http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/19/opinion/edsokol.php
"In an inversion of Germany's criminalization of Holocaust denial, Turkish prosecutors have sought to punish those who affirm the truth of the Armenian genocide. If denial of an event can be made a crime, then logic compels that affirming an event can also be punished.
Yet when governments begin to legislate what is true and what is false, they embark upon what has historically been a very slippery slope.
Even on major historical events men and women rarely agree upon a single truth. Was Napoleon a hero or a tyrant? Each generation must interpret history anew and discover its own truths, and competing versions can coexist. The Holocaust itself was not named and categorized until almost a full generation after the event.
Today only a person in a state of appalling ignorance or advanced dementia can deny the facts of the Holocaust. Yet if the facts are true, then why is legislation needed to make the denial a crime?
The American view is that government has no right to forbid speech unless it will incite imminent lawless action. If that test is applied to those who deny the Holocaust, there would appear to be no need for a law. While Holocaust deniers do attract followers, they are largely ignored by the general public and, at least to date, have not incited or produced imminent lawless action."
Is it a crime?
Originally posted by spruce112358The reason for Germany (and some of the other countries that have also banned holocaust denial) is two-fold:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/19/opinion/edsokol.php
"In an inversion of Germany's criminalization of Holocaust denial, Turkish prosecutors have sought to punish those who affirm the truth of the Armenian genocide. If denial of an event can be made a crime, then logic compels that affirming an event can also be punished.
Yet when governments ...[text shortened]... d, at least to date, have not incited or produced imminent lawless action."
Is it a crime?
1. They were part of the holocaust themselves and obviously there is a certain amount of pressure to be seen to be doing something to minimise the chances of something like that happening there again (so, one could argue they've instated the said law not for themselves but for other nations).
2. These countries have strict laws against hate-speech. So, although you can say what you want (even be damn-right offensive), you can't be hateful. The holocaust-denial law is generally placed within the hate-speech laws.
In all practicality though it is only a temporary law.
Originally posted by shavixmirSay what you mean Shav, because "you can say what you like but you can't say what you like" dosen't mean much.
The reason for Germany (and some of the other countries that have also banned holocaust denial) is two-fold:
1. They were part of the holocaust themselves and obviously there is a certain amount of pressure to be seen to be doing something to minimise the chances of something like that happening there again (so, one could argue they've instated the said ...[text shortened]... placed within the hate-speech laws.
In all practicality though it is only a temporary law.