Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

Discussion and analysis of past events and their causes and effects.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#181  Postby horacerumpole » Feb 23, 2012 5:21 pm

Varangian wrote:


Discussions on the Holocaust can be interesting, but Holocaust denial (or attempts at greatly reducing the numbers murdered) is another thing. For example, Axis History Forum has very strict rules on posting in the "Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes" section, where any claim must be supported. Holocaust deniers try to be clever, and may appear rational, when their goal is to muddy the waters. Besides, Holocaust deniers are fucking pricks by default, and not fit for forums to the left of Stormfront. Anyone wishing to take up Holocaust denial can always read "How To Be A Revisionist Scholar" and try to apply the method...


Errr... really?

Holocaust denial is against the rules here? Weird. What about discussion and analysis of specific historical events that form part of the holocaust? What about people who think one historian writing about the holocaust is correct, but another not?

Holocaust denial prohibitions are not only nonsensical, they are abominations to freethought, skepticism and the independence of the human mind. When enacted by a State, such prohibitions are thought policing, and a fundamental violation of the sanctity of the human mind.

Individuals have the right to hear such denials, and the right to hear such denials is fundamental to free inquiry.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#182  Postby NineBerry » Feb 23, 2012 8:08 pm

horacerumpole wrote:Holocaust denial prohibitions are not only nonsensical, they are abominations to freethought, skepticism and the independence of the human mind. When enacted by a State, such prohibitions are thought policing, and a fundamental violation of the sanctity of the human mind.

Individuals have the right to hear such denials, and the right to hear such denials is fundamental to free inquiry.


Right. And laws banning defecating on a public sidewalk are abominations to freedom as well. They are bowl policing and a fundamental violation of the sanctity of the human anus.

Individuals have the right to smell such piles of shit, and the right to smell such piles of shit is fundamental to free culinary.
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 45
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#183  Postby horacerumpole » Feb 23, 2012 8:13 pm

The State controlling thoughts and speech is a completely different matter than the State prohibiting defecating on a public sidewalk. Can you puzzle out what that difference is?

If not, then we really have crossed a line in western culture. If your inability to fathom the difference becomes prevailing, then we will be in serious trouble.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#184  Postby NineBerry » Feb 23, 2012 8:17 pm

People don't die from stepping in shit. People die from being murdered by racists.

Public propagation of racism has consequences.
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 45
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#185  Postby horacerumpole » Feb 23, 2012 8:30 pm

NineBerry wrote:People don't die from stepping in shit. People die from being murdered by racists.

Public propagation of racism has consequences.


Which is why murder should be unlawful, and is.

People don't die from hearing offensive opinions, and they don't die from other people holding or expressing opinions.

And, we're not talking about racism here. We're talking about "holocaust denial." If a person says that they've studied the holocaust, and they deny that X number of people died, or that people were made into soap or lampshades, or that some such chemical or another was used to gas people, that isn't racism, nor is it murder. Nor is it the incitement of murder.

We're talking about criminalizing unpopular opinions. People once did the same thing with communists -- folks were investigated and prosecuting for holding subversive opinions because of the violence that was said to flow from it, and the "threat to our system of government." It was wrong then, and the same stuff is wrong now in whatever context.
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#186  Postby horacerumpole » Feb 23, 2012 8:38 pm

The Phil Donahue Show from 1994:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRrP7AevKi4[/youtube]

Michael Shermer makes an appearance here: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZu7lu7So[/youtube]

Shermer has no problem talking about this and dealing with holocaust denial. Donahue did a show about it on afternoon television. Everyone survived just fine.

What is going on in the world that this kind of thing can't be explored (in some places)?
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#187  Postby NineBerry » Feb 23, 2012 8:51 pm

horacerumpole wrote:
Shermer has no problem talking about this and dealing with holocaust denial. Donahue did a show about it on afternoon television. Everyone survived just fine.

What is going on in the world that this kind of thing can't be explored (in some places)?


horacerumpole wrote:
And, we're not talking about racism here. We're talking about "holocaust denial." If a person says that they've studied the holocaust, and they deny that X number of people died, or that people were made into soap or lampshades, or that some such chemical or another was used to gas people, that isn't racism, nor is it murder. Nor is it the incitement of murder.


