NineBerry wrote:We know that holocaust denial is false and libellous. Don't need to have an expert hearing on that every second Wednesday. A court doesn't need to call expert witnesses to decide whether grass is green or not. The holocaust is a historic fact. Anyone who denies that only does so to promote national socialism and anti-semitism.
We know that it's false, sure. Libellous? That's something that cannot possibly be known in advance. Libel has to
cause actual harm. You can't find someone guilty of libel based on the assumption that what he said would have caused harm if he said it, even though he hasn't said it yet. If you're going to pursue this analogy to libel law, you have to accept all the implications.
If someone publishes an article in a repectable newspaper falsely claiming that you are a child molester, and people believe it, and your reputation or career suffers as a result, you can successfully sue for libel. If someone else on this forum then writes "
NineBerry is a child molester" and it's just an insult from the board troll that everyone just ignores, you wouldn't have a case, even though you had already successfully sued someone for saying the same thing. The content of the speech itself is not sufficient to prove libel.
However, by analogy to the German Holocaust denial laws, both actions would be viewed as the same, and just as illegal. Which makes no sense to me.