigotry.)

In the case of hate speech, yes, I am willing to admit that I exclude on principle certain views. But I do so in deference to the ends of the public forum: the arrival at truth, at public justice, both of which requiring meaningful participation from marginalized groups.

What if that person is disempowered, disadvantaged by precedent and minority because they are WRONG?

Then they are not disadvantaged or disempowered, because they are not excluded on principle. Indeed, they are not excluded at all. They are simply ignored--having heard what they had to say, people concluded that they were wrong.

We must not, of course, move to actually prohibit minority views because they are minority. To do so would also undermine the critical role of free speech I have outlined. (Hate speech is a special case NOT because it is minority, but because, unlike, say, the Libertarian Party, it actively undermines the role of public forum.)

I'll conceed that was a somewhat sweeping statement. I've encountered quite a few posts on NSG that did nothing to expand the public forum. :p A better phrasing might be that there is little speech that limits or injures the public forum.

Indeed, I would say that it is only the voice of authority which does that. And it is not their words (orders or demands) which injure, but the threat they carry that if the orders or demands are not met, punishment will be delivered.

This is not "debate" but, as Soheran said, the application of power.

Yet, I disagree with him after that. Silencing the words does not remove the power. In fact, the most effective use of power is the silent, unjustified act itself as practiced by a police state. Tell them nothing, let them learn what they will from the unexplained disappearance of their comrades. It works all too well.

A thousand fools might spout nonsense and biggotry that adds very little to the general discussion, but their nonsense does not silence or take away from opposing viewpoints, and by speaking, they are giving the opposition a chance to confront them.

Too many people judge truth by quantity not quality. Repetition persuades them. For this, I blame their parents and teachers. :(

Of course, this is assigning a certain degree of reason to the majority of people... what can I say, I'm a humanist.

Nice. Hope it works for you!

Silencing the words does not remove the power.

Of course it doesn't.

But it's one small step along the way.

Too many people judge truth by quantity not quality. Repetition persuades them. For this, I blame their parents and teachers. :(

Hey! :( I'm doing my small part to turn kindergartners into rabble-rousers and activists. They've got the rabble down all right.

Of course it doesn't.

But it's one small step along the way.

I think you were closer to the truth when you said it is a symbolic step.

I think it's irresponsible to pass a law we don't intend to enforce, and I think it would be disasterous to jail anyone for uttering a ridiculous untruth we deem "hate speech" merely by association with the rest of their agenda.

I'll grant that hate speech maybe should be banned, when it is intimidating. When it makes direct threats against a person or demographic, or conspires to commit a non-speech crime against them.

Holocaust denial itself does not do that. We should permit it, and take advantage of the opportunity it gives our law enforcement to identify the likely stormtroopers of the future. When they break gun laws, harass others, violate the privacy of others, or even assault them, they should be jailed.

Forcing the would-be Nazis and the rebellious youth who would test the limits of free speech together is a bad idea. Forcing them underground, into secrecy and preparation to repel the police, is nothing short of reckless.

Let them delude themselves. Let them recruit from the ranks of others as dysfunctional as themselves. Crush them when they do real harm. But none of these picket fences of acceptable speech, it's just a sop to our own sense of historic guilt.

Too many people judge truth by quantity not quality. Repetition persuades them. For this, I blame their parents and teachers. :( Hey! :( I'm doing my small part to turn kindergartners into rabble-rousers and activists. They've got the rabble down all right.

Oh, damn. I just tacked that on to try to soften what seemed a negative and cynical statement on my part about humanity.

Of course there is no conspiracy of parents and teachers to make kids think badly. But the bad habits of thought of most adults were formed in childhood, when they became thinking beings. I don't pretend to know the solution and shouldn't have blamed anyone.

I think you were closer to the truth when you said it is a symbolic step.

Prohibiting Holocaust denial would be a symbolic step. Prohibiting hate speech in general? Certainly not.

I think it's irresponsible to pass a law we don't intend to enforce, and I think it would be disasterous to jail anyone for uttering a ridiculous untruth we deem "hate speech" merely by association with the rest of their agenda.

It's not "by association."

If a Neo-Nazi gave a speech about building a highway, one that in itself wasn't bigoted, I have no problem and would never advocate restricting it.

I'll grant that hate speech maybe should be banned, when it is intimidating.

But it is always intimidating, implicitly if not explicitly. To be attacked and degraded for being who you are is inherently intimidating.

Forcing the would-be Nazis and the rebellious youth who would test the limits of free speech together is a bad idea.

Who's forcing them together? The same law would apply to both, but so what?

Forcing them underground, into secrecy and preparation to repel the police, is nothing short of reckless.

I'm not saying we should wage war against them. I'm saying that we should restrict their freedom of expression.

But none of these picket fences of acceptable speech, it's just a sop to our own sense of historic guilt.

Who's "our"? I don't feel any "historical guilt." Except perhaps as a member of a political community that has in the past committed horrific crimes... but I haven't said a word about reparations. Yet. ;)

We talk about "equal treatment" independently of considering its end: what an equal society meaningfully entails. We talk about "free speech" and "tolerance" without considering their ends: what a tolerant society, a society genuinely willing to pursue truth and right according to reason, actually looks like.
People do consider it, necessarily. They just don't always agree with you. Does free speech mean "everyone can say something if they want", "everyone can say something and others have to listen" or "everyone has to say something"? Very different scenarios, all of which can be argued to be required for free speech to be meaningful. Any option you choose I can argue against, we would be considering this meaning and we still wouldn't necessarily be concluding that hate speech should be outlawed.

I think you're trying to make a ninja-like jump from the negative to the positive here. Sneaky bugger, you are. ;)

Yes.

Explanation:

http://www.wyolife.com/kerryfest/auschwitz%20prisoners.jpg

We talk about "equal treatment" independently of considering its end: what an equal society meaningfully entails. We talk about "free speech" and "tolerance" without considering their ends: what a tolerant society, a society genuinely willing to pursue truth and right according to reason, actually looks like.


People do consider it, necessarily. They just don't always agree with you.