Again, you are arguing against a law that is not there. You are allowed holocaust denial, you just mustn't promote it. You are allowed to question and discuss details of the holocaust, you just are not allowed to propagate the idea it didn't happen or that it was a good thing or that it was not a bad thing.

But you also have to understand that promoting holocaust denial is always racism. You cannot argue that there was no holocaust without arguing a "jewish world conspiracy" that makes everyone think there was a holocaust. And the idea of a Jewish world conspiracy clearly is racism. Also: In nazi circles, everyone very well believes that there was a holocaust, they argue against it as a kind of veiled message because they were not allowed to say that they think it was a good idea and to deride the victims.
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 45
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#188  Postby horacerumpole » Feb 23, 2012 9:15 pm

You are allowed to deny it, but not promote it? What is "promote it?" Go on TV and state your opinion? Write a book? What's the distinction?

I don't think you're right about that in your first paragraph - or at least it depends on where you are - historians have been prosecuted in Europe.

Promoting holocaust denial is not always racism. Racism is racism. And, I would argue that even racists opinions need to be free of government or State intrusion.

And, so what if someone argues that there is a "Jewish world conspiracy?" Let them make their case. it's easily debunkable. Criminalizing such nonsense empowers it.

Some of these laws would criminalize comedians making jokes and allow for several years in jail - for words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_again ... ust_denial
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#189  Postby Moridin » Jun 23, 2012 10:04 am

The problem is that that free speech absolutists do not understand is that you have to weigh the democratic benefit of free speech against the democratic cost of giving racism and denialism a platform (and not protecting weaker members of society) and that this trade-off has to be based on a consequentialist analysis of the facts.
User avatar
Moridin
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#190  Postby epepke » Jul 04, 2012 6:15 am

Moridin wrote:The problem is that that free speech absolutists do not understand is that you have to weigh the democratic benefit of free speech against the democratic cost of giving racism and denialism a platform (and not protecting weaker members of society) and that this trade-off has to be based on a consequentialist analysis of the facts.


No, that isn't true. Many of us who are pretty big on free speech do it because we think that denying speech gives it power, and we don't want to have that happen. I think you are the one with the lack of understanding.

Furthermore, I've never met anyone of your beliefs who has been able to discuss why it is that you think that it needs to be "balanced" because the results of limiting free speech more than we would like to have it limited are so great. They usually just get pissed off and say "Jews have rights too!" or something equally unhelpful.

So, they (you) wind up falsely concluding that we just don't understand the concept of consequences. It makes you feel good and superior and all smart.

I cannot complain, because I have a similar attitude toward those, who it seems to me, imagine that if you just prevent people from talking about something, it goes away. I have plenty of examples where it doesn't. For example, sex. Most mental disorders. Not talking about something drives it underground and in many instances makes it more appealing to the curious. "They're trying to silence our truth!" says every nutcase and conspiracy theorist with an axe to grind. This seems pretty obvious to me.

Now, can you give examples where it does? I have seen claims that laws against Holocaust denial make the fascist problem go away, but I have yet to see any evidence that it has. Mostly people just get abusive when challenged, which suggests to me that the hypothesis that denial of free speech merely serves to enforce a tabu about subjects people are uncomfortable talking about.

The French, for example, are uncomfortable about how easily they gave up some Jews in their little "Jews for Oils" program way back when. Doubtless banning the sale of Nazi memorabilia (note the word; it is something that makes you remember protects their delicate sensibilities, as does an exaggeration of the importance and extent of the resistance, not to mention existentialism.
User avatar
epepke
 
Posts: 4080

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#191  Postby Moridin » Jul 07, 2012 7:37 pm

You did not actually address the argument. Shame.
User avatar
Moridin
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#192  Postby Shrunk » Jul 15, 2012 7:30 pm

Moridin wrote:The problem is that that free speech absolutists do not understand is that you have to weigh the democratic benefit of free speech against the democratic cost of giving racism and denialism a platform (and not protecting weaker members of society) and that this trade-off has to be based on a consequentialist analysis of the facts.


