4 ms·

I know that Nazi imagery has been banned in Germany, but I've not heard of professional historians being legally bound to avoid research into the topic of conce

by vacri 11y ago

I know that Nazi imagery has been banned in Germany, but I've not heard of professional historians being legally bound to avoid research into the topic of concentration camps, on threat of imprisonment no less. Do you have a source for this? Edit: Have hit comment limit, so replying to AC__ here I've been through all the sections in your link, and a total of 3 people have seen prison time. The only one that could be called a professional historian would be James Keegstra, who wasn't convicted on holocaust denial per se, but due to violating hate-speech laws by teaching his high school history class: "During class, he would describe Jews as a people of profound evil who had "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy.". Keegstra was convicted in Canada. Ernst Zündel was convicted in Canada and Germany under hate speech laws. Having had a look at his website, it's about politicking his views, not history. But he's been in and out of court for decades on hate speech violations. David Irving could theoretically be called a professional historian, if it wasn't proven that he used known fabricated documents as source - during the libel case he brought against someone else. Irving was convicted in Austria. None of the above are professional or dispassionate historians taking the topic seriously. All of them are politicking.

littletimmy 11y ago
It is more that such a historian would be immediately shunned and made into a "hack". That puts a limit on how far you can go, regardless of whether or not there's a "legal bound".
AC__ 11y ago
There have been a number of individuals charged around the world, as well as various academics blacklisted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#History_and_development_of_Holocaust_denial_after_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#History_and_d...
- avn2109 11y ago
  I dislike that this is getting downvoted. While the claim is certainly debatable, the comment itself is civil, grammatical, links to a non-crank source which is indisputably relevant to the claim, and appears to be made in good faith.
Asbostos 11y ago
You can't publish holocaust denial material. That means if you find a new discovery that seems to challenge the legally sanctioned story, you can be breaking the law by publishing it. I don't think that politicians should decide what research is "right" and what is "wrong". This is completely against the American concept of free speech. Austrian law seems quite clear on holocaust denial being a crime: § 3g. He who operates in a manner characterized other than that in § § 3a – 3f will be punished (revitalising of the NSDAP or identification with), with imprisonment from one to up to ten years, and in cases of particularly dangerous suspects or activity, be punished with up to twenty years' imprisonment. § 3h. As an amendment to § 3 g., whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Austria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#...] Imagine if he US criminalized downplaying the crimes of the Vietnamese Communists or any other group the government decided was "bad". This should be a matter for public discourse, not an imposed official history.
- vacri 11y ago
  The Austrian law you're quoting isn't a law sitting all by itself. It's part of a law saying "No Nazis, and no bullshitting about what they did"[1]. If you look at your own quote, you'll see it says "grossly plays down". The scale of the Holocaust was large - there was a heap of physical evidence, and tens of thousands of eyewitnesses. And it's not a topic that has had little research - to characterise the story of the holocaust as springing forth from the mouths of politicians is grossly misleading. Denying the holocaust altogether is not research - it's an attempt to stifle research for political gains. It moves the needle from 'what actually happened' to 'did it happen at all', wasting resources - the same needle-moving tactics are seen in intelligent-design and anti-climate-change arguments, stopping productive conversation on a topic to further a political goal. Finally, note that these laws limiting freedom of speech around holocaust denial are particular to that topic and nazism. The 'slippery slope' argument hasn't taken hold; it's not these laws that are limiting freedom of speech (hell, even with "the American concept of free speech" you still have Free Speech Zones, National Security Letters, and copyright that lasts for author's life + 70 years). The laws don't stop you from doing research into the shitty things the Allies did. They don't stop you researching Nazism in general or the Holocaust in particular. They only stop you playing politics from pretending that something does't exist when it has tens of thousands of eye-witnesses, troves of physical evidence, and heavy existing research on the topic. Europe has a problem with violent nationalism; cutting off this particular avenue helps alleviate that, and doesn't do harm in return. These laws make Nazism (and it's trappings) less able to be used politically, something Europe is serious about - see Merkel's recent chiding of Netanyahu for him claiming that it was Palestinians who started the holocaust. How often do you see a head of government declare "Those atrocities, they're on us, not anyone else"? [1]https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nachkriegsjustiz.at%2Fservice%2Fgesetze%2Fgs_vg_3_1947.php&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev... (does not have section 3h, added in '92)

by vacri 11y ago

littletimmy 11y ago

It is more that such a historian would be immediately shunned and made into a "hack". That puts a limit on how far you can go, regardless of whether or not there's a "legal bound".

AC__ 11y ago

There have been a number of individuals charged around the world, as well as various academics blacklisted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#History_and_development_of_Holocaust_denial_after_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#History_and_d...

avn2109 11y ago
I dislike that this is getting downvoted. While the claim is certainly debatable, the comment itself is civil, grammatical, links to a non-crank source which is indisputably relevant to the claim, and appears to be made in good faith.

Asbostos 11y ago

You can't publish holocaust denial material. That means if you find a new discovery that seems to challenge the legally sanctioned story, you can be breaking the law by publishing it. I don't think that politicians should decide what research is "right" and what is "wrong". This is completely against the American concept of free speech. Austrian law seems quite clear on holocaust denial being a crime: § 3g. He who operates in a manner characterized other than that in § § 3a – 3f will be punished (revitalising of the NSDAP or identification with), with imprisonment from one to up to ten years, and in cases of particularly dangerous suspects or activity, be punished with up to twenty years' imprisonment. § 3h. As an amendment to § 3 g., whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Austria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#...] Imagine if he US criminalized downplaying the crimes of the Vietnamese Communists or any other group the government decided was "bad". This should be a matter for public discourse, not an imposed official history.

vacri 11y ago
The Austrian law you're quoting isn't a law sitting all by itself. It's part of a law saying "No Nazis, and no bullshitting about what they did"[1]. If you look at your own quote, you'll see it says "grossly plays down". The scale of the Holocaust was large - there was a heap of physical evidence, and tens of thousands of eyewitnesses. And it's not a topic that has had little research - to characterise the story of the holocaust as springing forth from the mouths of politicians is grossly misleading. Denying the holocaust altogether is not research - it's an attempt to stifle research for political gains. It moves the needle from 'what actually happened' to 'did it happen at all', wasting resources - the same needle-moving tactics are seen in intelligent-design and anti-climate-change arguments, stopping productive conversation on a topic to further a political goal. Finally, note that these laws limiting freedom of speech around holocaust denial are particular to that topic and nazism. The 'slippery slope' argument hasn't taken hold; it's not these laws that are limiting freedom of speech (hell, even with "the American concept of free speech" you still have Free Speech Zones, National Security Letters, and copyright that lasts for author's life + 70 years). The laws don't stop you from doing research into the shitty things the Allies did. They don't stop you researching Nazism in general or the Holocaust in particular. They only stop you playing politics from pretending that something does't exist when it has tens of thousands of eye-witnesses, troves of physical evidence, and heavy existing research on the topic. Europe has a problem with violent nationalism; cutting off this particular avenue helps alleviate that, and doesn't do harm in return. These laws make Nazism (and it's trappings) less able to be used politically, something Europe is serious about - see Merkel's recent chiding of Netanyahu for him claiming that it was Palestinians who started the holocaust. How often do you see a head of government declare "Those atrocities, they're on us, not anyone else"? [1]https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nachkriegsjustiz.at%2Fservice%2Fgesetze%2Fgs_vg_3_1947.php&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev... (does not have section 3h, added in '92)