Should Holocaust denial be a criminal offense?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I say no, given that I believe in free speech, but I can understand the motivations behind such laws.

[H. Ross Peron]

No.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (authoritarian free-speech hater)

[bedstuy]

No.  You should be allowed to express any idea.  In a sense, it's good to have a debate where even the most ridiculous, stupid ideas can be expressed.  When someone outs themselves as a holocaust denier or a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or a bigfoot believer, you know they're a cuckoo brains.  That's important information to have. 

However, if you write that a holocaust survivor is lying that they were in a concentration camp, that could be libel. 

[Lief 🗽]

Yes (authoritarian free-speech hater)

[Franzl]

No, it should be treated with ridicule and contempt, but not as a criminal matter.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Not in the United States, where freedom of speech is mostly absolute. Yes in any country with any sort of hate speech laws.

Under any standard where offensive speech can be restricted or criminalized, it should clearly fall under that.

[TNF]

No, because any excuse you give the bourgeois state to limit speech is going to inevitably come back to haunt you.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No, because any excuse you give the bourgeois state to limit speech is going to inevitably come back to haunt you.

[Oakvale]

Of course not. Telling the truth about the greatest hoax until the "moon" landings shouldn't be a criminal offense, much as the cultural femi-marxists and their allies in the media (guess who?) might like to make you believe otherwise. Wake up.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No, it should be treated with ridicule and contempt, but not as a criminal matter.

^ And the thing is, it very much is treated this way among 99% of people, which makes the argument that it should be against the law moot. The only reason some form of speech should be against the law is if it's causing real demonstrable harm and is so widespread that it can't be contained through informal means.

You don't ban everything you dislike even if it is absurd and contemptible. Not just because of some idealistic liberal principles, but because you usually don't even need to. Not having holocaust denial against the law in this country hasn't led to widespread belief that it's not real in the same way that not banning KKK rallies didn't stop them from disintegrating and becoming completely irrelevant and powerless. In fact, it would be more likely in the case of holocaust denial that it would have the opposite effect.

[traininthedistance]

No, it should be treated with ridicule and contempt, but not as a criminal matter.

^ And the thing is, it very much is treated this way among 99% of people, which makes the argument that it should be against the law moot. The only reason some form of speech should be against the law is if it's causing real demonstrable harm and is so widespread that it can't be contained through informal means.

You don't ban everything you dislike even if it is absurd and contemptible. Not just because of some idealistic liberal principles, but because you usually don't even need to. Not having holocaust denial against the law in this country hasn't led to widespread belief that it's not real in the same way that not banning KKK rallies didn't stop them from disintegrating and becoming completely irrelevant and powerless. In fact, it would be more likely in the case of holocaust denial that it would have the opposite effect.

Well, having laws against Holocaust denial here, in the USA would be unnecessary and counter-productive.

But they were necessary for the de-Nazification process Germany went through after WWII.  Take a look at Japan for a counterexample, where they didn't have that same sort of national reckoning, and where their attitude towards their history is... shall we say, less healthy and less honest.

It really depends on the context.  In general, it's best to keep free speech protections as wide as possible, but there are cases where exceptions are necessary.

[ingemann]

This is really one of those issue with a naive black-white dichotomy not only not make a lot of sense, but also show that the keeper of such opinions is a little simple.

Was it a good idea, that Germany, France and other countries made such a ban after WW2; yes. Would it make a lot of sense to make the same law in Denmark, Sweden or Finland after WW2; not really. Do Germany or France need to keep it today; not really. Do it harm anybody that they keep this law; yes some pretty horrible people. Do I care that these people are harmed by this law; not really. Is abolishing the law worth the whining and international condemnation from Jewish organisation and Israel; again not really.

Conclusion: Keep the law if it already exist, but don't create such a law if it doesn't exist.

[Marokai Backbeat]

But they were necessary for the de-Nazification process Germany went through after WWII.  Take a look at Japan for a counterexample, where they didn't have that same sort of national reckoning, and where their attitude towards their history is... shall we say, less healthy and less honest.

