NationStates Jolt Archive

(Inspired by Trve's thread. I created this one so his wouldn't get derailed.)

The title says it all: Should Holocaust denial be illegal? Why or why not?

Not in the United States, the 1st Amendment protects idiocy....even wanton racist idiocy...

If they did it would become that much harder to spot an idiot.

No it is a stupid idea to simply say holocaust denial should be made illegal. The question is why should it be made illegal?

No. It should be ridiculed.

No. Neither should believing in a flat Earth.

If they did it would become that much harder to spot an idiot.

^This.

No. It should be ridiculed.

^and this.

It's a lie that offends a great many people. In other words, slander.

But... I remain uncertain of the consequences of changing the definition of slander that way.

It should remain illegal where it is currently illegal.

It should remain illegal where it is currently illegal.

Why? This is a double standard. You either support it being illegal, not it not being illegal. You can't have it both ways.

It's a lie that offends a great many people. In other words, slander.

But... I remain uncertain of the consequences of changing the definition of slander that way.


As much as denying the Holocaust makes me want to brand the word "loser" onto one's face, freedom of speech must be tolerated. People say a lot of bad things; but everyone is entitled to an opinion...

Why? This is a double standard. You either support it being illegal, not it not being illegal. You can't have it both ways.

You can if you try, lol

Why? This is a double standard. You either support it being illegal, not it not being illegal. You can't have it both ways.

Why yes, I can advocate that laws in one country not be changed, and that laws in other countries not be changed. In fact, when I put it like that, it's the same thing, no?

Well nothing more boring then consensus.
So now change my answer to ...
While denial of the Holocaust can not be made out right illegal.
We can require in depth testing over the knowledge of the holocaust in several different levels of history. All students should be required with intimate knowledge of the holocaust in order to finish elementary school. Then in middle school and high school All students should be required to write about primary sources that point to the existence of the Holocaust

Why yes, I can advocate that laws in one country not be changed, and that laws in other countries not be changed. In fact, when I put it like that, it's the same thing, no?

No, it's not. You're advocating two different standards, and then using a vague excuse of "laws shouldn't be changed" to justify it. Why shouldn't laws be changed?

Why yes, I can advocate that laws in one country not be changed, and that laws in other countries not be changed. In fact, when I put it like that, it's the same thing, no?

So whta you are saying is what the laws of a country is now, is how it shall remain?

So whta you are saying is what the laws of a country is now, is how it shall remain?

I think it is illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany, and he supports it remaining illegal there.

(Simple answer:No)

You outlaw it, it will drive underground. Never good. Don't make them have to hide what they might be questioning or thinking. Makes them more susceptible to extremism. Alienates them. Makes em more dangerous.

/offtopic IMO the internet is one of the most valuable tools to the governments (positive or negative) or those in power. Because it allows us all to let off steam, We get pissed at something, come online find other people who are also pissed off and bitching and find a sense of relief in a communal bitching.

Until we actually start doing something together in the flesh.

I use to think this internet linking us all together .. allowing us to interchange ideas and communicate with each other basically all over the world will one day be cut (might still be) .. tho now .. I happen to think it is in the governments favor (if they practice any sort of gov as we do now) .. they are able to watch our thoughts, our contacts .. and our motives.

I've actually thought they will majorly censor our communication one day .. because they will not be able to control the 'mood' for a certain agenda. But I'm not so sure now.

I think it is illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany, and he supports it remaining illegal there.

Then he should've said that. His current wording could be applied to many other laws. Promoting legal stagnancy is quite a silly thing.

Then he should've said that. His current wording could be applied to many other laws. Promoting legal stagnancy is quite a silly thing.

One could almost call him a Conservative.

not necessary in response to elementary ed needing to know about the Holocaust. I especially don't like the mandatory writing proving the holocaust happened, what sense is that? Do middle and high schoolers have to write proving slavery in america happened?

Then he should've said that. His current wording could be applied to many other laws. Promoting legal stagnancy is quite a silly thing.

And exactly how did you derive that he was referring to Germany from that post?

It should be legal for a number of reasons, but the most obvious that come to mind are as follows:

First, because allowing Holocaust denial follows the old principle of "give them rope to hang themselves with." As long as such stupidity is not the accepted mainstream belief, allowing its believers to speak it will serve to make them look like morons. Much like how Obama's victory may be a direct result of Palin's stupidity and mob-raising.

Second, and related to the above, because banning such speech turns its advocates into martyrs and persecuted underdogs, potentially lending them greater legitimacy, while your cause sacrifices the moral high ground to a certain degree.

Third, because if you take away people's means of peacefully expressing themselves in public, they are more likely to take their message underground where it will be harder to argue against, and/or turn to other means of spreading their beliefs, such as armed violence.

Fourth, because many people disagree on what is offensive and what is false history, and it is literally impossible to placate everyone's beliefs with censorship. And while its pretty clear cut with the Holocaust, it is incredibly dangerous to set the precedent that something can be banned for being offensive and/or untrue. Today its Holocaust denial that's banned. Tomorrow, it might be anti-government conspiracy theories. One day, it might be the Theory of Evolution. Better not to set that precedent, I think.

One could almost call him a Conservative.

My wording wasn't really precise enough: I should've said universal legal stagnancy. The implication being that laws, no matter what they are, should not be changed. This is a fundamentally stupid proposal. Not all laws are equally valid.

Then he should've said that. His current wording could be applied to many other laws. Promoting legal stagnancy is quite a silly thing.
He probably should have.
To my knowledge that's the only place it is illegal.
At the same time I could say it would be hard to say your for something when you only want it applied in an area that makes up a very small portion of the world.

put it this way .. if you are willing to attempt to drive a belief underground by outlawing it, you better be ready to combat that equally. I mean ruthlessly. Maybe that's what the Nazis tried to do.. exterminate any thoughts/agendas conflicting with their own..

Fail.

My wording wasn't really precise enough: I should've said universal legal stagnancy. The implication being that laws, no matter what they are, should not be changed. This is a fundamentally stupid proposal. Not all laws are equally valid.

I knew what you meant I stand by my statement. He wants laws to remain the way they are he doesn't want them changed i.e he wants to keep the status quo thus a conservative.

I knew what you meant I stand by my statement. He wants laws to remain the way they are he doesn't want them changed i.e he wants to keep the status quo thus a conservative.

And I'm saying, that no matter what label you apply to his thinking, it's still stupid.

Getbrett, nobody's arguing with you. He's just calling Trostia conservative for it.

So... what's your point?

Getbrett, nobody's arguing with you. He's just calling Trostia conservative for it.

So... what's your point?

I've stated my point, and await the reply.

No, it's not. You're advocating two different standards, and then using a vague excuse of "laws shouldn't be changed" to justify it. Why shouldn't laws be changed?

Because different cultures in different countries react differently too it. The Germans being afraid of Nazis continuing to hurt their image have passed many laws curtailing nazis from speaking and I would not be suprised if this is one thing that happened.

So whta you are saying is what the laws of a country is now, is how it shall remain?

No.

One could almost call him a Conservative.

Quite so, I never said I was Mr Liberal. It depends on the issue.

No, it's not. You're advocating two different standards, and then using a vague excuse of "laws shouldn't be changed" to justify it.

No. I am advocating what I advocate, and your vague accusations of a double standard are - even if they were true and I'm an evil, evil feeling-Hellfire-bound hypocrite, it's an ad hominem - my position is wrong because of my alleged personality. Fallacious!

I'm not saying laws should not be changed, or that all laws should be changed. I'm not applying universal truths here, and certainly not just for some chimera of the appearance of consistency.

Holocaust Denial is currently illegal in certain countries, like Germany, with what I feel are good reasons. I do not believe the time is right to go changing those laws.

Holocaust denial is currently not illegal in certain other nations, like the US, and I do not feel there are good reasons now to suddenly adopt laws that change that.


My wording wasn't really precise enough: I should've said universal legal stagnancy. The implication being that laws, no matter what they are, should not be changed. This is a fundamentally stupid proposal. Not all laws are equally valid.

That's not a proposal, that's a strawman based on your less-than-perfect understanding of my position.

You said it yourself - not all laws are equally valid. Different countries, different laws.

I think it is illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany, and he supports it remaining illegal there.

I dont support it being illegal in Germany either, if they feel that they are susceptible to it that would seem to say something about them, no?

I dont support it being illegal in Germany either, if they feel that they are susceptible to it that would seem to say something about them, no?

I think for them it is more about acepting that particular past.
Otherwise people tendency to view their nation with rose glasses would take over. Most countries tend to sweep their negative history under the rug.

I think for them it is more about acepting that particular past.
Otherwise people tendency to view their nation with rose glasses would take over. Most countries tend to sweep their negative history under the rug.

Yeah, it happens here all the time, but you dont see restaurants denying 'coloreds' anymore either...

One would think Germany could accomplish the same task...

Had a thread bout this last year. The answer is still no. As much as like the idea of making stupidity illegal its not right or possible

I've stated my point, and await the reply.

I hope it isn't one from me.

Holocaust Denial is currently illegal in certain countries, like Germany, with what I feel are good reasons. I do not believe the time is right to go changing those laws.
I can understand the obvious arguments for keeping Holocaust denial illegal in Germany and Austria (the only two countries I can bring to mind which have such laws on their statute books), and the subsequent rammy that a change in the law would cause.

However, all the reasons I think the saying of stupid, offensive bullshit should be legal in other countries apply doubly so in Germany and Austria.

I can understand the obvious arguments for keeping Holocaust denial illegal in Germany and Austria (the only two countries I can bring to mind which have such laws on their statute books), and the subsequent rammy that a change in the law would cause.

However, all the reasons I think the saying of stupid, offensive bullshit should be legal in other countries apply doubly so in Germany and Austria.

Denying the Holocaust isn't merely any "stupid, offensive bullshit." It's actually somewhat alarming, and seems rather like knowing complicity after the fact - the equivalent of telling a rape victim that she wasn't raped, she was askin' for it, she liked it. Should that be a protected right, under all circumstances, everywhere? Is it currently?

