13 countries in the western world currently have holocaust denial among their illegal activities. In Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland you can be sent to prison for doubting the scale of the holocaust. The English writer David Irving is currently serving jail time in Austria for the 'speech crime of trivialising the Holocaust'. Someone once wrote (i forget who, I think Thomas Paine) that freedom of speech is important, But it's even more important to protect the freedom of the minority or the single man to speak his mind against the consensus (or words to that effect). I often get the impression that a lot of people who claim to believe in free speech only agree with it when the freedom to speak is used to agree with them. should people be prevented by law from denying or trivialising the holocaust? Is the minority entitled to a greater protection of freedom of speech than the agreeing majority or the accepted consensus?
The Holocaust is a tragic event that is remembered by history. But there are also lots of other serious crimes against humanity for eg Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, the Rape of Nanking etc. The denial of Holocaust is illegal, does that mean we have to also legislate the illegality of the above mentioned? I would think that to put the denial of Holocaust as a crime isn't necessary. If this is set as a precedence, then should the others be set as well? There would be no end to this and would trivialize the law. I guess education is the key rather than legislation.
Not allowing someone to proclaim what they believe (even if they are a nutjob like amadenajihad) is a stripping of freedom of speech imo.
No, it shouldn't be illegal. These countries suffered an extraordinary event in human history, on a scale not then yet seen by man. But as much as it pains me to see this nefarious crap, bring it out and destroy it openly.
I will keep it to the other thread - but I for one am puzzled by what seems to be an inconsistency among those who would be voting "no" here, but in essence are voting "yes, restrict" here. Denial of the Holocaust is, I assure you, deeply offensive to guys like my ex-neighbor in Los Angeles - Hans ___, otherwise known as No. #32-something, from my memory of the blue, coarsely etched tattoo on his arm. He was an older guy then, and I would expect he's dead now. But he isn't alone.
How does it? If we think about what free speech is it's the ability to say something or have an opinion regardless if someone else or the state likes it or agrees with it. So why should the amount that they disagree be a factor in determining if that right is granted or not? that's not free speech. Ironically it's in places where people don't like it and in cases where it's deemed offensive that free speech should be protected most.
Holocaust denial is a weapon in Europe and the Middle East. I don't believe it has as much political importance in places like South Korea, Fiji and Puerto Rico.
If I was stox shrink, I would be asking why, as an athiest, are the Jews so important to him and why he wants history to be denied and re-written. But, I am not his shrink. I would guess that being an athiest with view similar to hitler, he would like to repeat history as he is denying it happened the first time. Sorry, I just get sick of this guy and his hatred of people.
I have to agree with Bogart that it depends on the country. I voted as a citizen in the United States, and going by the laws and Constitution of the United States, I don't believe crazy Holocaust deniers should be punished for vocalizing their crazy, false thoughts. At the same time, I realize the United States is not a representation of the world as a whole, and other countries have different rules governing free speech and are free to legislate this topic as they wish within the bounds of their own country's laws.
you cant force someone to believe something, either they believe it happened, they dont believe it happened, or they know it happened and dont want to admit it. The town i live in just finished restoring one of the boxcars used to transport the jews. They have it on display at the musem
Yeah Ive heard about that, but to deny something that people are still around to remember, is kind of retarded in my opinion
I think the concern is that those who remember are dying off. I would still say, let it fly, and debunk it like any other pseudo-academic dogshit.
It is all part of the plan of gaining power for their cause of destroying the Jewish people. And I am not talking about zionist vs. non-zionist, etc... I am saying the Jewish people as a whole. Do you really think they care if they are a "zionist" or not? Nope, they just want them dead. Where is peaceman/pizzaman when you need him? He doesn't like the truth to be spoken, cause if you speak the truth you somehow 'want' war...
Absolutely not. I do not believe any beliefs should be illegal. That's a very slippery slope indeed. It's better that such beliefs as holocaust denial be heard for what they are: Stupid & Ignorant. When you make it illegal, in way I think it that's giving it more credence than it deserves.
In a free society, it is only absurd to ban a historical wievpoint no matter how irrational it seems. You can argue all you like that the world is flat, if you can't back your claim up properly, you will make a fool out of yourself anyway. In France, Austria and Switzerland(the ones i know) denial is punishable by law, even an imprisonment have occured in Austria some while ago if i'm not wrong. Makes you wonder where those absolute-freedom-of-speech-to-e1 people hanging on such occasions.
I always believe Freedom of Speech is important but Freedom of Speech is not absolute but relative to the society you are living in, all of us are not hermits but are part of the society as a world. I always urge everyone to be moderate rather than go to either extremes. On one hand, the other thread was talking about a petition, something between two private parties, on the other we are talking about restricting the Freedom of Speech by law. The first thread, my stance is both should talk and both get a Win Win scenario. For this thread, absolutely not. Putting a law in place to stop you from saying something is radically different from you yourself not saying things that you feel would hurt your friends or others voluntarily. My personal take on this I abhor those who denied the Holocaust, it is ridiculous to do so even as everything in history points otherwise, Germany who has all the incentives to say that it never happen admitted it openly and apologized. Whether they are denying for the sake of denying or for political gains or if they actually believe in what they are saying I am not sure.