It really depends on the context.  In general, it's best to keep free speech protections as wide as possible, but there are cases where exceptions are necessary.

Sure, I have no issue with the exception based on that context, though I would question how much a relic of de-Nazification process has relevance in 2015 even if it was the right move back then.

[TNF]

At this point laws like those in Germany only make the far-right's persecution narrative believable and give them more of an audience than they'd have otherwise, which the bourgeoisie don't really mind because the fascists always end up being the people they pay off to put down any challenges to the system if worse comes to worse for them. (see, Germany 1933-45, Italy 1921-43, etc)

[ingemann]

At this point laws like those in Germany only make the far-right's persecution narrative believable and give them more of an audience than they'd have otherwise, which the bourgeoisie don't really mind because the fascists always end up being the people they pay off to put down any challenges to the system if worse comes to worse for them. (see, Germany 1933-45, Italy 1921-43, etc)

I would more buy that, if anti-semitism was the major cause of the German extreme right. If we look at the violence commited by the German extreme right, the victim has rarely been Jewish, in fact if we look at violence against Jews in these countries, it's rarely the extreme right which are behind it. So I doubt they really care much about the whole ban against Holocaust Denial.

[Goldwater]

No (Supports free speech)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No (Supports free speech)

[ElectionsGuy]

No (Supports free speech)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I really don't give a damn about Holocaust deniers' "free speech rights". They're despicable individuals and I won't lose a minute of sleep over their asses rooting in jail.

My problem with this being a criminal offense is that prosecuting these assholes only gives their sick views an undue exposure.

[TJ in Oregon]

I really don't give a damn about Holocaust deniers' "free speech rights". They're despicable individuals and I won't lose a minute of sleep over their asses rooting in jail.

My problem with this being a criminal offense is that prosecuting these assholes only gives their sick views an undue exposure.

The entire purpose of free speech is to protect people who you disagree with...

^^^
Exactly. Otherwise, how bad does a belief have to be for us to outlaw it? I have a serious problem with the idea of the government deciding what people are and aren't allowed to think.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I really don't give a damn about Holocaust deniers' "free speech rights". They're despicable individuals and I won't lose a minute of sleep over their asses rooting in jail.

My problem with this being a criminal offense is that prosecuting these assholes only gives their sick views an undue exposure.

Can I jail you for disagreeing with free speech, then? All it would take is a congressional vote and the signing of a pen.

[Cory]

The entire purpose of free speech is to protect people who you disagree with...

It seems like literally none of our leftist European posters understand this concept.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The entire purpose of free speech is to protect people who you disagree with...

It seems like literally none of our leftist European posters understand this concept.

One of the things that has sadly left me feeling a bit estranged from the Left over the last year is realizing exactly how many people of that political persuasion are just as comfortable throwing away the rights of people they just don't like as much as the Right can be.

A free, liberal democracy only works when you protect the rights of the contemptible as well as the noble. If you open the door to censoring things based on your tastes you legitimize that tactic against yourself down the road. And there is no real defense when you deem arbitrary bulls**t subjective tastes fair game as a justification.

[Cory]

One of the things that has sadly left me feeling a bit estranged from the Left over the last year is realizing exactly how many people of that political persuasion are just as comfortable throwing away the rights of people they just don't like as much as the Right can be.

A free, liberal democracy only works when you protect the rights of the contemptible as well as the noble. If you open the door to censoring things based on your tastes you legitimize that tactic against yourself down the road. And there is no real defense when you deem arbitrary bulls**t subjective tastes fair game as a justification.

What's terrible is that this type of "leftism" is spreading in popularity in College campuses in America. These people are an illiberal authoritarian cult with a Leninist mentality and it's insane. Think about College "SJW's". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if these people had any real power the "re-education" camps would be setting up from day one of them taking power. They would establish a police state monitoring people's every phrase and, if they could, thought. Freedom of speech and expression would be things of the past. And they would seriously believe they were making the world a better place the whole time. It's the True Believers you really have to watch out for.