Why is Holocaust denial illegal?

The trouble is, James, that you are way too likely to accept the chance to be sarcastic, to talk at me instead of with me, and to treat me badly, and you justify this by pointing out that I do not think or form beliefs that way that you do. I constantly have to point out that certain characters on this board make the same mistakes, use the same bad logic and worthless types of rhetoric over and over again, and they think that this constitutes some kind of reasonable rebuttal.

Just because it may be an "outrageous claim" or doesn't look like what you want to see does not mean that I am wrong or being stupid. I have trouble tolerating people who want to treat me like I am wrong or stupid and I am not the one who usually starts the fights. A lot of people think that if I say something "outrageous" it is right for them to conduct themselves as total idiots. That's a pretty big error in their thinking.
 
One crazy idea I could accept, MetaKron. But you have a whole compendium of them. Now, either you're right and the majority of the rest of the world is completely misled or nutty, or it's you who is misled and nutty.

Sorry if this offends you, but I know what I'd put my money on.
 
Bells said:
By making it illegal, you basically run the risk of allowing the hatred to breed so that it all comes full circle again and the hatred and the attacks occur again. One's shame at one's history should not lead to legislation of such a kind. Doing so only breeds even more distrust, hatred and dissent.
Click to expand...
Cart before the horse. The hatred is already present. The laws are there to stop it spreading.

Metakron: here is just one of many websites documenting the holocaust. Read it at your leisure. Do you believe that this is a conspiracy site - a single link in an impossibly complex chain? What are we to make of survivor stories? Can you suggest by what means these 1000s upon 1000s of people have been persuaded to participate in sustaining the global lie? Where is the one whistle-blower who can bring down the whole rotten house of cards?
 
James R said:
One crazy idea I could accept, MetaKron. But you have a whole compendium of them. Now, either you're right and the majority of the rest of the world is completely misled or nutty, or it's you who is misled and nutty.

Sorry if this offends you, but I know what I'd put my money on.
Click to expand...

You always assume too much.
 
redarmy11 said:
Cart before the horse. The hatred is already present. The laws are there to stop it spreading.

Metakron: here is just one of many websites documenting the holocaust. Read it at your leisure. Do you believe that this is a conspiracy site - a single link in an impossibly complex chain? What are we to make of survivor stories? Can you suggest by what means these 1000s upon 1000s of people have been persuaded to participate in sustaining the global lie? Where is the one whistle-blower who can bring down the whole rotten house of cards?
Click to expand...

I have seen too many materials documenting the Holocaust to have doubts that it happened. At the same time, I have no trouble with someone doing careful research to find out if there were actually 6 million, or 1 million, or 25 million. What I object to is treating it as a closed question. To swallow the story whole I do have to trust many sources that have lied to the American people before and that have lied to me personally. If they publish what information they have and allow a careful and critical evaluation of that information, then their case is much more believable. If they forbid a careful nd critical evaluation, then I automatically brand them liars. I don't always know what they are lying about, but yes, I am justified in calling them liars.

Now, the AIDS hypocrites are using an invalid comparison to the Holocaust to try to justify closing conversations and even outlawing AIDS dissidence. Among other things, this is an illicit grab for power that they do not deserve.
 
redarmy11 said:
Cart before the horse. The hatred is already present. The laws are there to stop it spreading.
Click to expand...

Will the laws stop the hatred from spreading though?

Or will it just drive it underground to fester quietly and dangerously?

Metakron said:
Now, the AIDS hypocrites are using an invalid comparison to the Holocaust to try to justify closing conversations and even outlawing AIDS dissidence. Among other things, this is an illicit grab for power that they do not deserve.
Click to expand...
That is another topic altogether. Just because you are being ignored in the AIDS topic, does not mean you can spread it to other threads. You are the only one applying a comparison in an attempt to get people to pay attention to you in that thread and on that topic.
 
Bells said:
Will the laws stop the hatred from spreading though?

Or will it just drive it underground to fester quietly and dangerously?
Click to expand...

The laws cannot stop crime or hate only keep it in check.

People will hate/commit crime regardless, why make it open season?

Much as I prefer free speech, I can see why they have these laws especially in those places.
 
samcdkey said:
The laws cannot stop crime or hate only keep it in check.

People will hate/commit crime regardless, why make it open season?
Click to expand...

I think for me, personally, I'd rather know what they were hating and why. I would rather it be out in the open then hidden. In short, I'd rather they be in a position where they can be monitored and watched.

No laws can keep hatred in check. All laws banning beliefs like those who believe the holocaust was a hoax, will only drive them underground, where they cannot be monitored or watched. I would rather see what they were doing, then have laws that attempt to push them underground and have no idea what they were doing. Public dialogue is better on issues such as this.
 