I agree completely. Say that we don't consider the ends is really just saying we don't consider the ends YOU desire. For myself, I do not want a world where my speech has to be carefully monitored lest someone find it offensive, therefore, to me, free speech is an end in itself! There are real limits to free speech: commercial fraud, criminal actions, inciting panic, but "hate speech" is far too subjective a category.

the holocaust has moral implicationswhich?

nope, cus what's the next 'denial' that would become illegal

Religion?
Science?
Union?What's bad about making lying illegal?

What's bad about making lying illegal?

Parents lie to their children because they feel a child is not old enough to handle the truth. Would that kind of lying be illegal?

A person may lie to their spouse because they don't want their spouse to worry unnecessarily, or they realise their spouse has enough to worry about. Would this kind of lying be illegal?

Religions lie about the truth. Should religions be illegal?

Pro-lifers, namely those who stage anti-abortion rallies often use pictures of stillborns and miscarried foetuses, deliberately claiming that these are aborted foetuses. Should they be allowed to lie or would this be illegal?

There is no reason to make lying about the holocaust illegal. Not when so many people are willing to debunk the lies. As long as people are lying, the truth will be out there. We need people to deny other events so that they get the same attention.

Hollocaust denial shouldn't be illegal for the same reason that the denial of evolution isn't illegal - just because you deny something doesn't make it not true

Any option you choose I can argue against, we would be considering this meaning and we still wouldn't necessarily be concluding that hate speech should be outlawed.

I'm not sure what your point is. Do people have different ideas about what society should look like? Yes, obviously. Does an absolutist defense of free speech abstract from the ends to which a strong defense of free speech should be (and historically has been) directed? Also yes, if not so obviously.

In effect, advocates of an absolutist doctrine of free speech replace the strong, full justification with weaker ones... but keep the strength of the limitation. In other words, they miss the point, but repeat it anyway.

Edit: While what I say here is correct, I think my point yesterday was different. What I meant was not so much that they didn't recognize the end as that they didn't consider it in application.

I think you're trying to make a ninja-like jump from the negative to the positive here. Sneaky bugger, you are. ;)

No, I'm not. You're just (I assume) accepting a libertarian account of free speech that I think is nonsense, founded as it is in absolute private property rights.

From my point of view, ANY strong right to free speech is "positive" (even if its application is a negative restriction) in that it seeks a positive end: the rational public pursuit of truth and right.

I agree completely. Say that we don't consider the ends is really just saying we don't consider the ends YOU desire.

No, it's not. The right to political speech is independent of the ends any of us might desire, in fact. It takes its force and its stringency from the nature of democracy. We are not free as a public if we are not free to think as a public.

We may have any number of other reasons to support free speech. I have several. But none of them have the force of that one. And all of them, though they are goods, might be outweighed by other goods.

Not the first--not, in any case, under anything but truly extreme circumstances.

For myself, I do not want a world where my speech has to be carefully monitored lest someone find it offensive, therefore, to me, free speech is an end in itself!

Great. But there are many ends in themselves, many goods to which we can direct ourselves and our society. Why is that one so important?

There are real limits to free speech: commercial fraud, criminal actions, inciting panic, but "hate speech" is far too subjective a category.

That's why it should be defined precisely and objectively by law. I'm not proposing vigilantism against people who engage in hate speech.

I am against making any way of thought illegal. If the government started doing this, what would prevent the government from making reasonable decent on issues like Global Warming a crime.

I am against making any way of thought illegal.

So am I.

Publishing a book (say) is not "thought."

In other words, we SHOULD consider the principle which underlies each well-intentioned solution to a specific problem.
Of course. The problem is that too often we do not deal in any concrete terms at all, principles or otherwise. We miss the real-world significance of the concepts by removing them from their practical contexts.

We agree on this I think.

Every case must be tested against principle, every principle tested with cases. There are expedient cases, stopgap measures which we concede are imperfect, but are better than doing nothing. When we implement them, we should be mark them "Warning. Temporary structure, use with adult supervision. Test regularly."

(The Second Amendment should have been so marked, for instance.)

I am always more comfortable in the abstract, I prefer to argue the principle, argue how it should be rather than how to deal with how it is, or make compromises to improve the current situation. When challenged, I move to principle because there I am more confident.

I won't apologize for that. I contribute as best I can, from my strengths. I'm not God and nor are you.

We talk about "equal treatment" independently of considering its end: what an equal society meaningfully entails. We talk about "free speech" and "tolerance" without considering their ends: what a tolerant society, a society genuinely willing to pursue truth and right according to reason, actually looks like.

Yes. Like a dream, it's hard to remember when brought into the light of day.

Perhaps the problem is that we're talking about implementing a better society in a top-down way, when in fact idealism only prospers on a small scale and we must simply practice the way we want society to be, then have faith that it will spread. Not impose it.

So we end up with absurdities. A non-discriminating application of "colorblindness" inspired by an overly-abstract notion of equality obscures or even worsens racial inequality, and a non-discriminating application of "free speech" inspired by an overly-abstract notion of tolerance obscures or even worsens the intolerance of society.

Obscures yes, worsens no. Perhaps we waste goodwill on these things ... but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You seem to feel that those outside, dissidents or progressives who want to change the structures of power are necessarily more correct in their understanding of the situation.

I assume nothing of the sort. I assume that those "outside"--those marginalized, those denied meaningful participation--are entitled to be inside. They are entitled to be given the same consideration as everyone else.

Oh, OK. You have a quite different model of society than mine, and we will always reach different conclusions. This very word "marginalized" is one I probably wouldn't use, it seems to smack of conspiracy to me. It seems to imply that the structures of society are such because that serves the interests of the powerful, whereas I see it the other way around: some are more powerful because of a structure which nobody designed or built, but which is simply what we inherited.

What's bizarre is that you call for terms of debate where one party is necessarily more correct than the other, before the issue at debate has even been put on the table. It is the one who begins at a disadvantage, by being of a more minority view or by having a less-amplified voice.

Are you talking about Holocaust denial specifically, or hate speech in general?

I was confusing the two, and the mental dissonance I've had all through this discussion stems I think from that. Holocaust Denial and Hate Speech are both bad things. Initially I opposed outlawing either, but as I've come to see merit in banning some forms of hate speech I've realized that HD is not a specific case of HS, and HS is not the general principle behind HD.

