The right of individuals to engage in free speech is a cornerstone of our society. While some of the free speech these individuals may engage in can be distasteful or outside the accepted norm, the price society would pay for making their speech illegal is far greater then any perceived benefit to be gained from restricting their right to express their opinions. If an exception to this freedom is applied to Holocaust deniers, then it sets a precedent for the entire concept of free speech to be undermined.
Most of the denials occurred immediately after the period, as if SS officers were really in denial. Nowadays it's a drunken actor, washed-up celebrity or fame-seeking historian who just wants notoriety for their denials, and they should be made an example of for this. It's embarrassing for them to be denying such historical facts, but would the same punishment seem out of place if one were to deny the events of 9/11? The distinction should be made between revisionists and denials, but trivializing such a mass genocide is unconscionable, and there should be legal repercussions for this.
The First Amendment doesn't protect defamatory speech that is a lie, and that precisely defines Holocaust denial, it is racist hateful defamatory speech that is a complete lie. There is nothing to debate on the subject. An entire people were almost completely exterminated and Holocaust deniers rewrite history and accuse that people, particularly the survivors, of committing fraud. Holocaust denial is used to promote racist hatred and a second Holocaust. Yes, it should be criminalized.
Its racial discrimination against millions of people who lost their lives. It's not a lie, Germany admitted it. Supporting Holocaust denial can cause a domino effect leading to another hatred genocide. And of course, it's morally wrong. If the Chancellor from Germany herself admitted to the horrific misfortune, how can someone possibly deny it?
Its a crime in Germany, so why not in Hungary? Was it not enough with the Jews murdered 1941-45?
The real Nazis have NEVER denied the Holocaust, not Göring, not Speer, not Sauckel, not von Ribbentrop, not Eichmann, not one Nazi has ever denied...Nowadays idiots play and deny...
The principle of human rights states, that one is free to do what ever he wants as long as he isn't harming the ones surrounding him. But if we take "denying" as actively, and more importantly publicly promoting this conspiracy theory, we can see the potential threat, as these kind of statements may cause serious conflicts, not to say it'll also offend Jews, thus HARMING the surrounding society. And that is why, under that definition, denying Holocaust should be a crime.
Laws against Holocaust Denial risk setting precedent for laws against denying a genocide that is actually faked. It is not impossible for such a thing to happen. The state should not be criminalizing expressions of facts. Given that it is a fact that the Holocaust happened, that there is established evidence for it it should be easy to defeat such speech with more speech. Forcing the likely already crazy Holocaust deniers underground will prevent them from getting into arguments with smarter people who might just get them to reconsider their lunatic views.
There is no real evidence to support the claim that six million Jews were systematically murdered by the German National Socialists. The claims themselves are based on "eye witness testimonies" that are scientifically speaking implausible. There is only a lot of propaganda about this event in the form of pictures, documentaries and movies but they do not prove that six million Jews died or they were gassed or anything.
There is only evidence about disease related deaths in the camps and this is acknowledged by everyone; although very few people know about the diseases because the official propaganda is so focused on demonizing the Nazis with tales about "gas chambers". They don't only demonize the National Socialists, but >> everyone << who do not agree with the "official truth" written by the victor of the war.
Many people have been sent to prison, lost their jobs, attacked, demonized and even murdered by so called "righteous" people who viciously defend one scientifically implausible story about recent history. This atmosphere is what prevents dissidents from openly expressing their opinions and it silences historians and scientists about this subject.
Holocaust denial should not only be legal, it should also be socially acceptable.
In a free country anyone should be able to say what he thinks, if he is not instigating violence or criminal activity. Where does freedom of speech end? Why would you ban holocaust denial and not ban denial of any other crime? I think that is the basis of democracy, to be able to question what others say.
If expressing any one opinion, however distasteful it maybe, becomes illegal then the fundamental right of freedom of speech is endangered. Denying the Holocaust does not mean it did not happen. Illegalizing one's right to do so would be a stop towards the kind of government that made it happen.
Voltaire said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The worst hypocrites in this respect are liberals. They constantly claim to believe in this, often repeating the phrase, but they have vast vast areas of discussion which they simply regard as barred or taboo discussion, and they will silence anyone who goes into those areas. How can they claim to defend to the death your right to say something when they silence you?
The biggest area of liberal taboo is the Holocaust, and this is why I think it is an important area which we should use to make this point. Why shouldn't 2 grown adults be able to have an adult like conversation about the historical evidence they review or their interpretations of it. In this area a fully grown adult liberal acts like an extended teenager, complete with hissy fits, name calling, refusal to engage.
Another area is the area of nationalism or the far-right. The liberal relays to his friends that someone who their friend knows is associated with the XYZ, a far-right group and the liberal proclaims "How can you be friends with someone light that?" The liberal never bothered to quiz the friend on his views and reasoning, but simply does not associate with people from the XYZ party.
The liberal criticizes Christians himself (note: I did not use "herself" which the liberal always uses") in a nonchalant way but if someone criticizes Muslims, Jews or Sikhs, the liberal proceeds to lecture his guest about how he does not normally invite people like that to his house.
Let's say that some scientific research shows that there are race, gender, sexuality or disability differences. The liberal will be happy to proclaim these differences if it shows minority or disadvantaged groups in a positive light. But if such research shows a majority group in a negative light, then he regards such citation as abhorrent, racist, homophobic, and something that disgusting people from the XYZ party would quote. The liberal would like to extinguish such talk as if it were a fire that needed to be put out.
Be careful of the liberal for you will defend his right for free speech but he will "denounce" you given half a chance. There was a certain regime in Germany 80 years ago, and the liberal is seeking to recreate the notion of freedom of speech in its image.
As terrible as the Holocaust was, and as imbecilic as denying it, to make its denial a criminal offense is a slippery slope towards totalitarianism. The right to free speech (as long as it does not endanger public safety) is one of the most cherished rights of a free and civilized society. To criminalize speech because we find it reprehensible is to open a Pandora's box of Orwellian nightmares.
Questioning something isn't a crime. Bring out the issue before everyone. If it really happened, the world would see and make sure it doesn't happen again. Saying those people deserved it is hateful, but wanting to see the issue from all sides and see proof will teach the world about racism and how dangerous it is. The world would never allow it to happen again
Denial of the right of free speech is much more dangerous than holocaust denial. Human and constitutional rights are far more important than historical truisms. If anything, throw the yes side in jail first and then we discuss the issue. Even worse, imagine what your not-so-honest politicians would do with this tool to preserve their version of history. Read som Orwell to get the idea.
The Holocaust never happened, whom ever is stating this fact is simply attempting to teach the youth what has never been taught before. Also freedom of speech but that should be a given. The Holocaust is a complete lie, Since WWII the number of dead has jumped from 2 million to over 6 million this in its own is proof the Holocaust isn't real.
There is nothing wrong in denying a historical event. Look at the double standard presented here. Not a lot of people know the death toll of the slave trade or even WW2 itself, yet everyone knows about the 6 million jews. Are they anymore important than the approximate 12-15 millions blacks that are dead? If you constitute Holocaust denial a crime, it's negating everything that the free world should be about. Imagine people were barred from questioning what the earth looked like. We used to believe it was flat until scientists started DOUBTING the fact it was so. Freedom to question and research should be protected in north america of all places!