So you seem to be suggesting that the principle of freedom of expression should be abandoned, since one of its consequences is that Holocaust deniers have the legal right to express their beliefs. Instead, the state should have the power to determine which thoughts may or may not be legally expressed, based on its analysis of the benefits and costs of allowing those thoughts to be expressed. Yes?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 59
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#193  Postby surreptitious57 » Jul 15, 2012 9:36 pm

Moridin wrote:
The problem is that that free speech absolutists do not understand is that you have to weigh the democratic benefit of free speech against the democratic cost of giving racism and denialism a platform (and not protecting weaker members of society) and that this trade-off has to be based on a consequentialist analysis of the facts.


Absolutely untrue. There is no need for such a trade-off. There does not need to be. There is however, or should be, a clearly defined parameter beyond which one does not go, and that parameter is where thought translates into action. As long as one is merely stating an opinion and nothing else, that is acceptable. But it ceases to be so, the second that it translates to a physical act such as harassment or intimidation.

I will gladly give anyone a platform, no matter who they are, or what they have to say. I will give one to racists, misogynists and homophobes. I will give one to paedophiles and terrorists. I make zero distinction regarding the morality of the message of such individuals, for the principle is more important. But equally I also defend the rights of those they may be referencing to be free of harassment and intimidation. I also extend the same to them themselves. I am one who believes in absolute free speech but I also believe in absolute protection when it comes to referencing all those who exercise that right and need to be protected from those who disagree with that right, to state their opinion. On this I bow to no one. Free speech for all or no one at all.

I understand that there are those who use the banner of free speech for ulterior purposes. Of course there are. But those individuals still have the same freedom to articulate their thoughts, just as you or I. Practical measures can be adopted where ulterior motive is suspected, such as physical containment or temporary postponement, but their rights to exercise free speech should still be respected. Remember, free speech does not care what the validity of the message is. Subjective, emotional interpretation is irrelevant here. What is important is that everyone has the same right and that that right is exercised without favour.

In a democratic society, the very least its citizens should be allowed to do, is be free to express themselves without fear of harassment or intimidation. It matters not that the individual concerned or subject matter is deemed offensive. That is irrelevant. It is the principle that matters.
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10203

Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#194  Postby Minimolas » Nov 24, 2012 5:12 am

It is absolute bullshit that it is a crime to deny the holocaust. I will say it again, it is absolute bullshit. It is scary to see any government given the power to punish someone for simply thinking a certain way, even scarier to see so many people support it.

People can deny that the holocaust ever happened, people can deny that chairs exist, people can deny that cereal goes great with milk. People have the right to think and say what they want, people have the right to believe and deny what they want. Does freedom ring a bell?

Do the masses really think they have a right not to be offended and that those who offend them deserve to be punished by the state? It's just silly.
Atheist. Anarcho-capitalist.
User avatar
Minimolas
 
Name: Nicholas
Posts: 81
Male

Country: America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#195  Postby horacerumpole » Dec 27, 2012 6:40 pm

Moridin wrote:The problem is that that free speech absolutists do not understand is that you have to weigh the democratic benefit of free speech against the democratic cost of giving racism and denialism a platform (and not protecting weaker members of society) and that this trade-off has to be based on a consequentialist analysis of the facts.


You don't have to do that.

The "democratic benefit" is not the only interest important to the stakeholders of a society. A society must balance the democratic benefits with the individual benefits, and it can be argued that maximizing individual autonomy where possible and practical is itself a great benefit to society as a whole.

Also, "not prohibiting" racist or denialist speech is not the same thing as "giving it a platform." Other individuals in society that oppose that speech can speak out against it, protest it, boycott it, and take other such peaceful action to shut up the offending persons.

In the case of racist or denialist speech, we are not talking about "protecting" people. Obviously, injuring other people is wrong, so, for example, hitting people can be prohibited, as can blocking their way, and harassing them, libeling them personally, etc. But, merely voicing an opinion is not an injury to another person, even that opinion is "there was no holocaust and it was all made up by da joos to scam the world..." -- that may be an opinion that bothers some people, but there is almost no opinion that doesn't bother some people.