Your absolutely correct! Freedom of Speech should not be infringed by the Gvt. or an established institution. The only exception could be voluntarily following an institutions rules. Besides, it makes it so much easier to spot idiots this way....

Denying the Holocaust isn't merely any "stupid, offensive bullshit." It's actually somewhat alarming, and seems rather like knowing complicity after the fact - the equivalent of telling a rape victim that she wasn't raped, she was askin' for it, she liked it. Should that be a protected right, under all circumstances, everywhere? Is it currently?

Yes, I believe it is, I dont think one can be arrested in the US for stating that you dont believe someone was raped...

It would be something very cruel to do to a rape victim, but that doesnt mean you cant do it...

In the US, it doesn't make any sense to outlaw it.

Personally; I would like to have these stupid shits out in the open.

Germany? I can understand the need. An old girl friend explained it as such. "The law is needed until the people who lived it, their children and probably even their grandchildren have died." She said you can find people who think the Nazis have been labeled wrong.

Keeping it legal can let people know who the idiots are, but not all of them are idiots. I'm all for anyone being a detective of history since the first casuality of war is always the truth.

Germany? I can understand the need. An old girl friend explained it as such. "The law is needed until the people who lived it, their children and probably even their grandchildren have died." She said you can find people who think the Nazis have been labeled wrong.

I can see the point, however, I would say its unneccessary as well as a breach of their rights...

You know how many idiot Rednecks think the KKK got a bad rep? More than I care to admit, yet we dont have them going around lynching people either....

Denying the Holocaust isn't merely any "stupid, offensive bullshit." It's actually somewhat alarming, and seems rather like knowing complicity after the fact - the equivalent of telling a rape victim that she wasn't raped, she was askin' for it, she liked it. Should that be a protected right, under all circumstances, everywhere? Is it currently?

No, it's not protected everywhere. But it should be.

You cannot silence an idea by banning it. You cannot prohibit a point of view. Any attempt to do so, for any reason, will merely drive that idea underground, to fester among sympathizers, to grow among the disenfranchised and unhappy, until the day it's fruit ripens and comes, unbidden, back into the community of public discourse, more powerful and forceful than ever.

The ONLY way to combat an idea is in the forum of communication and interaction, with reasoned argument, facts and truths. There a concept sinks or swims upon it's merits, and those concepts without a basis in truth can never be truly successful. If you wish to combat an idea you find unpleasent or disreputable, argue it's merits publically. Attempts to ban it will only make it stronger - and will fail.

No, because how else would we weed out all the idiots?

So should Germany change its holocaust denial law law is the next question?

Yes, they should. I suspect that for the reasons I related a page or two back, they would be more effective at combatting this ignorance and the associated Neo-Nazism if they did so.

I'm surprised Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/) hasn't been squeezed into this somehow. NSG is dropping the ball on this.

Time Cube is exactly why we shouldn't outlaw Holocaust denial nor any other tripe that the racist will think up. Because if we did, then we wouldn't be able to point and laugh at them.

I can understand the obvious arguments for keeping Holocaust denial illegal in Germany and Austria (the only two countries I can bring to mind which have such laws on their statute books), and the subsequent rammy that a change in the law would cause.

However, all the reasons I think the saying of stupid, offensive bullshit should be legal in other countries apply doubly so in Germany and Austria.

It's illegal in France and a few other countries, as well, IIRC. I think it might also be illegal in Canada.

It's illegal in France and a few other countries, as well, IIRC. I think it might also be illegal in Canada.

I think the solution is to put me in charge of Germany, France, and Canada then.

Yes, I believe it is, I dont think one can be arrested in the US for stating that you dont believe someone was raped...


The victim could get a restraining order on someone who is quite obviously harassing him or her.

Ohnoes! Free speech violation! Censorship! Outrage! Calamity!


No, it's not protected everywhere. But it should be.

How idealistic and principled. Absolute freedom of speech, regardless of circumstances! Now, back to the real world.

You cannot silence an idea by banning it.

Well in that case, no one has anything to fear from Holocaust Denial laws, do they.

You cannot prohibit a point of view. Any attempt to do so, for any reason, will merely drive that idea underground

Yeah, and any attempt to criminalize rape will drive it underground. If rape is outlawed, only outlaws will rape! First they came for the rapists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a rapist.

, to fester among sympathizers, to grow among the disenfranchised and unhappy, until the day it's fruit ripens and comes, unbidden, back into the community of public discourse, more powerful and forceful than ever.

The sympathizers being, apparently, you? Who are these sympathizers, who are turning to Nazism solely because Holocaust Denial laws exist?

The ONLY way to combat an idea is in the forum of communication and interaction, with reasoned argument, facts and truths.

Haha. Yeah, if there's one thing I learned on NSG in six years, it's that a really good argument and reasoning actually combats stupid ideas.

There a concept sinks or swims upon it's merits

Or, based on how many 'sympathizers' are feeling unhappy and disenfranchised. Or based on trend and alarmism. Or based on how many people just plain hate Jews. Or based on economic trends. Or...

Or based on how many little Hitlers are allowed to get up in front of a crowd and declare to the world that the Holocaust didn't really happen after all, and it's all a plot by the Jews.

Yeah, if we just allow more of that, everything will be fine. But if we prevent it, we'll actually cause it to happen! ..Sort of like how anti-semitism was outlawed in prewar Germany and that made the Nazis unhappy and disenfranchised and caused them to gain power. Oh wait, it wasn't. It was a free market of ideas. And the stupid ones won.

And six million died.

So maybe there's a bit of a good reason for actually trying to nip that shit in the bud this time.

, and those concepts without a basis in truth can never be truly successful.

So what, German anti-semitism was based in truth?

If you wish to combat an idea you find unpleasent or disreputable, argue it's merits publically. Attempts to ban it will only make it stronger - and will fail.

I dunno. I haven't heard much Holocaust Denial out of these countries.

It is a pity that this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

would be considered abnormal in real life. And even it were not, most references would tend to be filled with lies or halftruths anyway.

Anyone have a suggestion how to solve this ? People should be allowed to express their viewpoints, no matter how vile they seem - but others should:
A. have the means to actually check the merits of the supporting claims.
B. have the will to actually perform such a check instead of believing everything they hear from X without question.

Otherwise you indeed get "gee, Hitler sounds so convincing - I believe what he says"...

It is a pity that this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

.

I should go to a political rally with that sign.

I'm in two minds about this...
On the one hand I do fully support every idiots' right to out themselves whenever and wherever they choose.
On the other hand, having grown up in Germany and Austria, I also understand the feeling that denying the holocaust is slander towards the millions of victims, and the will to spare the survivors the agony of being faced with arseholes denying any of it ever happened. In a way, this law can be regarded as a victim-protection program.
With regards to this, I think the laws should remain in place for now, but I also do think that given the time that has passed, and the comparatively small numbers of people alive today who actually experienced the holocaust themselves, the law should now be given an end date. Give it another decade or two, and then get rid of it.

Mixed feelings for me: As much as I despise the Holocaust deniers, I'm always a bit scared that anti-denial laws could be used for OTHER political ends, different from blocking neonazi propaganda.

So, maybe I would restrict the legitimacy of anti-denial laws to the countries who where involved in the committing the Holocaust (like, dunno, Germany, Italy, Austria, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary...), just to curb any nazi-revanchism.

Mixed feelings for me: As much as I despise the Holocaust deniers, I'm always a bit scared that anti-denial laws could be used for OTHER political ends, different from blocking neonazi propaganda.

So, maybe I would restrict the legitimacy of anti-denial laws to the countries who where involved in the committing the Holocaust (like, dunno, Germany, Italy, Austria, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary...), just to curb any nazi-revanchism.
Holocaust denial law put in place in Italy 2010.
2011 law modified to include denial of the pope as holocaust denial.
2012 law modified to put all Holocaust deniers in camps.

How idealistic and principled. Absolute freedom of speech, regardless of circumstances! Now, back to the real world.

You mean "Back to stupid cynicism masquerading as realism". Is building a structure worthless because it cannot be perfect? If we work towards improvement, the fact that the ultimate goal is unattainable does not matter

Well in that case, no one has anything to fear from Holocaust Denial laws, do they.

Of course we do. As I said, it will drive the concept underground - where it cannot be combatted.



Yeah, and any attempt to criminalize rape will drive it underground. If rape is outlawed, only outlaws will rape! First they came for the rapists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a rapist.

False analogy. An idea and an act cannot be equated.


The sympathizers being, apparently, you? Who are these sympathizers, who are turning to Nazism solely because Holocaust Denial laws exist?

The neo-Nazi Skinhead movement in Germany. Similar organizations in France, Italy, Britain, the USA. The US Nazi party. Plenty of others have an interest in Holocaust Denial. Some may have done so because of Holocaust Denial laws - certainly, there is a certain mindset that sees anything the government bans as being worthy of checking out.


Haha. Yeah, if there's one thing I learned on NSG in six years, it's that a really good argument and reasoning actually combats stupid ideas.

Do not assume your cynicism to be typical.



Or, based on how many 'sympathizers' are feeling unhappy and disenfranchised. Or based on trend and alarmism. Or based on how many people just plain hate Jews. Or based on economic trends. Or...

Or based on how many little Hitlers are allowed to get up in front of a crowd and declare to the world that the Holocaust didn't really happen after all, and it's all a plot by the Jews.

Yeah, if we just allow more of that, everything will be fine. But if we prevent it, we'll actually cause it to happen! ..Sort of like how anti-semitism was outlawed in prewar Germany and that made the Nazis unhappy and disenfranchised and caused them to gain power. Oh wait, it wasn't. It was a free market of ideas. And the stupid ones won.

And six million died.

So maybe there's a bit of a good reason for actually trying to nip that shit in the bud this time.

No, there's none at all. In the 1930's eugenics and racial concepts were based on reasonable considerations of what science was saying. Those concepts would not be disproved until much later.

And you have to be kidding me to consider the Weimar Republic a fair or free forum for political concepts.