Each time we talk about Holocaust Denial as though it is an example of Hate Speech, we further confuse ourselves. Precursor to exculpating the Nazis, yes. Attractive delusion for Germans or east Europeans whose ancestors collaborated with the Nazis, yes. A supporting belief for an ideology of hatred, yes.

In itself, Holocaust denial is not hate speech. It is not directly intimidating to anyone or any group, even less so for being ridiculously wrong.

In the case of Holocaust denial, recall that my problem is not with the immediate content itself but with its bigoted subtext. True, I am willing to prohibit the content, but only because this debate has essentially already been decided. There is no real question: the Holocaust happened. (I would not do the same in cases that have similarly been decided, but which lack the bigotry.)

OK. I honestly don't see the danger of expressing the untruth. On this, the subject of the thread, I am utterly unmoved by your argument.

Suppose the view that the Holocaust never happened were somehow to take off and become widespread? What would be the consequences of that?

Are we then going to move on to "hey, the Nazis weren't bad after all. They only seized power from a democratic government and started the biggest war of all time" ...?

In the case of hate speech, yes, I am willing to admit that I exclude on principle certain views. But I do so in deference to the ends of the public forum: the arrival at truth, at public justice, both of which requiring meaningful participation from marginalized groups.

Yes, I too see that hate speech is harmful to individuals, it makes them feel personally intimidated even when it is addressed to a type of person not an individual. And yes, that will dampen their voices (some will speak for themselves, but others will be silenced from fear.)

That's bad, but to some extent it's unavoidable. We must strike a balance, and my concern is not so much where we are now, as the trend towards restricting speech which might offend someone.

We must strike a balance, and for me it's where a person CAN speak up without fear of being beaten up, or their property damaged, or being fired from their job. (Unless I guess their job is in fact as a public speaker, eg a television presenter.)


What if that person is disempowered, disadvantaged by precedent and minority because they are WRONG? What if they are, for instance, an advocate of violent eugenics?

Then they are not disadvantaged or disempowered, because they are not excluded on principle.

OK, I get that now. To exclude someone on the basis of what they say is OK, on the basis of characteristics they cannot change like race is not OK. I concede that point.

Indeed, they are not excluded at all. They are simply ignored--having heard what they had to say, people concluded that they were wrong.

Yet, you would take that choice away from people, by preventing us hearing what those people had to say.

We must allow racist or otherwise intolerant views to be expressed in political terms. It devalues the arguments for tolerance or inclusion, to intervene in debate with government punishments. Where to draw the line between political speech and direct intimidation is tricky but we must err in favour of political speech.

Individuals will feel intimidated by some kind of political speech. That's unavoidable in any case -- government does affect people's lives, individually for better or worse, and they should get involved if they feel a proposal threatens their interests.

We must not, of course, move to actually prohibit minority views because they are minority. To do so would also undermine the critical role of free speech I have outlined. (Hate speech is a special case NOT because it is minority, but because, unlike, say, the Libertarian Party, it actively undermines the role of public forum.)

The public forum thing I abandon. I find the concept confusing, and not really necessary to the question at hand, which is the outlawing of the expression of a particular belief.

How does one person asserting that the Holocaust never happened prevent any other person from contributing to a "public forum"? Other than by adding meaningless noise, I just don't see it.

I voted for making Ignorance illegal and was told I lived in Imagination Land.:rolleyes: It doesn´t work.

Who decides what constitutes ignorance?

Who decides what constitutes ignorance?

No one is going to answer it, Magdha. A lot of people think that they posses the ultimate Truth. Personally, I think that the people who want to make holocaust denial illegal are worse than people who deny the holocaust. The first are trying to minimize liberty and free speech (in order to start making illegal other beliefs too) while the second are just plain stupid.

Woah, woah, that´s exactly what we´re doing here. We´re debating an issue that, honestly, is disgusting. How can a group of idiots deny something that altered the very history of humanity? Something that´s so well documented, that has been shown, that has been proven? It´s beyond me! How can you say that no one cares to study, to learn or to debate? You´re either buying into what the deniers cater or you truly are a simpleton. I care, and I´ve seen several members here care too. That´s why Magdha made this thread, to do exactly what you so blatantly say no one cares about anymore. And by doing this very thing, we´re learning. Which is more than I can say about the Deniers.

Sites like this one (http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/bothsides.shtml) give a little insight

I think you were closer to the truth when you said it is a symbolic step.Prohibiting Holocaust denial would be a symbolic step. Prohibiting hate speech in general? Certainly not.

Agreed. I would prohibit some forms of hate speech.

I think it's irresponsible to pass a law we don't intend to enforce, and I think it would be disasterous to jail anyone for uttering a ridiculous untruth we deem "hate speech" merely by association with the rest of their agenda.
It's not "by association."

I meant what you meant, when you said it was the "subtext" of denial which could be harmful.

Holocaust denial itself does not do that. We should permit it, and take advantage of the opportunity it gives our law enforcement to identify the likely stormtroopers of the future. When they break gun laws, harass others, violate the privacy of others, or even assault them, they should be jailed.

You did not answer this?

Forcing the would-be Nazis and the rebellious youth who would test the limits of free speech together is a bad idea.

Who's forcing them together? The same law would apply to both, but so what?

My point is that rebellious youth (I was one myself of course) look around for limits to test, they challenge seemingly arbitrary rules like this one.

A law against Holocaust denial makes neo-Nazism attractive to people who otherwise might break drug laws or pornography laws just for the hell of it.

Forcing the would-be Nazis and the rebellious youth who would test the limits of free speech together is a bad idea. Forcing them underground, into secrecy and preparation to repel the police, is nothing short of reckless.

I'm not saying we should wage war against them. I'm saying that we should restrict their freedom of expression.

Oh, it sounds so nice like that. "Restrict." You're talking about putting them in jail.

But none of these picket fences of acceptable speech, it's just a sop to our own sense of historic guilt.

Who's "our"? I don't feel any "historical guilt." Except perhaps as a member of a political community that has in the past committed horrific crimes... but I haven't said a word about reparations. Yet. ;)

Reparations would be a massive red herring. So don't.