Bells said:
I think for me, personally, I'd rather know what they were hating and why. I would rather it be out in the open then hidden. In short, I'd rather they be in a position where they can be monitored and watched.

No laws can keep hatred in check. All laws banning beliefs like those who believe the holocaust was a hoax, will only drive them underground, where they cannot be monitored or watched. I would rather see what they were doing, then have laws that attempt to push them underground and have no idea what they were doing. Public dialogue is better on issues such as this.
Click to expand...

In some cases yes, but sometimes, the consequences can be unfortunate and people can misuse the platform for propaganda and exploitation. This was what originally happened in Germany. All that free speech did was to polarise people against the Jews for no comprehensible reason.

People hear something often enough, they tend to accept it as true.

I guess one might want to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages and decide which one is more acceptable.
 
samcdkey said:
In some cases yes, but sometimes, the consequences can be unfortunate and people can misuse the platform for propaganda and exploitation. This was what originally happened in Germany. All that free speech did was to polarise people against the Jews for no comprehensible reason.

People hear something often enough, they tend to accept it as true.

I guess one might want to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages and decide which one is more acceptable.
Click to expand...
You can also have the opposite effect by making the denial of the holocaust illegal. People when hearing that to question any facts or to deny any of it is illegal can start to ask why it is illegal. The whole paranoid notion of 'what are they hiding' can and will enter people's minds (eg people like Meta). It then begins to literally fester as an underground movement. People who are anti government will start looking at laws like this and go along with the denialists because they have become an underground movement. Hatred breeds hatred and when haterd is mixed in with distrust, it can become dangerous.

When it is out in the open, it allows open dialogue. Those who wish to question should be free to do so. That way, they are able to gain access to the correct information, rather than have to question privately and fall prey to violent denialists who wish to cause harm and violence.

I am one of those people who dislikes underground movements because they are by their very nature, dangerous. It's better to be open and honest than to attempt to hide. By not making it illegal, those who climb up on that platform and attempt to use it as propaganda against others can be shouted down by those who know the truth. By silencing the denialists, you are also silencing those who are avidly against them and who are the voices of reason.
 
Bells said:
You can also have the opposite effect by making the denial of the holocaust illegal. People when hearing that to question any facts or to deny any of it is illegal can start to ask why it is illegal. The whole paranoid notion of 'what are they hiding' can and will enter people's minds (eg people like Meta). It then begins to literally fester as an underground movement. People who are anti government will start looking at laws like this and go along with the denialists because they have become an underground movement. Hatred breeds hatred and when haterd is mixed in with distrust, it can become dangerous.

When it is out in the open, it allows open dialogue. Those who wish to question should be free to do so. That way, they are able to gain access to the correct information, rather than have to question privately and fall prey to violent denialists who wish to cause harm and violence.

I am one of those people who dislikes underground movements because they are by their very nature, dangerous. It's better to be open and honest than to attempt to hide. By not making it illegal, those who climb up on that platform and attempt to use it as propaganda against others can be shouted down by those who know the truth. By silencing the denialists, you are also silencing those who are avidly against them and who are the voices of reason.
Click to expand...

I guess I agree with you in principle, but in reality, too often I've seen hate groups gain momentum with freedom.
 
That's why we introduced the concept of 'preponderance of the available evidence'.
 
Last edited:
Bells said:
You can also have the opposite effect by making the denial of the holocaust illegal. People when hearing that to question any facts or to deny any of it is illegal can start to ask why it is illegal. The whole paranoid notion of 'what are they hiding' can and will enter people's minds (eg people like Meta). It then begins to literally fester as an underground movement. People who are anti government will start looking at laws like this and go along with the denialists because they have become an underground movement. Hatred breeds hatred and when haterd is mixed in with distrust, it can become dangerous.
Click to expand...

No one without something to hide will silence dissent or questioners.
 
Last edited:
MetaKron said:
No one without something to hide to hide will silence dissent or questioners.
Click to expand...
Or the contrapositive, as is said in defence of wiretapping laws: if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear! :D

I feel sorry for Germans if they actually think they can't do without these speech restriction laws ... it seems a sign of a rather damaged society. I hope the country grows out of it in time.

One thing that seems funny - how can people 'deny' something they've never been accused of doing? It seems none of the famous revisionists are even Germans. Denying someone else's actions is usually done for the sake of whitewashing, rather than actual knowledge that the actions in question didn't happen. ("My client has never seen that woman before! Right, Bob?")
 
Actually the country grew into holocaust denial laws. Because it is important to them to deal with the past.

It's a sign of maturity.
 
The truth need not be defended through silence.

And it is in the cries of the censor that slavery is first imposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top