So what, German anti-semitism was based in truth?

To a certain extent, as it was understood at the time, yes. We now know they were wrong, but it was neither considered ascientific nor unpopular at the time.



I dunno. I haven't heard much Holocaust Denial out of these countries.

Well, duh. When their citizens can wind up jailed for years over it, who's going to speak out in the open? Veiled euphemisms and talk in the shadows is the way it would work there.

The title says it all: Should Holocaust denial be illegal? Why or why not?

No. Allow the deniers to expose their idiocy to the world. By driving it underground, we only give it a chance to flourish. Such flimsy arguments cannot hold up when exposed to a plethora of evidence.

Not illegal.

Hate and ignorance, like other things that grow in dark places fed by rotting material, are best exposed to sunlight where we can all see it.

The evidence speaks for itself. Those who would deny that this atrocity happened are, frankly, dumbasses. The last time I checked, dumbassery is (for the most part) protected by the First Amendment in the United States. As for the rest of the world, if they want to ban it, that's their business.

No. Allow the deniers to expose their idiocy to the world. By driving it underground, we only give it a chance to flourish. Such flimsy arguments cannot hold up when exposed to a plethora of evidence.

You'd be wrong.

You'd be wrong.

With the right dumbass backing it, any flimsy argument could hold water with some people.

No, it shouldn't be illegal, as much chagrin as it may cause. We must remember that there's also a right to free speech, even if it's full of hate.

All students should be required with intimate knowledge of the holocaust in order to finish elementary school. Then in middle school and high school All students should be required to write about primary sources that point to the existence of the Holocaust
And have a practice lesson to remember it better.

Free speech.

I got to say I support making it illegal to say in a credible newspaper or publication. In fact I don't think there is any good reason to allow it to be said anywhere. It blatantly false and prejudicial. I know I am going to get hammered by the first ammendment crew but so be it. I think this is pretty close to hate publications.

It bull and we do not need it. What the punishment should be is somewhat open. With regard to the Internet in the USA it should be removed from all servers and anything accessible to the public. If you want to have those views keep them at home and I don't want to hear about it. Same thing goes for radio stations and TV programs. It does do a disservice to the public by allowing it to remain open for discussion. You can call it censorship if you like but I think it is worth it in this case.

I got to say I support making it illegal to say in a credible newspaper or publication. In fact I don't think there is any good reason to allow it to be said anywhere. It blatantly false and prejudicial. I know I am going to get hammered by the first ammendment crew but so be it. I think this is pretty close to hate publications.

It bull and we do not need it. What the punishment should be is somewhat open. With regard to the Internet in the USA it should be removed from all servers and anything accessible to the public. If you want to have those views keep them at home and I don't want to hear about it. Same thing goes for radio stations and TV programs. It does do a disservice to the public by allowing it to remain open for discussion. You can call it censorship if you like but I think it is worth it in this case.

I agree with part of this statement. It could easily be categorized as racism or a hate crime to deny the Holocaust's existence, downplaying its extremity, or claiming it was (cringes) "for the better." Let's face it, most of the people that make such claims are either Nazi sympathizers, absolute morons, or misinformed. I do not think it should be allowed for public access, as many people would be extremely offended, causing an upheaval. Yes... the first ammendment allows for freedom of speech, but there are countless exceptions to this rule (i.e. death threats, hate message, etc.) Also, I don't think the founding fathers could have anticipated something as blatantly malicious as the Holocaust when they wrote this ammendment.

It's a lie that offends a great many people. In other words, slander.

But... I remain uncertain of the consequences of changing the definition of slander that way.

How is it slander? Slander is focused at a certain group/person and is quite specific and untrue (I'm not saying the Holocaust is untrue, just to be clear). If anything, it's closer to the opposite of slander, because instead of making anyone look worse, you'd actually be making the NSDAP seem better.

No, it's not protected everywhere. But it should be.

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;14725224]
You cannot silence an idea by banning it.

You can keep it way down. It may not disappear but certainly diminish it acceptance.


You cannot prohibit a point of view. Any attempt to do so, for any reason, will merely drive that idea underground, to fester among sympathizers, to grow among the disenfranchised and unhappy, until the day it's fruit ripens and comes, unbidden, back into the community of public discourse, more powerful and forceful than ever.

Good get rid of them.




The ONLY way to combat an idea is in the forum of communication and interaction, with reasoned argument, facts and truths. There a concept sinks or swims upon it's merits, and those concepts without a basis in truth can never be truly successful. If you wish to combat an idea you find unpleasant or disreputable, argue it's merits publicly. Attempts to ban it will only make it stronger - and will fail.

It fosters hate, it gather sympathizers as long as it is in the public discourse as well. I really think this should not be covered under the first amendment it is blatantly false.

I agree with part of this statement. It could easily be categorized as racism or a hate crime to deny the Holocaust's existence, downplaying its extremity, or claiming it was (cringes) "for the better." Let's face it, most of the people that make such claims are either Nazi sympathizers, absolute morons, or misinformed. I do not think it should be allowed for public access, as many people would be extremely offended, causing an upheaval. Yes... the first ammendment allows for freedom of speech, but there are countless exceptions to this rule (i.e. death threats, hate message, etc.) Also, I don't think the founding fathers could have anticipated something as blatantly malicious as the Holocaust when they wrote this ammendment.

People say stupid, foolish, and just plain mean things all the time. Who do you propose should head the board in charge of determing exactly what US citizens (or any other country) can and can't say? To say merely "Nah, that thing, didn't happen, we were justifying our war effort." though foolish, should be no where near illegal, I've heard some surprisingly reasonable 'evidence' to suggest that the Holocaust didn't happen, and that many of the deaths were effectively incidental. I don't believe them, but they are more reasonable than a lot of other crap I've heard.

You can keep it way down. It may not disappear but certainly diminish it acceptance.

It fosters hate, it gather sympathizers as long as it is in the public discourse as well. I really think this should not be covered under the first amendment it is blatantly false.

Incorrect. Many Islamic countries that ban Christianity have a surprisingly strong underground network of Christians. People are interested in things that are forbidden, because they need to know why something is so forbidden.

Also, when a foolish idea is in the realm of public discourse it can be more easily refuted with good logic, and realistic arguments, and the problem can shrink greatly due to education, not forced ignorance.

Actually, my official stance is that children in school should be shown all of the evidence that supports both sides of the Holocaust story, that way, from an earlier age they can determine which side makes more sense. It will undoubtedly be the side that suggests the Holocaust happened, and in a generation, or a gen. and a half, the no-Holocaust argument will likely be completely swept away, and all because we brought the subject out in the open.

People say stupid, foolish, and just plain mean things all the time. Who do you propose should head the board in charge of determing exactly what US citizens (or any other country) can and can't say? To say merely "Nah, that thing, didn't happen, we were justifying our war effort." though foolish, should be no where near illegal, I've heard some surprisingly reasonable 'evidence' to suggest that the Holocaust didn't happen, and that many of the deaths were effectively incidental. I don't believe them, but they are more reasonable than a lot of other crap I've heard.

I would take even one step further. The Department of Homeland Security or the FBI should infiltrate and charge each and every one of them with publication of hate literature. We crackdown we say once and for all, this will not be tolerated within our borders. The next offense puts them in prison. Screw 'em, get rid of them.

People say stupid, foolish, and just plain mean things all the time. Who do you propose should head the board in charge of determing exactly what US citizens (or any other country) can and can't say? To say merely "Nah, that thing, didn't happen, we were justifying our war effort." though foolish, should be no where near illegal, I've heard some surprisingly reasonable 'evidence' to suggest that the Holocaust didn't happen, and that many of the deaths were effectively incidental. I don't believe them, but they are more reasonable than a lot of other crap I've heard.

I wasn't suggesting that Holocaust denial should be illegal, but the public broadcast of such opinions should not be tolerated. Yes, i believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect that. However, when a news reporter is forced to resign and/or apologize for making a racist comment, they are , after all voicing their opinion. Similarly, Holocaust denial is directly offensive to many people, some 100 million people affected by the Holocaust or closely related to someone afflicted by it. If not illegal, Holocaust denial should only be allowed for the public eye in very special circumstances (i.e. the person must not have any opinions that may be influenced by racism or nationalism, and must apoligize beforehand to those that may take offense at the broadcast.)

Incorrect. Many Islamic countries that ban Christianity have a surprisingly strong underground network of Christians. People are interested in things that are forbidden, because they need to know why something is so forbidden.

Also, when a foolish idea is in the realm of public discourse it can be more easily refuted with good logic, and realistic arguments, and the problem can shrink greatly due to education, not forced ignorance.

Banned in Iran is not the same as banned in the USA. I think everyone knows there has to be a pretty good reason for something to get banned in this country.

Banned in Iran is not the same as banned in the USA. I think everyone knows there has to be a pretty good reason for something to get banned in this country.

And you don't think it should be legal because you don't like it? What if your message of hate towards people who say stupid things lands you in prison? Hoist by your own petard then, eh?

I wasn't suggesting that Holocaust denial should be illegal, but the public broadcast of such opinions should not be tolerated. Yes, i believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect that. However, when a news reporter is forced to resign and/or apologize for making a racist comment, they are , after all voicing their opinion. Similarly, Holocaust denial is directly offensive to many people, some 100 million people affected by the Holocaust or closely related to someone afflicted by it. If not illegal, Holocaust denial should only be allowed for the public eye in very special circumstances (i.e. the person must not have any opinions that may be influenced by racism or nationalism, and must apoligize beforehand to those that may take offense at the broadcast.)

I don't necessarily agree. If a reporter wants to get canned for saying "Hey, I don't think this happened." then that should be his choice, he'd get canned because it's stupid to say, but he should have the right, legally, to do so. Same with newspapers, and television/radio shows, if they want to lose a lot of their audience because they want to publicize their views, then let them.

Holocaust ? What Holocaust ? The tragic event that Jews remind us of in hundreds of films and books every year ?
Or the Holocaust where other people, not just Jews, were murdered ?
Like political prisoners and POWs, gypsies, homosexuals, and mentally challenged people?