The the benefit to society for people to have individual autonomy in this regard is obvious. Opinions get as full and free an airing as possible. The truth is not up to a popular vote. Ideas are to be debated, not approved by majority vote or by representatives. The best way to vet ideas is to shine light on them, examine them, expose them, put them in a crucible of criticism. That is best for society, even if those ideas are "the age of consent should be reduced to 6 years old," "there never was a holocaust and the Jews killed Christ," or "White people are the devil, evil, and need to be wiped off the map."
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#196  Postby NineBerry » Dec 27, 2012 11:51 pm

So, you are okay with libel laws? Don't you think voicing the idea that the holocaust didn't happen constitutes libel against those people that suffered in the holocaust and are reporting about that?
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 45
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#197  Postby horacerumpole » Dec 28, 2012 2:07 pm

NineBerry wrote:So, you are okay with libel laws? Don't you think voicing the idea that the holocaust didn't happen constitutes libel against those people that suffered in the holocaust and are reporting about that?


Sure, in a limited sense where the law gives a cause of action for money damages for libel, and where the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, and, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party, and the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication, and the plaintiff must prove special damages (meaning out of pocket losses, and not just speculative "insult").

In the case of saying the holocaust didn't happen -- it's not libel because (a) it's not "false" it's only arguably false or probably false -- it's a historical claim, and just as one might say "The Siege of Alesia never happened" or the Moon Landings Were Hoaxes -- one can say the holocaust never happened, (b) And, just because someone asserts there was no holocaust doesn't mean that one is saying that specific person did not suffer in the war, that there were no prison camps, that there was no persecution of Jews, etc. -- saying "there was no holocaust" is a very general statement that says nothing about a specific individual.

Some events, moreover, HAVE been proven false -- for example, it was once widely reputed that the Germans made lampshades out of human skin and used them in their homes. This is now generally regarded as a fiction, and something that did not actually happen. If someone now advances that that the Germans did that, is it a "libel" against Germans who lived then? Can we say they made lampshades? Can we say they did not make lampshades? Can we promote the idea that they made lampshades? Can we promote the idea that they did not make lampshades?

See what I mean?
"There is not a court in Heaven or Earth...where Horace Rumpole is not ready and willing to appear. On the Day of Judgment I shall probably be up on my hind legs putting a few impertinent questions to the prosecutor."
User avatar
horacerumpole
 
Name: Horace Rumpole
Posts: 1933
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#198  Postby Shrunk » Dec 28, 2012 4:04 pm

NineBerry wrote:So, you are okay with libel laws? Don't you think voicing the idea that the holocaust didn't happen constitutes libel against those people that suffered in the holocaust and are reporting about that?


No more than claiming Jesus did not exist is libel against those who disagree.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 59
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#199  Postby NineBerry » Dec 28, 2012 4:04 pm

Yes, it is false. German's highest court has confirmed that the holocaust is a historical fact. Denying it does legally not count as an opinion. It is a factually wrong assertion.

Libel is not only a matter for civil courts in Germany. Libel is actually a crime and no special damage other than that to reputation must be shown.

The point here is: Different countries have different legal cultures and traditions. In Germany, we do criminalize hateful speech. So, the law against denying nazi crimes is not a special law. It fits very well into the context of german legal culture.

Oh: And there were individual cases of lamp shades made from human skin. It just didn't happen often, but it did happen.
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 45
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Re: Does Holocaust Denial Prohibition Make Sense?

#200  Postby NineBerry » Dec 28, 2012 4:06 pm

Shrunk wrote:
NineBerry wrote:So, you are okay with libel laws? Don't you think voicing the idea that the holocaust didn't happen constitutes libel against those people that suffered in the holocaust and are reporting about that?


No more than claiming Jesus did not exist is libel against those who disagree.


Those are different cases. The idea that someone is lying about being tortured or having lost relatives or friends by genocide is personally attacking the reputation of that person.
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 45
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to History

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests