The Criminalization of Holocaust Denial

[Jean Poutine]

I hope I'm not the only one to think that this is the most stupid idea anybody ever thought up.

What makes the Holocaust so important that some countries don't even allow idiots to say it didn't happen? Why not criminalize denying the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, hell, the Acadian deportation while you're at it?

Why is freedom of speech limited in regards to only one tragedy that happened to one group? This is blatantly unfair and (dare I say it) discriminatory. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

Freedom of speech is not infinitely expansive and I'm okay with limiting it in some contexts, but if you're going to limit it for a stupid reason, at the very least, be consistent. Better yet, just let dumbasses deny it, who cares? We're way past the point where any historical revisionist attempt can be made.

Besides, this is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State. Jews aren't an ethnic group, they are a religious group. I can't convert to being a Serb, but I can to being Jewish, so why does one religion benefit from the protection of their feelings by the law and Armenians, Tutsis, etc. don't?

[Atonement]

I agree that criminalization of denying the Holocaust is overstepping boundaries. I can see an argument that denying the Holocaust is a depreciation of what happened, therefore minimizing the genocide. Thus, an argument could be made for a type of hate speech, and I would never support allowing hate speech.

I can also see an argument of inciting racial conflict, hate speech, etc. by denying it since it is so widely agreed upon that it's practically spitting in the face of the world.

Also, the argument against why not criminalize all denunciation of genocide would clearly be that the Holocaust is clearly the most fatal, most documented, and most well known.

Finally, just to be a bitch, I'm going to point out that Jews are an ethnic group and an religious group. The persecuted mainly religious Jews, but also the ethnic Jews. Therefore, the distinction in the case of the Holocaust isn't too important, but do know that they are different entities that tend to coincide, but by no means always.

[LouBerry]

Well, I think it's dumb, but I imagine that the survivors do not.

But, there is a very good reason it is important, and you and everyone else best learn it. Winston Churchill once said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it". And it's true. History is a circle. An endless loop. There are no new occurrences, it's all been done before. Only be studying the past, do we have ANY hope for the future.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, ignore the Holocaust. Ignore things like WWI, or the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. But, in time, they'll happen again. Some different country, some different time.

[Jean Poutine]

I agree that criminalization of denying the Holocaust is overstepping boundaries. I can see an argument that denying the Holocaust is a depreciation of what happened, therefore minimizing the genocide. Thus, an argument could be made for a type of hate speech, and I would never support allowing hate speech.

Why not? Don't like the message, don't listen to it. Those who do deserve what they get when they inevitably fuck up.

When people can publicly speak out, we know who the dangerous idiots are and it's much easier to stop them before anything deplorable happens.

I can also see an argument of inciting racial conflict, hate speech, etc. by denying it since it is so widely agreed upon that it's practically spitting in the face of the world.

See above.

Also, the argument against why not criminalize all denunciation of genocide would clearly be that the Holocaust is clearly the most fatal, most documented, and most well known.

That is a terrible reason. What does it being the most fatal, the most documented and the most well known remove to the horrors of the other genocides? If you're going to legislate feeling protection mechanisms, shouldn't everybody benefit from it on an equal footing?

Finally, just to be a bitch, I'm going to point out that Jews are an ethnic group and an religious group. The persecuted mainly religious Jews, but also the ethnic Jews. Therefore, the distinction in the case of the Holocaust isn't too important, but do know that they are different entities that tend to coincide, but by no means always.

The Jews themselves don't make that distinction. When you convert to Judaism, you are a Jew, final dot, period. You are also not Jewish if your mother isn't, even if your father is. If I start trying to violently kick everybody's ass, write in Cyrillic and speak perfect Serbian, I can't become Serbian, but if I star speaking Hebrew, whirling Torah verses and speaking nonsense about creationism and stuff, I can become Jewish. Judaism is a religion, and not a race, even if it is an ethnic group as defined by common culture and tradition. That common culture and tradition just completely revolves around religion.

And even if I accepted that the Jews are more than just a religion and given that Holocaust target were ethnic Jews, then the legislation is racist and discriminatory and is equally detestable.

But, there is a very good reason it is important, and you and everyone else best learn it. Winston Churchill once said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it". And it's true. History is a circle. An endless loop. There are no new occurrences, it's all been done before. Only be studying the past, do we have ANY hope for the future.

History is a science, the Holocaust is amply documented and we have no need to legislate to establish historical fact. It's redundant and all it accomplishes is restricting the rights of a class of terribly stupid citizens, but citizens nonetheless.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, ignore the Holocaust. Ignore things like WWI, or the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. But, in time, they'll happen again. Some different country, some different time.

Sure they will. Law isn't history though. Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, especially when what you have of Caesar's is really tight and restricting your rights (and balls).

[Bath]

Criminalization of it? hell no. People should be able to be stupid & say crazy shit without going to JAIL. Jail. Jail is terrible. Those people probably live terrible lives anyway, they don't need jail.

It's pick-and-choosey too, what about deniers of the moon landing or whatever. Nope no because in OUR OPINION, the holocaust is the worst thing ever so deniers should go to jail. Just like people in other countries who speak out against the government or disagree and have to go to jail. Do we want to be like them? The idea is stupid. But I'm not going to throw you into jail because it is.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Just denying it? Not really. That's like saying that someone should go to jail because they aren't a devout Roman Catholic. It's absolute nonsense.

[LouBerry]

History is a science, the Holocaust is amply documented and we have no need to legislate to establish historical fact. It's redundant and all it accomplishes is restricting the rights of a class of terribly stupid citizens, but citizens nonetheless.
.

Uhm yes, History IS a Science. Do you think that we should stop trying to find the cure for Cancer? Or making discoveries in space? Improving equipment for doctors and crime labs? Studying Science is important. History is no different. The reasons that nations fall, the reasons wars start, it's all predictable, chartable. Bad things happen when people chose to ignore history.

[Jean Poutine]

Uhm yes, History IS a Science. Do you think that we should stop trying to find the cure for Cancer? Or making discoveries in space? Improving equipment for doctors and crime labs? Studying Science is important. History is no different. The reasons that nations fall, the reasons wars start, it's all predictable, chartable. Bad things happen when people chose to ignore history.

I don't see the link between what you're saying and what I said. You draw a ton of inferences that are not there.

How am I supposed to answer?

[LouBerry]

Well, if I tell you how to respond, it's not much of a debate, huh?

[Bethany]

I don't think Holocaust denial should be criminalized. Sure, it may offend people, but "it offends me" is not a good reason to criminalize something.

[Korashk]

Well, if I tell you how to respond, it's not much of a debate, huh?
Your response to him makes almost literally no sense.

[Atonement]

Why not? Don't like the message, don't listen to it. Those who do deserve what they get when they inevitably fuck up.

When people can publicly speak out, we know who the dangerous idiots are and it's much easier to stop them before anything deplorable happens.

See above.

That is a terrible reason. What does it being the most fatal, the most documented and the most well known remove to the horrors of the other genocides? If you're going to legislate feeling protection mechanisms, shouldn't everybody benefit from it on an equal footing?

You know I was agreeing with the idea that criminalization is wrong and merely considering opposing view points?

Also to consider: Many states have used "apology" mechanisms for genocides or to some how lift up a genocide and recognize the atrocities. France tries to do with the Armenians, many do it to the Holocaust.

Thought: Some say that genocide denial tries to alter history in someone's favor. If that person is in power, altering the thinking of an entire nation about something so horrible could have ramifications including more genocide. This thinking would be along the lines of, "Only when the problem is identified can we learn from it."

I repeat. I agree criminalization is wrong. I'm just considering the other side.

[Jean Poutine]

You know I was agreeing with the idea that criminalization is wrong and merely considering opposing view points?

Also to consider: Many states have used "apology" mechanisms for genocides or to some how lift up a genocide and recognize the atrocities. France tries to do with the Armenians, many do it to the Holocaust.

Thought: Some say that genocide denial tries to alter history in someone's favor. If that person is in power, altering the thinking of an entire nation about something so horrible could have ramifications including more genocide. This thinking would be along the lines of, "Only when the problem is identified can we learn from it."

I repeat. I agree criminalization is wrong. I'm just considering the other side.

I know. I was just having fun with the counter-arguments you brought. This is how this debate stuff works, right?

I'll have more for you when I'm out of work. Over and out.

[britishboy]

I hope I'm not the only one to think that this is the most stupid idea anybody ever thought up.

What makes the Holocaust so important that some countries don't even allow idiots to say it didn't happen? Why not criminalize denying the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, hell, the Acadian deportation while you're at it?

Why is freedom of speech limited in regards to only one tragedy that happened to one group? This is blatantly unfair and (dare I say it) discriminatory. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

Freedom of speech is not infinitely expansive and I'm okay with limiting it in some contexts, but if you're going to limit it for a stupid reason, at the very least, be consistent. Better yet, just let dumbasses deny it, who cares? We're way past the point where any historical revisionist attempt can be made.

Besides, this is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State. Jews aren't an ethnic group, they are a religious group. I can't convert to being a Serb, but I can to being Jewish, so why does one religion benefit from the protection of their feelings by the law and Armenians, Tutsis, etc. don't?

well its only really illegal in countries that are victims of it such as France, Germany, Poland etc in Britain it's perfectly league and so's America etc

although I'm a massive believer in freedom of speech and believe it should be leagle to deny it, it is really stupid and ignorant to deny it.

[LunarScorpio]

They will have reasons for it, but I do agree, freedom of speech is important

[PerpetualImperfexion]

The freedom of speech should never be limited, unless it directly violates the rights of others. Offending someone is not a violation of their right. Saying that the Holocaust never happened is also not a violation of another person's rights. It's just that simple.

[Gigablue]

The freedom of speech should never be limited, unless it directly violates the rights of others. Offending someone is not a violation of their right. Saying that the Holocaust never happened is also not a violation of another person's rights. It's just that simple.

This. Denying the holocaust is stupid, but doesn't directly infringe on the rights of anyone, thus it shouldn't be criminal. There are times when free speech must be limited, but this isn't one of them.

[Krash9]

I think we come to a dangerous when we start criminalizing perception of history. For example, what if we criminalized denying the historical truth of Muhammad? Or the historical truth of the Soviet perception of WWII? or the British perception of The Troubles in Northern Ireland and criminalized any other history that disagreed with it?

[Human]

I think it's wrong that people should be sent to jail for their opinions... especially one which isn't directly racist by denying the holocaust. Even if some conspiracy theories are stupid, it doesn't mean they should be outlawed.
I think criminalizing it just makes the whole holocaust seem more suspicious to some people.

[Jess]

It's stupid to deny the Holocaust, BUT you definitely shouldn't be jailed for it. It's wrong to be jailed for your opinions

[Krash9]

idea police is always scary