Why do Jews keep on making the Holocaust THEIR thing alone ? I´ll tell you why. Because they make a profit from it. It´s called "The Holocaust Industry".

Actually, my official stance is that children in school should be shown all of the evidence that supports both sides of the Holocaust story, that way, from an earlier age they can determine which side makes more sense. It will undoubtedly be the side that suggests the Holocaust happened, and in a generation, or a gen. and a half, the no-Holocaust argument will likely be completely swept away, and all because we brought the subject out in the open.

You make an excellent point here. By funding such education, the argument against the Holocaust will definitely fade. However, completely extirpating Holocaust deniers through this does seem a bit unreasonable. Althought there are many who deny the Holocaust because they do not know enough about it, there are many more that deny it out of hatred, baised opinions, or because they believe that such events are unfathomable. In addition, others, such as Nazi sympathizers do believe that the Holocaust occurred, but that it was (cringes) for the better. While education would do a world of good, I think completely eradicating such opinions will be a longer, more difficult process.

Holocaust ? What Holocaust ? The tragic event that Jews remind us of in hundreds of films and books every year ?
Or the Holocaust where other people, not just Jews, were murdered ?
Like political prisoners and POWs, gypsies, homosexuals, and mentally challenged people?

Why do Jews keep on making the Holocaust THEIR thing alone ? I´ll tell you why. Because they make a profit from it. It´s called "The Holocaust Industry".

I'm beginning to think that this "Holocaust" didn't even happen!

Nah, I'm just kidding... though you're right, there are a lot of people that are largely overlooked... like the Germans, and Japanese in illegal American internment camps, but we here in America don't really like to talk about that too much.

You make an excellent point here. By funding such education, the argument against the Holocaust will definitely fade. However, completely extirpating Holocaust deniers through this does seem a bit unreasonable. Althought there are many who deny the Holocaust because they do not know enough about it, there are many more that deny it out of hatred, baised opinions, or because they believe that such events are unfathomable. In addition, others, such as Nazi sympathizers do believe that the Holocaust occurred, but that it was (cringes) for the better. While education would do a world of good, I think completely eradicating such opinions will be a longer, more difficult process.

Yeah, I misspoke, we may never actually get rid of Holocaust denial, but I think education can greatly reduce it's overall influence, if nothing else by at least helping to guard a bit against the hateful slander.

And you don't think it should be legal because you don't like it? What if your message of hate towards people who say stupid things lands you in prison? Hoist by your own petard then, eh?

Sorry I hadn't heard this used in a while " Hoist by your own petard then, eh?"

I had to go look it up. It comes from Shakespeare so "they" say.


In any event I would take that risk.

Jews are making a holocaust on the muslims :mad:

He probably should have.
To my knowledge that's the only place it is illegal.

I can understand the obvious arguments for keeping Holocaust denial illegal in Germany and Austria (the only two countries I can bring to mind which have such laws on their statute books), and the subsequent rammy that a change in the law would cause.

It's illegal in France and a few other countries, as well, IIRC. I think it might also be illegal in Canada.

Holocaust denial is illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial)in the following countries:

Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Switzerland

No, for reasons other people have mentioned already.

You'd be wrong.

I'd be wrong about the Holocaust, how exactly? I'm in favour of exposing ignorance and watching it crumble in the face of evidence that goes against all that holocaust denial assumes to be true.

No form of speech should be illegal.

Denying the Holocaust isn't merely any "stupid, offensive bullshit."
I think it can be viewed as such.

Moreover, I was more making a general point that many things which are offensive and obviously not true are (and should be) legal - godhatesfags is a good example. If Holocaust denial has a good case for it to be illegal, then a vast amount of speech and writing should be banned also. (Presumably, those who would wish for its criminalisation would also want to criminalise the denial of the attrocities of the Khmer Rouge, the USSR, the Armenian genocide, etc., etc.?)

Simply put, I believe that free speech trumps offence every time.


Holocaust denial is illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial)in the following countries:
<listsnip>
Cheers.

More countries than I thought.

No form of speech should be illegal.

Here's a question then, should certain types of speech, which could be considered defamatory carry legal repercussions, even if it is legal?

I'm beginning to think that this "Holocaust" didn't even happen!

Nah, I'm just kidding... though you're right, there are a lot of people that are largely overlooked... like the Germans, and Japanese in illegal American internment camps, but we here in America don't really like to talk about that too much.

Yes we do...we talk about it on television (Look at Ken Burns "The War", where one of the families he followed was in a camp), we talk about it in schools, we talk about it in books...it's actually not uncommon.

It's just that it was a substantially less vile crime than the holocaust.

No form of speech should be illegal.

So telling you that the thing you are holding is a delicious candybar, while in truth I know it is a deadly poison, should have no consequences for me whatsoever - even if you decide to eat it based on my assurance ?

Lying while under oath should be perfectly fine ?

Telling everyone that you are a convicted child rapist is a-ok ?

You can keep it way down. It may not disappear but certainly diminish it acceptance.

Can you? And how could you ever know?



Good get rid of them.

Then, you would equate holding a political view you find repulsive, to being worthy of extermination?

You would make a good Nazi.


It fosters hate, it gather sympathizers as long as it is in the public discourse as well. I really think this should not be covered under the first amendment it is blatantly false.

Who are you to decide for others what is false or true? Who are you to deny others a voice?

Can you? And how could you ever know?

You can monitor those groups and crackdown frequently.



Then, you would equate holding a political view you find repulsive, to being worthy of extermination?

You would make a good Nazi.

Actually it would make diametrically opposed to Nazi in this case. It is not a political view. It is racially motivated view. Also I never said kill them. Silencing them is okay.


Who are you to decide for others what is false or true? Who are you to deny others a voice?

We do not need to hear that voice. I really don't think many want to hear this voice. It is also an insult to those who do hear it. It is not like this is altruistic view. The people that put this forward know exactly what they are trying to do.

ctually it would make diametrically opposed to Nazi in this case. It is not a political view. It is racially motivated view

A little sidestep, out of pure interest and largely irrelevant to the main subject of the thread:

Does anyone know what the nazis did to "Jews" that gave up their faith or were never members of the Jewish faith to begin with ?
I am assuming the nazis did not care if the "Jew" was in fact "Christian", but does anyone know for certain ?

A little sidestep, out of pure interest and largely irrelevant to the main subject of the thread:

Does anyone know what the nazis did to "Jews" that gave up their faith or were never members of the Jewish faith to begin with ?
I am assuming the nazis did not care if the "Jew" was in fact "Christian", but does anyone know for certain ?

They really didn't care, as it wasn't a persecution based on religious grounds (such as the Spanish Inquisition), rather it was on "racial" grounds. One of the rare exceptions was where a Jew converted and married an "Aryan", and the "Aryan" protected them from persecution, by essentially locking them in the house.

No, it shouldn't be outlawed, that would be an attack on free speech, and besides, being an idiot shouldn't be a crime ;)

No, it shouldn't be outlawed, that would be an attack on free speech, and besides, being an idiot shouldn't be a crime ;)

Of course it's not a crime! They may have to arrest more than 3/4 of the nation, me included. I do think that denying the Holocaust should be confined to personal opinion, however. Those that do deny the Holocaust often do so as a result of misinformation, racism, or indifference. Having public displays of such beliefs would offend many, and cause outrage in many more.

Holocaust denial is illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial)in the following countries:

Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Switzerland

Yeah, and how well has it worked in those countries? Quite a few of them have problems with Neo-Nazis.

Banning Holocaust denial does jack shit.

Yeah, and how well has it worked in those countries? Quite a few of them have problems with Neo-Nazis.

Banning Holocaust denial does jack shit.

Indeed. It hasn't stop it from happening in Spain where, pretty much, both Jews and Arabs are looked down upon.

You can monitor those groups and crackdown frequently.

Really? I seriously doubt it. If you've already made the statement illegal, then those making it will have every reason to stay away from anyone who might be an informer. And how can you check it's spread? What of social networks that aren't official groups? Will you monitor everyone?


Actually it would make diametrically opposed to Nazi in this case. It is not a political view. It is racially motivated view. Also I never said kill them. Silencing them is okay.

And how would you do that? Imprison them? Then what can you do to make them shut up, since they're already imprisoned? A man with nothing to lose cannot be threatened.



We do not need to hear that voice.

"If one man is in chains, all men are slaves".

I really don't think many want to hear this voice.

What of it? I don't care what people want to hear.

It is also an insult to those who do hear it.

There is no right not to be insulted.


It is not like this is altruistic view. The people that put this forward know exactly what they are trying to do.

Yes. They are trying to put forward a point of view you do not agree with.

Thankfully, you don't get to decide what people say. Unfortunately, in a number of countries, stupid people think they do.

So telling you that the thing you are holding is a delicious candybar, while in truth I know it is a deadly poison, should have no consequences for me whatsoever - even if you decide to eat it based on my assurance ?
I think they would get you for manslaughter rather than your actual speech in the matter...

Lying while under oath should be perfectly fine ?
Again, you would be gotten for lying under oath, not for exercising your freedom of speech...

Telling everyone that you are a convicted child rapist is a-ok ?

Thats exactly what you have to do as a Child rapist, so, yeah...

So telling you that the thing you are holding is a delicious candybar, while in truth I know it is a deadly poison, should have no consequences for me whatsoever - even if you decide to eat it based on my assurance ?

Lying while under oath should be perfectly fine ?

Telling everyone that you are a convicted child rapist is a-ok ?

If it causes harm, then you are liable for the harm, but not the words themselves.

Jews are making a holocaust on the muslims :mad:

Which Arabs are those? Those throwing rocks or those strapping bombs to their chests and going shopping?

Back your bullshit up or post it somewhere else, please.

You'd be wrong.

You'd be required to show how. Otherwise, you peddling bullshit, too.

Holocaust ? What Holocaust ? The tragic event that Jews remind us of in hundreds of films and books every year ?
Or the Holocaust where other people, not just Jews, were murdered ?
Like political prisoners and POWs, gypsies, homosexuals, and mentally challenged people?

Why do Jews keep on making the Holocaust THEIR thing alone ? I´ll tell you why. Because they make a profit from it. It´s called "The Holocaust Industry".

Because 5.9 million is a substantially larger number than any other group. Four or five times larger than the next largest group, Poles, and much larger than any of the rest. I don't see where Jews go out of the way to exclude other groups persecuted by the Nazis, instead I see them talking about that which they understand -- that which happened to their group.

Why do people keep digging up divisions where there are none? Have you got any financial statements for this "holocaust industry"? Is Elie Wiesel the Bill Gates of genocide? What's wrong with you?

We do not need to hear that voice. I really don't think many want to hear this voice. It is also an insult to those who do hear it. It is not like this is altruistic view. The people that put this forward know exactly what they are trying to do.

So we're to be protected from insults, now? Sorry, as much as I might dislike what any one person might have to say, I don't want to live in a world where you, I, or anyone else gets to decide that they're not allowed to say it.

Hate exposes itself only if allowed to speak. Otherwise, it's left to its own devices and is left alone to choose actions that almost always speak louder, and more violently, than words.

No it shouldn't.

I think they would get you for manslaughter rather than your actual speech in the matter...

Why ? I merely spoke. I did not force the poison down your throat.
Complete freedom of speech must go hand in hand with complete freedom of consequences of that speech. Which is why I oppose it ;)

Again, you would be gotten for lying under oath, not for exercising your freedom of speech...

So the right to freedom of speech is only valid in certain situations and can be voided in e.g. a courtroom ? That is not the restriction free freedom that was advocated.

Thats exactly what you have to do as a Child rapist, so, yeah...
I did not say the accusation was true. Merely that I should have the freedom to say it if there were no restrictions at all.

Yeah, and how well has it worked in those countries? Quite a few of them have problems with Neo-Nazis.

Banning Holocaust denial does jack shit.
This.

Complete freedom of speech must go hand in hand with complete freedom of consequences of that speech.
What do you mean by "complete freedom of consequences"?

It'd be hard to see why, for example, I should be held responsible for someone assassinating the Prime Minister because they were responding to my comment that the PM is dong a bad job.

Is something like this what you're getting at?

I wouldn't want it to be made illegal anywhere it is legal already. I'd like to see some countries who've outlawed it make it legal. I completely understand if some countries, like Germany, Austria and Poland, want to keep it illegal, and won't protest that.

Holocaust denial shouldn't be illegal, unless religion is also going to be made illegal.

(Inspired by Trve's thread. I created this one so his wouldn't get derailed.)

The title says it all: Should Holocaust denial be illegal? Why or why not?
\/ This \/
Not in the United States, the 1st Amendment protects idiocy....even wanton racist idiocy...

Holocaust denial shouldn't be illegal, unless religion is also going to be made illegal.

eh? Explain.

I cannot see any justification for it, other than quite a cynical utilitarian one. The idea of the government mandating on what is the correct interpretation of historical events, no matter how incredibly likely it is to be, and the banning of alternative opinions on the matter, sets a rather ugly precedent.

eh? Explain.

Holocaust denial seems to be a matter of belief that operates independently of support, and can even fly directly in the face of pretty damning evidence.

Which is also true of religion.

If you're going to argue one should be outlawed on those 'merits', it would be hypocritical to act differently with reference to the other.

Which is also true of religion.


That's quite a generalisation but...


If you're going to argue one should be outlawed on those 'merits', it would be hypocritical to act differently with reference to the other.

I agree.

That's quite a generalisation but...


It's not really a 'generalisation', per se.

Religion... "seems to be a matter of belief that operates independently of support, and can even fly directly in the face of pretty damning evidence".

That's why it IS religion. If it didn't require faith, if it didn't transcend the need for explicit avidence - it wouldn't be 'religion'.

Holocaust denial is illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial)in the following countries:

Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Switzerland

I could have sworn it was illegal in Canada and the Netherlands, too... :confused:

(Inspired by Trve's thread. I created this one so his wouldn't get derailed.)

The title says it all: Should Holocaust denial be illegal? Why or why not?

It's imo pretty stupid do deny it, but denying that the earth is just a few thousands of years is about as stupid and so on. It would be pretty harsh to make stupidity(or ignorance) illegal. Even tho you need to know the laws...

You mean "Back to stupid cynicism masquerading as realism". Is building a structure worthless because it cannot be perfect? If we work towards improvement, the fact that the ultimate goal is unattainable does not matter

Building a structure for the goal of "perfection" is indeed worthless, as is pursuing a chimera of absolute free speech which no modern, Western nation I can think of can claim. That's reality. There are limitations on free speech. This is one of them.

Of course we do. As I said, it will drive the concept underground - where it cannot be combatted.

You say "drive the concept underground" and "be combatted" as if they are different things...


False analogy. An idea and an act cannot be equated.


Expression of an idea (which the laws in question are about) is an act. Analogy stands.

The neo-Nazi Skinhead movement in Germany.

I said, "solely because" of these laws. The mere existence of neo-nazis does not show that there is a causal relationship between Holocaust Denial laws and neo-nazis.

Similar organizations in France, Italy, Britain, the USA. The US Nazi party. Plenty of others have an interest in Holocaust Denial. Some may have done so because of Holocaust Denial laws - certainly, there is a certain mindset that sees anything the government bans as being worthy of checking out.

Well, that's compelling. It may be that you are correct. But I'm not going to just assume you are because you are parading around free speech ideals and, oh, there aren't Holocaust Denial Laws in the US so your connection is even more tenuous there.

Yes, making something illegal gives it a certain appeal to certain people. Big deal. That is not sufficient reason to legalize it. It never needed to be illegal to have appeal to begin with.


Do not assume your cynicism to be typical.


It hardly needs to be typical to be a basically accurate observation.

No, there's none at all. In the 1930's eugenics and racial concepts were based on reasonable considerations of what science was saying. Those concepts would not be disproved until much later.

They are not 'disproved' in the sense of not being held by a great many people, even today. You seem to be unshakeably confident in the triumph of intelligence versus stupidity - as if hey, only those backwards-thinking Germans could become Nazis, we modern people are much superior with our brilliant reasoning.

(And on that subject - you are not changing my mind; what makes you think you can change anyone else's? Let alone a nazi? Try doing it on this forum, prove how wrong and isolated my cynicism is. I wanna see someone like New Mitanni go "gosh, that was a well-reasoned argument. I concede my point, good sir, and kudos to the free market of ideas!"

It would be wonderful, to be sure, but I am not going to hold my breath.)

And you have to be kidding me to consider the Weimar Republic a fair or free forum for political concepts.

did they have any laws equivalent to the Holocaust Denial laws?

You know, the ones that allegedly cause Nazism to happen in the first place.

To a certain extent, as it was understood at the time, yes. We now know they were wrong, but it was neither considered ascientific nor unpopular at the time.

Uh, "not considered ascientific nor unpopular" does not amount to "based in truth" in the slightest. Popularity doesn't mean truth (a point, BTW, you seem to not agree with if you believe my "atypical" cynicism makes it somehow false).

No: Anti-Semitism was not now, nor has it ever been, based on "truth."

Well, duh. When their citizens can wind up jailed for years over it, who's going to speak out in the open? Veiled euphemisms and talk in the shadows is the way it would work there.

Veiled euphemisms and talk in the shadows are much easier to combat by their very nature. It wasn't talk in the shadows that gave the Nazis power - it was right out in the open, published in books, brayed by politicians, and accepted by the 'disenfranchised and unhappy' who were, happily, not obstructed in any way from listening.

It's not really a 'generalisation', per se.

Religion... "seems to be a matter of belief that operates independently of support, and can even fly directly in the face of pretty damning evidence".

That's why it IS religion. If it didn't require faith, if it didn't transcend the need for explicit avidence - it wouldn't be 'religion'.

Well firstly, it depends on how you define religions, not all definitions require a belief in a supernatural entity. Secondly, 'independent of support' is a rather redundant statement, core beliefs of religion generally are not verifiable or falsifiable statements of empirical observation, they develop through different means, and are believed for different reasons. Denial of the holocaust however, is presenting itself as an empirical observation. You can draw parallels of course, such as the belief in a young earth etc..., but it's not the same as all religion as a whole.

A little sidestep, out of pure interest and largely irrelevant to the main subject of the thread:

Does anyone know what the nazis did to "Jews" that gave up their faith or were never members of the Jewish faith to begin with ?
I am assuming the nazis did not care if the "Jew" was in fact "Christian", but does anyone know for certain ?

The Nazis didn't actually define "Jewishness" through the Religion, but rather through a rather convoluted system of blood heritage.
A Jew, according to them, wasn't just a member of the Jewish faith, but a member of the so-called Jewish race.

Of course not. There is no legitimate reason to prohibit holocaust denial beyond censorship of any opinion deemed problematic.

A little sidestep, out of pure interest and largely irrelevant to the main subject of the thread:

Does anyone know what the nazis did to "Jews" that gave up their faith or were never members of the Jewish faith to begin with ?
I am assuming the nazis did not care if the "Jew" was in fact "Christian", but does anyone know for certain ?

To my understanding there were several "half-jews" and I think one instance of a jew, that were given "Aryan" status for service to the Fuhrer.

The Nazis didn't actually define "Jewishness" through the Religion, but rather through a rather convoluted system of blood heritage.
A Jew, according to them, wasn't just a member of the Jewish faith, but a member of the so-called Jewish race.

^ This.

Even Jews who converted were persecuted. The Nazi hatred of Jews was for "racial" reasons, rather than religious ones.

No, in the same way belief that the Pyramids were made by aliens isnt illegal(I hope)

No, in the same way belief that the Pyramids were made by aliens isnt illegal(I hope)

But that incredibly offensive to Egyptians! :rolleyes:

No, in the same way belief that the Pyramids were made by aliens isnt illegal(I hope)

Uh, because the building of the Pyramids was a 20th century war crime perpetrated by a state which still exists today, along with survivors of said war crime, and led to the most destructive and bloody conflict in the history of humanity?