Where are the laws against Holocaust denial? They are in Germany and Eastern Europe. And Switzerland. It is surely significant that countries where there were no Nazis or Nazi collaborators haven't felt the need for such laws.

It should definitely be protected under free speech. People have a right to be wrong. As others have pointed out, some people will believe what they believe whether they express it or not, but if they're allowed to express it, then it can be more directly publicly refuted. By censoring them, you're only giving them more ammo, since then they can point out how their opponents are violating their right to free speech.

Who decides what constitutes ignorance?

The history professor who marks your exam.

We must implement a three stage campaign against ignorance!


Self-education. You get one chance to become generally knowledgable about everything. At age 16, you sit the exam.
Remedial education. If you fail any part of the exam, re-education camp for you. Then you re-sit the exam.
Final education. Two chances is more than generous. Hanging is fairly humane, and certainly cheap.

I'd have to invent me if i didn't exist,

I think you just did...

Who decides what constitutes ignorance?

Certainly I´m not the one who decides what constitutes ignorance, if that´s what you´re asking. But I do think ignorance is key here. Who but someone ignorant would go as far as denying the holocaust? Again, I think ignorance should be outlawed, but I don´t make the rules. What I think doesn´t make a differnece. Does it?:rolleyes:

I´m at a loss, just like you. But yes, apparently LG´s unanimous NSG ruledom has been overthrown by a bunch of Generalites. I´m appalled.

It's ok, there was a poll...

Again, I think ignorance should be outlawed

OK ... how?

Murder is outlawed. What that means in practice is that people murder each other, then we* punish them for it.

I'm having trouble imagining how we do something similar for ignorance.

*we, by electing governments which enforce laws.

From my point of view, ANY strong right to free speech is "positive" (even if its application is a negative restriction) in that it seeks a positive end: the rational public pursuit of truth and right.
That's where the difference is. You see free speech as a tool you want to use to mold society in a way you find appropriate, while I see free speech as an end to itself. What people do with it is their choice, not mine, and I don't propose that they need to be guided in their exercise of their rights to make sure they get an outcome I have in mind.

And the rational pursuit of truth and right will be guaranteed because any other action will lead to the agent's destruction at the hand of reality. Of course, that destruction can be delayed through various means, but not indefinitely. That's not a public matter though, because reason is a necessarily individualistic tool (we don't have a mind, I have a mind and you have a mind) and the more public something gets, the greater the likelihood of reason being brushed aside.

Yes. Implicitly anti-Semitic, it is a form of hate speech, and permitting its propagation corrupts rather than expands the public forum.
In and of itself? I doubt it. I remember in grade 11 my English teacher mentioned that some people deny the holocaust because they're not willing to admit that human beings would commit such atrocities, so it's not always about anti-semitism.

Heck, who knows, maybe some people just can't accept that such things happened to the Jews like how some people can't accept that a certain family member died. According to Wikipedia, "Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence."

So really, the assumption that holocaust denial is about anti-semitism is questionable at best. But even if we were to grant that assumption, does that mean it IS anti-semitism in itself? If it's anti-semitism in itself, does that mean an anti-semite who tries to justify the holocaust is somehow less anti-semitic than someone who is equivalently anti-semitic otherwise and tries to deny it?

That's where the difference is. You see free speech as a tool you want to use to mold society in a way you find appropriate, while I see free speech as an end to itself.

I think you mischaracterize Soheran there. Describing another poster's views in your own words is always a risky business. Is there some way you can quote him directly to make that point?

This: "ANY strong right to free speech is "positive" (even if its application is a negative restriction) in that it seeks a positive end: the rational public pursuit of truth and right"

does not mean this: "free speech is a tool I want to use to mold society in a way I find appropriate."

In a sense, I agree with both of you. I see free speech as both a personal right and a social good. I enjoy the freedom of speech I have, and wouldn't mind having more of it. I also see it as a necessary and positive part of the society we already have ... and the only molding I'd do is to call for more of it.

Being (probably) wrong is not a crime, even if the thing you were wrong about is.

You want to deny the Holocaust, even though the evidence is against you? Fine. I will argue the point with you reasonably.

Same for Creationism. Same for Flat Earthers. Your choice, your call. Just don't get angry when most of the world disagrees with you.

No, it shouldn't be illegal.
If denial of holocaust is illegal then obviously denial of all genocides and massacres should be illegal (which is rather unrealistic to implement). Otherwise its giving victims of one tragedy special status, while others who died in some "less popular" massacre are ignored.

Btw, I have wondered where is that border of holocaust denial drawn exactly? For example, would saying: "nazis didn't kill 6 million jews, im rather sure they killed 4 million jews" also count as denial? Where is border drawn?

Olmedreca;13546089']Btw, I have wondered where is that border of holocaust denial drawn exactly? For example, would saying: "nazis didn't kill 6 million jews, im rather sure they killed 4 million jews" also count as denial? Where is border drawn?

Arguing over numbers isn't denying the Holocaust. It's debating semantics.

You want to deny the Holocaust, even though the evidence is against you? Fine. I will argue the point with you reasonably.

The Holocaust did not occur because history is an illusion fabricated by by my brain to explain my own existence.

Be reasonable with that, punk! :p

Arguing over numbers isn't denying the Holocaust. It's debating semantics.

Well, would saying: "nazis did not kill 6 million jews, only 10,000 were killed" be also semantics?

The Holocaust did not occur because history is an illusion fabricated by by my brain to explain my own existence.

Be reasonable with that, punk! :p

The Holocaust occured, however your brain does not wish to believe it, and has decided to fabricate the illusion of history being an illusion to protect you from the truth. Pass as to why though.

;)

I don't agree with what a Holocaust denier says, but I would defend to the death their right to say it.

Freedom of speech must always come before personal feelings, even with something as terrible as the Holocaust.

The governments would be far more effective at educating the public on why Holocaust deniers are wrong than trying to shut them up.

Olmedreca;13546100']Well, would saying: "nazis did not kill 6 million jews, only 10,000 were killed" be also semantics?

Ah, but you are still admitting Jews were killed by Nazis! You are only denying the severity of the Holocaust.

It's when the numbers get insanely low (below that of, say, a prolific serial killer) that it bexcomes denial of the Holocaust.