But that incredibly offensive to Egyptians! :rolleyes:

Oh ho ho, you're SO cute. Your cheeky one-liners that display total ignorance of the argument and contribute nothing but cheap smarm are sure compelling. Yes, let's lift those laws right away!

Uh, because the building of the Pyramids was a 20th century war crime perpetrated by a state which still exists today, along with survivors of said war crime, and led to the most destructive and bloody conflict in the history of humanity?
But why should the above be a reason for criminalising denial?

Is it the sheer scale of the atrocity of the Holocaust?

Uh, because the building of the Pyramids was a 20th century war crime perpetrated by a state which still exists today, along with survivors of said war crime, and led to the most destructive and bloody conflict in the history of humanity?


Irrelevent. Stifling historical discourse to satisfy vicarious guilt, or, in your case, misplaced zealotry, is unacceptable.

Well firstly, it depends on how you define religions, not all definitions require a belief in a supernatural entity.


Which is fine. I'm pretty sure that doesn't conflict what I said, at all.


Secondly, 'independent of support' is a rather redundant statement, core beliefs of religion generally are not verifiable or falsifiable statements of empirical observation, they develop through different means, and are believed for different reasons.


It's not 'redundant', it's the whole point. You then go on to expand on my point... but you present it as though it was a conflict.


Denial of the holocaust however, is presenting itself as an empirical observation. You can draw parallels of course, such as the belief in a young earth etc..., but it's not the same as all religion as a whole.

'Denial of the holocaust' is also presented as being a spectrum - from questioning the accuracy of the data, to outright claims of fabrication. How is that different to the spectrum of religious belief?

But that incredibly offensive to Egyptians! :rolleyes:

However, the belief that the Egyptians built the pyramids is equally offensive to the aliens!

I think everyone knows there has to be a pretty good reason for something to get banned in this country.

Are you serious?

So if a country decided to ban all opposition political parties or ban foreigners from owning businesses then you would be in favour of it simply because there has to be a good reason for it.

Which Arabs are those? Those throwing rocks or those strapping bombs to their chests and going shopping?

Back your bullshit up or post it somewhere else, please.

Pobably the Arabs living in the West Bank is what he is talking about. Don't tell me you missed the news.

Pobably the Arabs living in the West Bank is what he is talking about. Don't tell me you missed the news.

Oh, please. A holocaust? In the West Bank? That's overstating by an order of magnitude. They're reaping the seeds sown in the time after rejecting their own state.

Oh, please. A holocaust? In the West Bank? That's overstating by an order of magnitude. They're reaping the seeds sown in the time after rejecting their own state.

Yep damn those kids rejecting their grandfathers decisions. That certainly justifies the invasion.

EDIT: Just to clairfy I am not saying it is a holocaust.

Are you serious?

So if a country decided to ban all opposition political parties or ban foreigners from owning businesses then you would be in favour of it simply because there has to be a good reason for it.

That is hardly the same thing. Few people vote anyway, I doubt many would even notice.

We are talking though about the difference between printing or otherwise disseminating blatant falsehoods as truths. Your statement drives it home without much need for further development. "simply because there has to be a good reason for it"

We are talking though about the difference between printing or otherwise disseminating blatant falsehoods as truths.

Shouldn't that be allowed?

Outlawing historical debate would be one of the stupidest things you could do.

While personally i feel that denialist are ignorant people they do have the right to their opinion. If we take away the rights of people we disagree with, it would only give other people(the goverment) the right to take away our rights. It has to be a two way street.

Holocaust denial law put in place in Italy 2010.
2011 law modified to include denial of the pope as holocaust denial.
2012 law modified to put all Holocaust deniers in camps.

Yeah, more or less. That's what I fear.

should is what you do in the little room with the mirrors.

i've always questioned the likelihood of legislating morality to actually in any way improve it (for that matter, for those legislating it to have much of a very good idea what it is). on the other hand, the kind of examples we all set for each other is everything.

what "should" be verboten, is allowing anyone to force anyone else to have to listen, to anything.
(as long as it doesn't take doing so to stop them from making a gratuitous annoyance of themselves)

If I may, I would like to draw a parallel. Bear with me, this is not intended to be a thread-jack.

Most Americans are aware of a guy named Fred Phelps. He runs a really nasty little church, and they like to do things like go to the funerals of soldiers and chant about how God wanted that soldier to die because God Hates America. (God Hates America because America allows fags to exist, btw). Phelps keeps a page on his website that tracks the number of days Mathew Shepard (a gay man who was brutally murdered) has been in Hell. Phelps and his church spew some of the most hateful, vicious, cruel insanity you can ever hope to see. Feel free to Google him if you don't believe me.

But the existence of Fred Phelps is, I believe, a Good Thing(tm).

Fred Phelps is a free man. Fred Phelps and his clan don't get arrested for protesting (as long as they follow the law in how they protest), no matter what they say. Fred Phelps' beliefs are repulsive in the extreme to the vast majority of Americans, yet Fred Phelps has never been arrested for having those beliefs or for literally shrieking them at innocent passersby.

So you see, whenever homophobes bleat about how legalized gay marriage is a slippery slope that will lead to the imprisonment of anybody who doesn't like gay marriage...just say "Fred Phelps." If Fred Phelps can run a church that says fags deserve to be MURDERED and still be a free man, then it's kinda stupid for anybody to claim that a priest would be thrown in jail merely for refusing to marry a gay couple.

Whenever Creationists whine that refusing to put Creationism in public school science classes is a slippery slope to making Creationism "illegal"...Fred Phelps. Phelps walks around saying that God is specifically slaughtering millions of people because we aren't literally obeying Leviticus, and he's not in jail for saying that, so it's pretty fucking stupid to claim that anybody would go to jail for saying that we should interpret Biblical Creation literally.

Thus Fred Phelps is, ironically, how you shut the bigots up.

Holocaust denial is the same shit. It's an extreme and bullshit point of view, espoused by hateful assholes. But it needs to be legal, because then we can thoroughly debunk any of the BS Stormfront claims about how racists are persecuted for their beliefs. Their whining about how The Jews or whoever are going to throw White People in jail just for having a teeny bit of White Pride can be roundly mocked, so long as we're able to point out that The Jews let you deny the Holocaust even HAPPENED.

Shouldn't that be allowed?

No it should not be allowed and let me qualify here. When you put forward an argument that the Holocaust never happened. We have pictures of people being bulldozed into trenches.

This is not the same as Santa or the Easter Bunny. This is not the same a religion. It is like saying the Rockies do not exist add to that the fact that there are still people alive that lived through it. It like saying 911 and the world trade center never happened. It is very hurtful to people and in a civilized society we do not need this influence.

It the fact if you repeat a blantant untrue statment long enough some people might actually believe it is true.

If I may, I would like to draw a parallel. Bear with me, this is not intended to be a thread-jack.

Most Americans are aware of a guy named Fred Phelps. He runs a really nasty little church, and they like to do things like go to the funerals of soldiers and chant about how God wanted that soldier to die because God Hates America. (God Hates America because America allows fags to exist, btw). Phelps keeps a page on his website that tracks the number of days Mathew Shepard (a gay man who was brutally murdered) has been in Hell. Phelps and his church spew some of the most hateful, vicious, cruel insanity you can ever hope to see. Feel free to Google him if you don't believe me.

But the existence of Fred Phelps is, I believe, a Good Thing(tm).

Fred Phelps is a free man. Fred Phelps and his clan don't get arrested for protesting (as long as they follow the law in how they protest), no matter what they say. Fred Phelps' beliefs are repulsive in the extreme to the vast majority of Americans, yet Fred Phelps has never been arrested for having those beliefs or for literally shrieking them at innocent passersby.

So you see, whenever homophobes bleat about how legalized gay marriage is a slippery slope that will lead to the imprisonment of anybody who doesn't like gay marriage...just say "Fred Phelps." If Fred Phelps can run a church that says fags deserve to be MURDERED and still be a free man, then it's kinda stupid for anybody to claim that a priest would be thrown in jail merely for refusing to marry a gay couple.

Whenever Creationists whine that refusing to put Creationism in public school science classes is a slippery slope to making Creationism "illegal"...Fred Phelps. Phelps walks around saying that God is specifically slaughtering millions of people because we aren't literally obeying Leviticus, and he's not in jail for saying that, so it's pretty fucking stupid to claim that anybody would go to jail for saying that we should interpret Biblical Creation literally.

Thus Fred Phelps is, ironically, how you shut the bigots up.

Holocaust denial is the same shit. It's an extreme and bullshit point of view, espoused by hateful assholes. But it needs to be legal, because then we can thoroughly debunk any of the BS Stormfront claims about how racists are persecuted for their beliefs. Their whining about how The Jews or whoever are going to throw White People in jail just for having a teeny bit of White Pride can be roundly mocked, so long as we're able to point out that The Jews let you deny the Holocaust even HAPPENED.

While for the most part I agree with your sentiment. maybe we should not throw them in prison but maybe we should have the right to pull down Stormfront. Why should we allow another generation to be influenced by this group? These sites do attract followers. By the same token I am not Phelps fan. If we can find something about his website. I am sure he has one, although I have not been. Maybe his should be pulled down as well. Especially if they publish blatantly untrue things as facts.

Does homosexuality deserve death? No, of course not. If his site makes that claim then we need to pull it down as well. We don't have to throw them in jail to silence them. I am sure his lawyers have been over his site saying what you can and can not say but in any event. I don't think we need it.


Let me turn it around just for the sake of argument. Would you feel violated if you heard less from Fred Phelps? Would you violated if the holocaust deniers were not allowed to say so in public anymore?

While for the most part I agree with your sentiment. maybe we should not throw them in prison but maybe we should have the right to pull down Stormfront. Why should we allow another generation to be influenced by this group? These sites do attract followers. By the same token I am not Phelps fan. If we can find something about his website. I am sure he has one, although I have not been. Maybe his should be pulled down as well. Especially if they publish blatantly untrue things as facts.

Does homosexuality deserve death? No, of course not. If his site makes that claim then we need to pull it down as well. We don't have to throw them in jail to silence them. I am sure his lawyers have been over his site saying what you can and can not say but in any event. I don't think we need it.


Let me turn it around just for the sake of argument. Would you feel violated if you heard less from Fred Phelps? Would you violated if the holocaust deniers were not allowed to says so in public anymore?

If they just shut up, no.

If someone MADE them shut up, then HELL YES! Because those same misguided fools could then come along and shut ME up for any reason they damn well felt like!

I think its time to move on the thing happened 70 years ago the world isnt like that anymore

While for the most part I agree with your sentiment. maybe we should not throw them in prison but maybe we should have the right to pull down Stormfront. Why should we allow another generation to be influenced by this group? These sites do attract followers.

I don't see how you're going to "pull down" sites like Stormfront without having legal penalties involved. Hell, I don't even know how you think Stormfront COULD be pulled down. They'll just buy their own damn servers if they have to. People who are determined to be assholes will find a way.


By the same token I am not Phelps fan. If we can find something about his website. I am sure he has one, although I have not been. Maybe his should be pulled down as well. Especially if they publish blatantly untrue things as facts.

The Vatican currently posts blatantly untrue things on their website. Want to argue that the Pope shouldn't be able to have a web page?


Does homosexuality deserve death? No, of course not. If his site makes that claim then we need to pull it down as well. We don't have to throw them in jail to silence them. I am sure his lawyers have been over his site saying what you can and can not say but in any event. I don't think we need it.

I guess we disagree on the importance of free speech, then.


Let me turn it around just for the sake of argument. Would you feel violated if you heard less from Fred Phelps? Would you violated if the holocaust deniers were not allowed to say so in public anymore?
Yes, I would. Because I know damn well that my own views are hated and feared by a whole lot of people, and if views that are hated or feared start getting banned then I know my views will be in the first wave of targets.

With regard to Fred Phelps this I believe is the proper response.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

United Kingdom

On February 18, 2009, two days before the Westboro Baptist Church's first ever UK picket, the UK Home Office announced that Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper are excluded from entering the UK, and that ‘other church members could also be flagged and stopped if they tried to enter Britain‘[73].

Wouldn't this be considered a thought crime in the book 1984?

With regard to Fred Phelps this I believe is the proper response.

<phelpssnip>.
Personally, I think that was a terrible response from the UK government. As was the prevention of idiot Geert Wilders from entering Britain.

(What's darkly hilarious is that Wilders complains about being denied freedom of speech in the UK, but wishes the Qur'an banned...)

I don't see how you're going to "pull down" sites like Stormfront without having legal penalties involved. Hell, I don't even know how you think Stormfront COULD be pulled down. They'll just buy their own damn servers if they have to. People who are determined to be assholes will find a way.

Not just Stormfront, KKK, NAZI party, all of them. Screw them, we don't need your point of view. Sure they can buy their own servers. Find out who their host and ask them to turn it off.


The Vatican currently posts blatantly untrue things on their website. Want to argue that the Pope shouldn't be able to have a web page?

I am curious about this but I don't want to hijack this thread but I would like to hear about these in the future.


I guess we disagree on the importance of free speech, then.

It not really even Free Speech it is Hate Speech.


Yes, I would. Because I know damn well that my own views are hated and feared by a whole lot of people, and if views that are hated or feared start getting banned then I know my views will be in the first wave of targets.

It is one thing to have unpopular view it is quite another to publish false information as the truth. It diminishes the memory of those who served in World War 2. It in effect calls them liars and spits on their memory. I have seen the tattoos in living flesh. It gives you a very sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach.

It would be along the lines of saying "Homosexuality is highly contagious brain disease" " "and "people who are seen practicing it should be quarantined for the safety of those around"


Now if I say that over and over to everyone I meet some people might not know that is false. They tell other weak minded individuals and so on. The falsehood gets raised to the level of a truth.

It would be along the lines of saying "Homosexuality is highly contagious brain disease" " "and "people who are seen practicing it should be quarantined for the safety of those around"


Now if I say that over and over to everyone I meet some people might not know that is false. They tell other weak minded individuals and so on. The falsehood gets raised to the level of a truth.
The problem is, your argument would also seem to preclude any false information whatsoever, i.e., it would make it illegal to speak any falsehood.

The problem is, your argument would also seem to preclude any false information whatsoever, i.e., it would make it illegal to speak any falsehood.

There is a difference. If you as an author want to make up a world called Hogwarts. That is fine. If you say that in Hogwarts the Holocaust was a myth, then again fine. It is quite a bit different when you say the the same about planet Earth. Even more different when you make that out to be a fact and that the "Man" is keeping you down. Bull, the "Man" is not keeping you down that is a load of crap and nobody wants to hear it.

There is a difference. If you as an author want to make up a world called Hogwarts. That is fine. If you say that in Hogwarts the Holocaust was a myth, then again fine. It is quite a bit different when you say the the same about planet Earth. Even more different when you make that out to be a fact and that the "Man" is keeping you down. Bull, the "Man" is not keeping you down that is a load of crap and nobody wants to hear it.

Funny that you should use that terminology. If you take a look at inner-city black life in the 1970's in the US, you will find a LOT of black commentators of the time were saying "the Man is keeping the black man down."

Such views were pooh-poohed in the press, and those outside the situation were told that this was an overreaction by extremists, that the situation in the inner cities was caused by the inhabitants thereof, that "The Man" (i.e. Government, Big business, local leaders) were doing alright by the inner cities.

Well, guess what? It was the pap told to (and by) the press that was the lie. That got out - and changes were made. But it took twenty years to even start to reverse the damage that had been done.

If we adopted your bullshit proposal, what aspect would have been banned? You got it, THE TRUTH. We can't have any government group deciding what is or isn't truthful, because nobody and nothing is wise enough or good enough to be trusted with that kind of power.

The problem is that a lot of the desire to criminalize that kind of speech or to take aggressive action against facilities used to promote it is based on feelings and not reason.

Racism is disgusting. Sites like Stormfront disgust me, as they do many others. The problem is that feelings of disgust alone aren't enough to justify moving against them. You might believe and/or promote things that another finds disgusting. I might as well, but does that mean someone can shut us down on that basis alone?

What makes your disgust more powerful, more justified or more righteous than the next guy's?

And let's be honest. Shutting them down on the basis that they w ill corrupt another generation is really just a veneer to disguise the fact that it's still based on emotionalism. Frankly, I think keeping things like that around serve a purpose... a reminder of what we, as humans are capable of and an object lesson in what to avoid.

There is a difference. If you as an author want to make up a world called Hogwarts. That is fine. If you say that in Hogwarts the Holocaust was a myth, then again fine. It is quite a bit different when you say the the same about planet Earth.
But I'm not talking about fiction, I'm talking about falsehoods involving the real world.

So far, the reasons you've given for criminalising Holocaust denial could just as easily be used to argue for the criminalisation of denial that the Earth is round, the criminalisation of denial of the authenticity of the Moon landings, the criminalisation of denial the official account of the WTC attacks, etc.

Moreover, it puts into question the position of respected mainstream academics such as Niall Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson), who argues, rather controversially, for a somewhat apologetic take on the British Empire. Ferguson's contention that the British Empire should be seen as much more of a force for good than most historians currently see it is highly disputed, and some would say he is propagating an offensive falsehood.

Your position would criminalise all those from gossips to racists, from charlatans to academics.

Even more different when you make that out to be a fact and that the "Man" is keeping you down.
When discussion of the topic you're interested in is criminalised, such grumbles are vindicated.

Yes, I believe it is, I dont think one can be arrested in the US for stating that you dont believe someone was raped...

That would make a defense lawyer's job way harder.
Thats for sure.

The problem is that a lot of the desire to criminalize that kind of speech or to take aggressive action against facilities used to promote it is based on feelings and not reason.

Racism is disgusting. Sites like Stormfront disgust me, as they do many others. The problem is that feelings of disgust alone aren't enough to justify moving against them. You might believe and/or promote things that another finds disgusting. I might as well, but does that mean someone can shut us down on that basis alone?

What makes your disgust more powerful, more justified or more righteous than the next guy's?

And let's be honest. Shutting them down on the basis that they w ill corrupt another generation is really just a veneer to disguise the fact that it's still based on emotionalism. Frankly, I think keeping things like that around serve a purpose... a reminder of what we, as humans are capable of and an object lesson in what to avoid.

You are correct. Mine alone not enough to cause this type of action. What about if we had enough people in every state in the union to say this is not right. We do not want this in our home states?

I may be coming late to this, but I do not support making Holocaust denial illegal.

Why? Not because I believe the Holocaust didn't happen - I believe that it did - but for both moral and practical reasons.

Morally, Freedom of Speech means just that: freedom so speak as you please (save that you don't slander someone's good name), no matter how stupid, bigoted or hateful your words may be. Further, if an idea won't stand up on its own, what's the point of banning it? Only ideas that people fear are banned, and I fear no ideas - I may hold some in contempt (Holocaust denial being one of them), but I don't fear them.

Practically, the best way to spread an idea in this day and age is to ban it. Making Holocaust denial illegal (besides contravening any Constitution that guarantees Freedom of Speech) will only give it validity in the eyes of all too many people.

The problem is, your argument would also seem to preclude any false information whatsoever, i.e., it would make it illegal to speak any falsehood.

Wel, we could create a ministry of truth. Its job would be to hear the factual basis for claims, evaluate them, publish the results in an easy accesible place - and then tell people that wish to repeat things that have been shown to be false to either show their new info or shut up.

Who here opposes minitrue ;) ?

But I'm not talking about fiction, I'm talking about falsehoods involving the real world.

So far, the reasons you've given for criminalising Holocaust denial could just as easily be used to argue for the criminalisation of denial that the Earth is round, the criminalisation of denial of the authenticity of the Moon landings, the criminalisation of denial the official account of the WTC attacks, etc.

Moreover, it puts into question the position of respected mainstream academics such as Niall Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson), who argues, rather controversially, for a somewhat apologetic take on the British Empire. Ferguson's contention that the British Empire should be seen as much more of a force for good than most historians currently see it is highly disputed, and some would say he is propagating an offensive falsehood.

Your position would criminalise all those from gossips to racists, from charlatans to academics.


When discussion of the topic you're interested in is criminalised, such grumbles are vindicated.

See the difference is the are no official Moonites or Moonish people living amongst us. Who is harmed by saying that we staged the moon landing. Possibly the astronauts, I suppose and maybe NASA. With regard to the Flat Eart Soceity. I think this is more of a inside joke kind of thing.

This is the actual disclaimer from one of the their websites
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.

Copyright © 1998 Flat Earth Society Inc. All rights reserved.


I think it is suppose to be absurd. If they make such a claim on Stormfront I am okay with letting them stay up.


By the way I like horseradish.

Wel, we could create a ministry of truth. Its job would be to hear the factual basis for claims, evaluate them, publish the results in an easy accesible place - and then tell people that wish to repeat things that have been shown to be false to either show their new info or shut up.

Who here opposes minitrue ;) ?

Awesome Idea.

Who here opposes minitrue ;) ?
Only those who deserve a visit from miniluv.

See the difference is the are no official Moonites or Moonish people living amongst us. Who is harmed by saying that we staged the moon landing. Possibly the astronauts, I suppose and maybe NASA. With regard to the Flat Eart Soceity. I think this is more of a inside joke kind of thing.
Then what of those who deny the official account of 9/11?

Or any official account whatsoever? It's feasible that an official account of a historical event, charged with emotion, could be inaccurate or completely fabricated. Clamping down on freedom of speech because of the offensiveness of a group of lies is foolhardy.

You are correct. Mine alone not enough to cause this type of action. What about if we had enough people in every state in the union to say this is not right. We do not want this in our home states?

It doesn't matter, much as I hate to say it. The whole point of having rights is the idea that certain things must be protected whether one person disapproves of it or a thousand or a million or more.

What you're talking about is a form of mob justice.

Then what of those who deny the official account of 9/11?

Or any official account whatsoever? It's feasible that an official account of a historical event, charged with emotion, could be inaccurate or completely fabricated. Clamping down on freedom of speech because of the offensiveness of a group of lies is foolhardy.
I'd say there's quite a bit of difference between saying that the death of 3,000 people on 9/11 was really caused by [insert crazy conspiracy theory entity] and saying that the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews during WWII not only never actually happened but was also just made up as Jewish propaganda.

Only those who deserve a visit from miniluv.


Then what of those who deny the official account of 9/11?

Or any official account whatsoever? It's feasible that an official account of a historical event, charged with emotion, could be inaccurate or completely fabricated. Clamping down on freedom of speech because of the offensiveness of a group of lies is foolhardy.

With regard to 9/11 they believe there is some type of conspiracy. I used to walk by them and the guys who say out of Iraq now on the way to work. We still see them during the 9/11 protests although they have been pushed to the sidelines. They believe there was a cover up. The same goes for Kennedy Assassination. One may be able to understand the JFK people in that the government did release documents that were blacked out. One has to ask themselves why would they release them at all? It only add fuel to these people fire?

Of course it makes TV shows like X-Files possible but I am not sure it is a good thing.

To some degree they believe the same about 9/11 although I am not sure why. I briefly entertained one them on the street. The glassy look in his made me re-evaluate discussing it with him. Lights are on but nobody is home.

I suppose it does give people something to talk about. I think our efforts could be put to more useful endeavors.

However I can not prove there was no conspiracy with regard to 9/11 although I do not believe there was one. This is not the case with the Holocaust. Some people still have the tattoos to prove it. We have pictures, documents etc.

The proponents say "well documents can be falsified" & "pictures can be fabricated"


There is no reason to believe they were in this case. We are perpetuating a lie but letting it continue.

I'd say there's quite a bit of difference between saying that the death of 3,000 people on 9/11 was really caused by [insert crazy conspiracy theory entity] and saying that the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews during WWII not only never actually happened but was also just made up as Jewish propaganda.

Awesome, thank you.

It doesn't matter, much as I hate to say it. The whole point of having rights is the idea that certain things must be protected whether one person disapproves of it or a thousand or a million or more.

What you're talking about is a form of mob justice.
Exactly.

Who gets to decide if an idea is "obviously false," after all?

The existence of germs was considered "obviously false" for a very long time. So was the idea that women are full human beings who deserve to vote. So was the idea that black people should maybe not be bought and sold like animals.

I don't like the idea of having ideas censored based on what the majority of people believe to be true. But then, that's probably because I live in a country where most people can't correctly identify the basic items on our Bill Of Rights.

Who gets to decide if an idea is "obviously false," after all?

Minitrue - as I said ;)
Seriously though - asking people to actually back up their claims if they "go against established doctrine" is not such a bad idea. And attacking the doctrine itself would of course be fair game.

It would however be nice to cut down the number of false arguments that get used over and over and over again.

Should it be illegal to lie in public? That's the real question.

I'd say there's quite a bit of difference between saying that the death of 3,000 people on 9/11 was really caused by [insert crazy conspiracy theory entity] and saying that the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews during WWII not only never actually happened but was also just made up as Jewish propaganda.

I wouldn't. Not in the context of this discussion. You're comparing relative levels of outrageous. You're saying that the claim that the Holocaust is a piece of Jewish propaganda is more outrageous than the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy...

Which it arguably is, but that still doesn't justify a gag order. It's like saying that a claim can be outlawed if it meets some kind of arbitrary level of outrageousness. Who gets to set that? Or judge cases against it?

There is no reason to believe they were in this case. We are perpetuating a lie but letting it continue.

I don't think we're in any danger of suddenly having a historical revolution and saying there was no Holocaust. We let people who believe it have their say because it's simply right to do so. It's what separates us from the evil people who perpetrate such things. It's what serves as a reminder to us of how off base people can go and what to look out for.

I find that rather useful, actually.

I'd say there's quite a bit of difference between saying that the death of 3,000 people on 9/11 was really caused by [insert crazy conspiracy theory entity] and saying that the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews during WWII not only never actually happened but was also just made up as Jewish propaganda.
I wouldn't, not in terms of concept at least.

As Neo B rightly says, you're comparing relative levels of outrageousness.


There is no reason to believe they were in this case. We are perpetuating a lie but letting it continue.
Then make a good case why perpetuating a lie should be a criminal act, in and of itself.

No it should not be allowed and let me qualify here. When you put forward an argument that the Holocaust never happened. We have pictures of people being bulldozed into trenches.

This is not the same as Santa or the Easter Bunny. This is not the same a religion. It is like saying the Rockies do not exist add to that the fact that there are still people alive that lived through it. It like saying 911 and the world trade center never happened. It is very hurtful to people and in a civilized society we do not need this influence.

It the fact if you repeat a blantant untrue statment long enough some people might actually believe it is true.

What you said was: "disseminating blatant falsehoods as truths". That is pretty much definitive as 'religion'.

We can get into the argument over whether biblical history is a falsehood - but it's irrelevent. YOU firmly believe it not, to other people it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that it's false. Just as you believe it is 'blantantly obvious' that the claims of Islam are false, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, etc.

And that's why you can't realistically prohibit the RIGHT to argue, claim, or believe in a deniable holocaust - because if you outlaw that, but you allow 'religion', then you're a hypocrite.


As for the idea that pictures of bodies 'proves' there's a holocaust, you're clearly no historian, and so are approaching the concept of 'sources' at a disadvantage.

Screw them, we don't need your point of view.


People say the same thing about Christians.

Worth bearing in mind.


It not really even Free Speech it is Hate Speech.


People say the same thing about Christians.

Not just Stormfront, KKK, NAZI party, all of them. Screw them, we don't need your point of view. Sure they can buy their own servers. Find out who their host and ask them to turn it off.

You can ask. But if that host wishes to deal with them, that's their prerogative.

It not really even Free Speech it is Hate Speech.

These two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue that banning the latter means that you don't have the former.

It isn't up to the government to determine what someone can and cannot say.

It is one thing to have unpopular view it is quite another to publish false information as the truth. It diminishes the memory of those who served in World War 2. It in effect calls them liars and spits on their memory.

Like it or not, this isn't a crime. Nor should it be. Being an asshole isn't a criminal act.

You are correct. Mine alone not enough to cause this type of action. What about if we had enough people in every state in the union to say this is not right. We do not want this in our home states?

Still irrelevant. Every single member of a state except one could find a statement offensive and that still wouldn't, on its own, justify any legal action taken against the person who uttered it.

By the way, for those interested in this issue, David Duke has just been arrested in Prague (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080912.html).

By the way, for those interested in this issue, David Duke has just been arrested in Prague (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080912.html).

I would disagree with anyone that called the man a 'contender', Ive never even heard of him, lol...

and, apart from being an outspoken moron, I dont see why he should be arrested, it doesnt say he did anything to anybody...

I would disagree with anyone that called the man a 'contender', Ive never even heard of him, lol...

and, apart from being an outspoken moron, I dont see why he should be arrested, it doesnt say he did anything to anybody...

Of course he did! He held an unpopular viewpoint and had the audacity to publish it! Clearly, that's enough to get you arrested in the Czech Republic. In fact, according to the article, it's enough to get you 3 years in prison.

I would disagree with anyone that called the man a 'contender', Ive never even heard of him, lol...

and, apart from being an outspoken moron, I dont see why he should be arrested, it doesnt say he did anything to anybody...David Duke is probably the most famous White Nationalist in the US. In 1990 he won election to Louisiana's state assembly while running on an openly racist platform.

I'm not sure what the specific charges are here, but they probably relate to his support for Ernst Zündel.

David Duke is probably the most famous White Nationalist in the US. In 1990 he won election to Louisiana's state assembly while running on an openly racist platform.

I'm not sure what the specific charges are here, but they probably relate to his support for Ernst Zündel.

Hmm..

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg


I still dont see any reason for him to be arrested however...