OK ... how?

Murder is outlawed. What that means in practice is that people murder each other, then we* punish them for it.

I'm having trouble imagining how we do something similar for ignorance.

*we, by electing governments which enforce laws.

It can´t be done. Ignorance is part of human nature, unfortunately. I would like to see it made illegal. More than that, I would love to eliminate it, but it´s impossible.

It can´t be done. Ignorance is part of human nature, unfortunately. I would like to see it made illegal. More than that, I would love to eliminate it, but it´s impossible.

*remains ignorant of Nanatsu's point*
*gets arrested*
:(
;)

*remains ignorant of Nanatsu's point*
*gets arrested*
:(
;)

*shakes her head and then smiles softly, shrugging*

*shakes her head and then smiles softly, shrugging*

:D

I am always more comfortable in the abstract, I prefer to argue the principle, argue how it should be rather than how to deal with how it is, or make compromises to improve the current situation. When challenged, I move to principle because there I am more confident.

Me, too. But I think this is a different sense of "abstraction."

Perhaps the problem is that we're talking about implementing a better society in a top-down way, when in fact idealism only prospers on a small scale and we must simply practice the way we want society to be, then have faith that it will spread.

"Faith" is not good enough.

Not impose it.

That's right. But who's "impos" it? I do not propose that we establish a dictatorship and ban hate speech; I propose that we democratically restrict it.

This very word "marginalized" is one I probably wouldn't use, it seems to smack of conspiracy to me.

Power is not a "conspiracy."

It seems to imply that the structures of society are such because that serves the interests of the powerful,

That's almost trivially true. What else are the powerful going to do with their power?

whereas I see it the other way around: some are more powerful because of a structure which nobody designed or built, but which is simply what we inherited.

But that's nonsense. Were imperialism, slavery, and segregation acts of nature? Is capitalism, with its state-established notions of property and class relations? Is the state itself?

No, the power structures of today are [I]all artificial. Such power as can exist in nature is no longer relevant. There's no reason to assume, for instance, that physical power is any real determinant at all of who happens to control the country.

In itself, Holocaust denial is not hate speech.

But it is. That's the context in which such claims are made. They have a bigoted subtext: the Jews weren't really killed in such large numbers, and thus their suffering should not inspire our concern. The Jews are lying to us, and thus we should regard them as untrustworthy.

Suppose the view that the Holocaust never happened were somehow to take off and become widespread? What would be the consequences of that?

Suddenly everyone would be convinced that the Jews are just a bunch of whiners, and their suffering and concerns are thus a triviality.

The sort of international sympathy that has made the possibility of another genocide against the Jews negligible, that has led to a repulsion towards anti-Semitism that has drastically reduced its role in Western societies, would be severely undermined.

We must strike a balance, and for me it's where a person CAN speak up without fear of being beaten up, or their property damaged,

Fine with me.

or being fired from their job.

Don't you think people have the right not to be harassed at work? In truly personal circumstances, say relations between friends, I can always avoid others if they attack me for who I am... but at work (and at school), interaction is a necessity.

Yet, you would take that choice away from people, by preventing us hearing what those people had to say.

Which people? What choice? I assume that political speech should necessarily address the public, and that is another place hate speech fails: it necessarily addresses only part of the public, against another part. No part of the public has the right to exclude another part--they are not entitled to that "choice."

We must allow racist or otherwise intolerant views to be expressed in political terms. It devalues the arguments for tolerance or inclusion, to intervene in debate with government punishments.

In general, yes. But this is another case of over-abstraction.

If we want a society where people can express their opinions on matters of concern to them, and a society where this capacity is open equally to all, then to restrict speech that rejects and undermines the "public" nature of public debate is perfectly in line with that end.

Individuals will feel intimidated by some kind of political speech.

True, but hate speech is barely political speech at all. It is hatred, not politics. It is not about the public good or public justice, but about the rule of some over others. It does not enhance but only undermines the role of public debate.

That's where the difference is. You see free speech as a tool you want to use to mold society in a way you find appropriate, while I see free speech as an end to itself.

Personal freedom in the libertarian sense is a good thing, yes, but it is one good thing among others, and "free speech" in the sense of, say, being able to publish whatever you like is very much peripheral to it.

What people do with it is their choice, not mine, and I don't propose that they need to be guided in their exercise of their rights to make sure they get an outcome I have in mind.

You suggest that I am acting paternalistically, but nothing of the sort is true; I advocate restraining hate speech not for the sake of the speakers but for the sake of their victims.

And the rational pursuit of truth and right will be guaranteed because any other action will lead to the agent's destruction at the hand of reality. Of course, that destruction can be delayed through various means, but not indefinitely.

Nonsense. Truth and right set out their standard according to principles of reason. "Destruction at the hand of reality" is always a matter of power: it is a material relation, not a rational one.

Power corrupts both truth and right.

That's not a public matter though, because reason is a necessarily individualistic tool (we don't have a mind, I have a mind and you have a mind)

So public deliberation is impossible? Really?

and the more public something gets, the greater the likelihood of reason being brushed aside.

To the contrary, this is true the more private something gets, because of the way individuals are subject to partial bias.

To the contrary, this is true the more private something gets, because of the way individuals are subject to partial bias.

Studies of phenomenons like groupthink and mob mentality would seem to suggest otherwise. A cursory glance at national or popular discourse will demonstrate the lack of reason inherent thereof.

A cursory glance at national or popular discourse will demonstrate the lack of reason inherent thereof.

And a cursory glance at dictatorship will show how prone individuals are to comparable failures.

Edit: Okay, I admit it. While what I said has much truth to it, I was really just being clever. The important point to emphasize is that PUBLIC deliberation is necessary for PUBLIC rule--and since public rule is the precondition of freedom in society, we should recognize its importance.

:D

Let me be a prick. This smiley, :D, should be illegal.

Personal freedom in the libertarian sense is a good thing, yes, but it is one good thing among others, and "free speech" in the sense of, say, being able to publish whatever you like is very much peripheral to it.
But publishing something is the material extension of having a thought. I would say the extent to which freedom of thought or opinion exists if you're not allowed to mention it in the public arena is debatable at best.

You suggest that I am acting paternalistically, but nothing of the sort is true; I advocate restraining hate speech not for the sake of the speakers but for the sake of their victims.
But that isn't what you said before. You implied that you considered free speech to be a tool used to reach a certain form of society, which seems a bit paternalistic to me. Indeed, if your problem with the victims getting hurt is simply their exclusion from participation in the public arena then even their happiness is just a means to the creation of this society.

Nonsense. Truth and right set out their standard according to principles of reason. "Destruction at the hand of reality" is always a matter of power: it is a material relation, not a rational one.
And matter doesn't conform to reason? Perhaps it would be more accurate to turn it around: if a rational line of thought ends up disagreeing with a material fact (ie if I come to the conclusion that grilled steaks will float into my mouth if I sit here and wait) then not only must questions be asked about the empirical input into my thought but perhaps the rationality of my thinking itself.

There is no difference between living by yourself on a desert island and using your brain to survive and living in society and using your brain to survive. On the desert island you will starve, in society you may be protected from starvation through the kindness of strangers. But this will be caused by the same thing - your mistake somewhere in your line of thought. If I fail to grasp that I can climb up a tree and harvest coconuts I will starve on the island. If I fail to grasp this in society, I won't be able to sell coconuts. Same reasoning, same reason for failure, similar consequence.

So power doesn't enter into it. It can't overcome truth and it can't overcome right, as you would surely have to agree, and any attempt to do so would make the resulting society/resource allocation inefficient and/or morally wrong. Hence why the USSR failed - all the power in the world, but still faulty reasoning.

So public deliberation is impossible? Really?
It can't make decisions. It can inform individuals reaching individual decisions, but it can't replace, nor is it necessary for, individual decisionmaking.

Say something "was decided" in the public arena because of a lack of surviving alternative ideas. First of all it's not a given that these ideas don't survive because they're wrong if rationally observed. But even if it was and people accepted it without using the actual decision-making mechanism, namely their own mind, we wouldn't actually have a rational society, devoted to seeking truth or right. We'd just have a bunch of sheep.

So public deliberation is a useful addition, but it's not to be considered anywhere near as vital as the ability of the individual to make decisions based on weighing pro and con and applying reason - and then acting on those decisions if necessary (with the constraint of negative freedoms which are possible for others to also be able to make rational decisions based on material reality independent of the violence represented by society).

Let me be a prick

For that, you need a medical operation. Addadicktomy.

But publishing something is the material extension of having a thought.

No, it isn't. Saying it might be. Publishing it is not. Not many people in our society have the opportunity to regularly publish things. Is everyone else being oppressed? (What about the people before books were commonplace?)

I would say the extent to which freedom of thought or opinion exists if you're not allowed to mention it in the public arena is debatable at best.

While there is certainly a connection between thoughts and (literal) speech, the connection between thoughts and publishing is far more indirect, and much less important when it comes to protecting that freedom.

But that isn't what you said before. You implied that you considered free speech to be a tool used to reach a certain form of society,

Right.

which seems a bit paternalistic to me.

Well, it shouldn't.

Similarly, the end of laws against murder is to reach a safe and secure society. Is that paternalistic?

Indeed, if your problem with the victims getting hurt is simply their exclusion from participation in the public arena then even their happiness is just a means to the creation of this society.

You're committing the same error people so often accuse socialists of: you're reifying "society." To say that I want a society where people have the capacity to participate fully in public deliberation is nothing more than one aspect of saying that I want every individual within society to be free.

And matter doesn't conform to reason? Perhaps it would be more accurate to turn it around: if a rational line of thought ends up disagreeing with a material fact (ie if I come to the conclusion that grilled steaks will float into my mouth if I sit here and wait) then not only must questions be asked about the empirical input into my thought but perhaps the rationality of my thinking itself.

You're missing the point. It's not that the material world isn't understandable through reason. It's that coming to rational conclusions, and expressing them, isn't always a good thing in the material world.

A truly rational, honest person will insist that the Earth is round even if someone points a gun at her, because she will recognize that the personal threat to her does not change truth. But who will live longer--her or the person who is perfectly willing to change convictions based on personal convenience?

So power doesn't enter into it. It can't overcome truth and it can't overcome right, as you would surely have to agree, and any attempt to do so would make the resulting society/resource allocation inefficient and/or morally wrong. Hence why the USSR failed - all the power in the world, but still faulty reasoning.

Yes. It failed after seventy years.

Truth may eventually "come out" in that a society that routinely denies truth cannot survive forever, but that is not good enough.

Right, of course, need never come out at all. The rules of what should be and the rules of what is are very different. They can be united through the rational exercise of free will, but nothing about the material world says that this must happen.

It can inform individuals reaching individual decisions, but it can't replace, nor is it necessary for, individual decisionmaking.

Yes, it is. If there is no public debate, there will be no private debate either. Perhaps a few exceptional people will escape, but the rest won't.

Furthermore, public deliberation is necessary for COLLECTIVE decisionmaking--democracy. Democracy is meaningless if people lack the capacity to convince others to support proposals. It is frozen in time: it cannot change, it cannot be free.

Say something "was decided" in the public arena because of a lack of surviving alternative ideas. First of all it's not a given that these ideas don't survive because they're wrong if rationally observed. But even if it was and people accepted it without using the actual decision-making mechanism, namely their own mind, we wouldn't actually have a rational society, devoted to seeking truth or right. We'd just have a bunch of sheep.

That's right. Public rationality is necessarily dependent on, and subsequent to, private rationality. (Of course, the reverse is also true. A society that practices critical thought and discussion will create individuals who do the same.)

It does not follow that it does not exist.

So public deliberation is a useful addition, but it's not to be considered anywhere near as vital as the ability of the individual to make decisions based on weighing pro and con and applying reason

Fine with me. That's why we don't restrict this either. Of course, society generally can't restrict this anyway--not without telescreens, or, to do it in full, mind-reading machines. That's why the political question can only reference this indirectly.

and then acting on those decisions if necessary (with the constraint of negative freedoms which are possible for others to also be able to make rational decisions based on material reality independent of the violence represented by society).

I agree, mostly. But you miss that this matter is itself political, itself a matter for the public. The restrictions on private freedom must be decided upon, and if we believe in freedom they cannot be decided upon by a particular individual or class: they must be decided upon by everyone, democratically.

Ignorance is part of human nature, unfortunately.
That’s one of the strangest ’X is part of human nature" statements I’ve ever heard/read, and they can get pretty damn strange.

What do you mean by this?

Parents lie to their children because they feel a child is not old enough to handle the truth. Would that kind of lying be illegal?Yes, there is no need to lie to a child, ever. You only need to give explanation that a child can understand, but lying is never an option.

A person may lie to their spouse because they don't want their spouse to worry unnecessarily, or they realise their spouse has enough to worry about. Would this kind of lying be illegal?Yes. Lying over petty things is not only hurtful but completely idiotic.

Religions lie about the truth. Should religions be illegal?Oh definitely.

Pro-lifers, namely those who stage anti-abortion rallies often use pictures of stillborns and miscarried foetuses, deliberately claiming that these are aborted foetuses. Should they be allowed to lie or would this be illegal?Illegal, since the purpose of this lying is active deceit to pursue an agenda.

There is no reason to make lying about the holocaust illegal. Not when so many people are willing to debunk the lies. As long as people are lying, the truth will be out there. We need people to deny other events so that they get the same attention.The majority of people is either indifferent or too lazy to debunk lies about the holocaust, so those who spread the lies will find open ears.

Because you cannot have just one undeniable fact. Why stop there?

Yes, there is no need to lie to a child, ever.
Perhaps, though I imagine there would be some cases where a slight distortion of the truth would be beneficial till the child is in a position to appreciate certain situations. Moreover, how would the state enforce anti-lying legislation? By scrutinising every statement made by every citizen every day?

Yes. Lying over petty things is not only hurtful but completely idiotic.
This just seems totally impractical, and rather silly. There’s plenty of situations where distortions of truths work out for the best; my partner, for example, might of had a terrible day, and rather than compounding the situation by letting them worry about my day, I might refrain from explaining the pointless and silly argument I had with a co-worker. I don’t see what harm I have caused, and I can always explain about the annoying co-worker at a later time when my partner isn’t as stressed.

And again, how on Terra would you enforce such anti-lying legislation?

Oh definitely.
Not that I’m surprised at this sort of thing coming from you, but a couple of points:

Firstly, there’s a big distinction from intentionally lying when one knows the truth, and merely giving a statement one believes to be true. My parents believe in the Christian God, and I do not, but when they (very occasionally) talk to me about Jesus, I don’t think they’re lying per se. It would be more accurate to say they were wrong or mistaken.

Which brings us on to our second point: saying that religions lie (or at least agreeing with Kryozerkia that religions lie), implies that you know the truth of the matter. I would contend that you have an opinion, one that I broadly share, but that you don’t know the truth.

Beyond that, making all religious practice illegal is unnecessary, illegitimate, intolerant, unenforceable, and downright silly.

The majority of people is either indifferent or too lazy to debunk lies about the holocaust, so those who spread the lies will find open ears.
And what good would making it illegal do?

Anybody foolish and gullible enough to be taken in by Holocaust deniers and their ilk will be likely to point to the very criminalisation of Holocaust denial as evidence of a mass conspiracy.

Legislation against any obviously silly notion of thought is the complete opposite way to go. The British National Party — a UK political party with its roots in a number of neo-fascist, white supremacist groups — is legally allowed to stand in UK elections. Do they sweep the country? Do they suddenly convert millions of converts?

No, because the vast majority of people can see through their bullshit, and their publicity is their downfall.

Although as a student of the Holocaust, a Jew, and simply a person concerned with the just treatment of people I find Holocaust denial disgusting, it must be protected.

Why? Because if you look back on the Holocaust, free speech was one of the rights to go which boxed in the Jews to their ghettos and kept them from "fighting back".

As soon as we start fighting like our enemies, we sink to their level.

No! Holocaust denial, or any other type of historical revisionism should NOT be made illegal, and doing so would only violate one's constitutional right to free speech. What a sad day that would be.

I am personally repulsed at the fact that some people would actually consider, yet it really does not surprise me one bit, "political/social correctness" has become a major epidemic among our society.
To make it against the law to deny or disbelieve something is just outright ridiculous, and even silly, and would lead me to believe there was much more to it.

When somebody disbelieves or denies something that seems "obvious" to you, your normal response may be to chuckle, laugh, maybe think to yourself "wow, what a dummy", but actually calling it a criminal act???
What would be the difference in denying the Holocaust, or any other historical event/massacre recorded in history, would you propose that denying all history should me made illegal? If not, then why would you specify the Holocaust only, as a crime when denied, and making it the main focus point? That would seem to me that you would have a certain agenda, and the denying of history itself would not be the issue, but instead it would be denying the history of that particular people, thus being favoritism of those people above all others (Racism!)

It is commonly believed that "6 million" Jewish people were killed in Nazi death camps, but it is also known by those who research history, that there has been worse genocides and massacres, some that make the Holocaust look small in comparison when you count the death toll. Stalin for example, is directly responsible for the killing of over 17 million Russians, as well as over 7 million Ukrainians who died due to a forced famine by Stalin and his regime.
Shall we make it illegal to disbelieve or outlaw this as well?

If denying the holocaust should be made illegal, so should every other historically recorded massacre, and yet that would make this a very scary society to live in, as it is a fact that history itself is always recorded by the perspective of the one who achieves victory over a conflict.
Something to think about :)

My answer is NO, Holocaust denial should not be made illegal.

As soon as we start fighting like our enemies, we sink to their level.

So, say, self-defense is the same as aggression?

So, say, self-defense is the same as aggression?Jews have always called their aggressions self-defense, but that's another issue.

The point is that a society cannot allow lies like holocaust denial. And if Germany has laws against holocaust deniers I don't see why the rest of the world should not have them as well.

Jews have always called their aggressions self-defense, but that's another issue.

The point is that a society cannot allow lies like holocaust denial. And if Germany has laws against holocaust deniers I don't see why the rest of the world should not have them as well.
What about lies like creationism?

Again, people have a right to be wrong. People will think what they think whether they express it or not, but at least if they express it, it can be publicly refuted. And just because Germany has such laws doesn't mean the rest of the world should. First off, one could argue about how since Germany was the country in which the holocaust took place there'd probably be more sensitivity about it there, but despite that, Germany having it doesn't mean the rest of the world should, perhaps it might mean that Germany shouldn't.

BTW, I think claiming that "Jews" have always called "their" agressions self-defense (sounds like a rather generalizing approach) would probably qualify as being more anti-semitic than denying the holocaust, which as I pointed out is not exclusive to anti-semitism.

Although as a student of the Holocaust, a Jew, and simply a person concerned with the just treatment of people I find Holocaust denial disgusting, it must be protected.

Why? Because if you look back on the Holocaust, free speech was one of the rights to go which boxed in the Jews to their ghettos and kept them from "fighting back".

As soon as we start fighting like our enemies, we sink to their level.
*applauds* Agreed, and it's nice to hear this coming from someone for whom this would be such a sensitive subject...

Jews have always called their aggressions self-defense, but that's another issue.

The point is that a society cannot allow lies like holocaust denial. And if Germany has laws against holocaust deniers I don't see why the rest of the world should not have them as well.

Oh really? And once the government can decide what's the truth and what's not and outlaw any other point of view, how do you propose to stop them?

What about lies like creationism?
Again, I think it’s unfair to say that creationists are necessarily lying about creationism. I highly doubt the the vast majority of creationists knowthat the world wasn’t created in six days and are lying about it to serve some purpose. They truly believe what they say, and thus cannot be lying.

Lying implies intent. (Although this line of discussion should probably go on in the lying thread.)

If a child mistakenly states that 15+16=30, and truly believes that 15+16=30, then they aren’t lying; they’re mistaken.

Oh really? And once the government can decide what's the truth and what's not and outlaw any other point of view, how do you propose to stop them?It's not the decision of any government that makes the holocaust real or true. It's its actual occurrence.

Although it is very disrespectful to holocaust survivors, I do not beleive it should be illegal.

It’s not the decision of any government that makes the holocaust real or true. It’s its actual occurrence.
So why do we need legislation supporting that fact?

Surely we wouldn’t criminalise the speech of Flat Earthers, to use another example?

So why do we need legislation supporting that fact?Because there are folks who try to teach others otherwise. And it is folks who know exactly that what they spread is not true.

Surely we wouldn’t criminalise the speech of Flat Earthers?I would criminalize any deliberate spread of any misinformation.

Because there are folks who try to teach others otherwise. And it is folks who know exactly that what they spread is not true.
But “these folks” and the government will not always be the same group of people. Looking to the government to authorise ‘truth’ is a dangerous path to go down.

I would criminalize any deliberate spread of any misinformation.
Then neither Flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers would be prosecuted, because neither are deliberately spreading misinformation. They are deliberately spreading what they believe to be information. It’s not as if Flat Earthers or Holocaust deniers don’t believe the tripe that comes out of their mouths.

What about lies like creationism?

Again, people have a right to be wrong. People will think what they think whether they express it or not, but at least if they express it, it can be publicly refuted. And just because Germany has such laws doesn't mean the rest of the world should. First off, one could argue about how since Germany was the country in which the holocaust took place there'd probably be more sensitivity about it there, but despite that, Germany having it doesn't mean the rest of the world should, perhaps it might mean that Germany shouldn't.

BTW, I think claiming that "Jews" have always called "their" agressions self-defense (sounds like a rather generalizing approach) would probably qualify as being more anti-semitic than denying the holocaust, which as I pointed out is not exclusive to anti-semitism.

UB is actually a perfect example 0f Holocaust denial≠Anti-semitism, as he is anti-semtitic and not a holocaust denier.

But “these folks” and the government will not always be the same group of people. Looking to the government to authorise ‘truth’ is a dangerous path to go down.Why do you assume the holocaust to be a real event? Because a government said so? No, you know about it because it is well documented and can be supported with evidence before any court.

Then neither Flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers would be prosecuted, because neither are deliberately spreading misinformation. They are deliberately spreading what they believe to be information. It’s not as if Flat Earthers or Holocaust deniers don’t believe the tripe that comes out of their mouths.I'm not so sure. There is no way that a Flat Earther or holocaust denier doe not know any better.

Because there are folks who try to teach others otherwise. And it is folks who know exactly that what they spread is not true.

I would criminalize any deliberate spread of any misinformation.

Rather like the deifinitive statement in that is your sig?

Again, people have a right to be wrong.Only in their own homes, where that has no consequences. But publicly spreading bullshit is an entirely different matter.

Only in their own homes, where that has no consequences. But publicly spreading bullshit is an entirely different matter.

Then we should arrest all politicians for publicly spreading bullshit is what they do all the time.

UB? That has got to be the dumbest thing you've said on this board.

Then we should arrest all politicians for publicly spreading bullshit is what they do all the time.

UB? That has got to be the dumbest thing you've said on this board.Oh please, what politicians say is a matter of opinion. The occurrence of the holocaust is not. See the difference?

UB is actually a perfect example 0f Holocaust denial≠Anti-semitism, as he is anti-semtitic and not a holocaust denier.

A horse is a mammal.
A horse is not a human.
Therefore, not all humans are mammals.

:confused:

A horse is a mammal.
A horse is not a human.
Therefore, not all humans are mammals.

:confused:
Well, some humans are horses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla%2C_Duchess_of_Cornwall).

Oh please, what politicians say is a matter of opinion. The occurrence of the holocaust is not. See the difference?

Actually no there really is no difference as Politicians lie to their constituency all the time. Ergo...making lying illegal (as you stated it should be) would mean that they too would have to be thrown in jail.

Actually no there really is no difference as Politicians lie to their constituency all the time. Ergo...making lying illegal (as you stated it should be) would mean that they too would have to be thrown in jail.And that would be so bad?

And that would be so bad?

Its just as bad as throwing people into prision for having a different opinion about historical facts.

I say: let the idiots try to pretend it didn't happen, it just shows they want to live in a land of make believe
but then again, the way most people are today, they're living in a land of make believe anyway: its called Democracy