4 ms·

How is it hate speech? Are there people who would start killing Jews if they discovered it didn't really happen? Serious question, maybe Germany has people who

How is it hate speech? Are there people who would start killing Jews if they discovered it didn't really happen? Serious question, maybe Germany has people who are ready to commit violence but are held back by the thought that the holocaust probably happened? I can't think of the chain of causation from saying "It didn't happen" to someone killing someone else. The closest I can find on Wikipedia's definition of hate speech is "...disparages ... a protected individual or group." Who is that group? Is it "people who believe the holocaust happened"? Surely belief in an arbitrary claim doesn't count for defining a "protected individual or group". Is the group Jews? How does it harm Jews?

Mithaldu 11y ago
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10770153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10770153
fsloth 11y ago
Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. Jews have been murdered in europe for centuries as a vent for fear and political impotence. We've had enough. The fact that the germany that produced so much culture and science was the culprit of the last genocide in western europe is an absolute horror on so many scales. Yes, the horrors went on elsewhere but the only way for us as a species to move ahead of our bloodspattered history is to take a stand against fear and brutalism. whitewashing history is a dangerous thing because it gives the signal that political leadership could have a way to escape history's judgement. In essence, it's a matter of accountability that we must uphold vigorously.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  >Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. And? Nobody here denies that. But that is no reason to punish denialists. Just ostracize them from society.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Damaging untruths are widely punished, either as civil offenses, criminal offenses, or both, in the US and elsewhere; countries differ in details of where the burden of proof lies in truth/untruth of harmful statements, what the standard of proof required is, what degree and kind of harms are covered, and whether and how those kind of rules vary for different categories of harmful statements. In general, these punishments reflect the common belief that infliction of harm without consent of the harmed is improper, and warrants either punishment or compensation or both. And, anyway, ostracism is a punishment (historically viewed as a fairly severe one.)
- tomp 11y ago
  > Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. So? So is calling people "rapists" (without proof or conviction), but we don't outlaw it. > We've had enough. I don't care. I've had enough of people who believe in God. So? Why should the state criminalize it just because I've had enough? > In essence, it's a matter of accountability that we must uphold vigorously. I'm all for upholding the truth. I just think we should do it by logical arguments, not by government fiat.
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    > So? So is calling people "rapists" (without proof or conviction), but we don't outlaw it. Yet we do: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1694 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1696 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1712 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...
    - tomp 11y ago
      Hm... either I'm reading this incorrectly, or this only applies to > a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins Can you clarify why insulting someone with "rapist" is outlawed?
      - isolate 11y ago
        If you publish it, it's libel. There's a difference between "so-and-so is an asshole" (not a fact, haha), and "so-and-so committed a crime" (a fact). Whether it's a civil or criminal matter depends on the jurisdiction. The UN is against criminalizing defamation because it limits freedom of expression.
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        > Can you clarify why insulting someone with "rapist" is outlawed? In case the second link did not lead you to the correct section: Section 186 Defamation Whosoever asserts or disseminates a fact related to another person which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him, shall, unless this fact can be proven to be true, be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the offence was committed publicly or through the dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)), to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  Holocaust victims can't feel insulted because they're dead. Survivors can but they're few in number and will soon be extinct. Are you sure these are the main groups of people who would be hurt by legalized holocaust denial? I find that hard to believe, especially since we allow denial of most other large scale killings - even those bigger than the holocaust.
  - zippoxer 11y ago
    Survivors are few and will soon be extinct, but what about their children and grandchildren, who kept hearing their stories and were raised feeling their trauma and terror?
  - hussong 11y ago
    Dignity exceeds lifetime.

Mithaldu 11y ago

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10770153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10770153

fsloth 11y ago

Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. Jews have been murdered in europe for centuries as a vent for fear and political impotence. We've had enough. The fact that the germany that produced so much culture and science was the culprit of the last genocide in western europe is an absolute horror on so many scales. Yes, the horrors went on elsewhere but the only way for us as a species to move ahead of our bloodspattered history is to take a stand against fear and brutalism. whitewashing history is a dangerous thing because it gives the signal that political leadership could have a way to escape history's judgement. In essence, it's a matter of accountability that we must uphold vigorously.

venomsnake 11y ago
>Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. And? Nobody here denies that. But that is no reason to punish denialists. Just ostracize them from society.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Damaging untruths are widely punished, either as civil offenses, criminal offenses, or both, in the US and elsewhere; countries differ in details of where the burden of proof lies in truth/untruth of harmful statements, what the standard of proof required is, what degree and kind of harms are covered, and whether and how those kind of rules vary for different categories of harmful statements. In general, these punishments reflect the common belief that infliction of harm without consent of the harmed is improper, and warrants either punishment or compensation or both. And, anyway, ostracism is a punishment (historically viewed as a fairly severe one.)
tomp 11y ago
> Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors. So? So is calling people "rapists" (without proof or conviction), but we don't outlaw it. > We've had enough. I don't care. I've had enough of people who believe in God. So? Why should the state criminalize it just because I've had enough? > In essence, it's a matter of accountability that we must uphold vigorously. I'm all for upholding the truth. I just think we should do it by logical arguments, not by government fiat.
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  > So? So is calling people "rapists" (without proof or conviction), but we don't outlaw it. Yet we do: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1694 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1696 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1712 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...
  - tomp 11y ago
    Hm... either I'm reading this incorrectly, or this only applies to > a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins Can you clarify why insulting someone with "rapist" is outlawed?
    - isolate 11y ago
      If you publish it, it's libel. There's a difference between "so-and-so is an asshole" (not a fact, haha), and "so-and-so committed a crime" (a fact). Whether it's a civil or criminal matter depends on the jurisdiction. The UN is against criminalizing defamation because it limits freedom of expression.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      > Can you clarify why insulting someone with "rapist" is outlawed? In case the second link did not lead you to the correct section: Section 186 Defamation Whosoever asserts or disseminates a fact related to another person which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him, shall, unless this fact can be proven to be true, be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the offence was committed publicly or through the dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)), to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine.
Asbostos 11y ago
Holocaust victims can't feel insulted because they're dead. Survivors can but they're few in number and will soon be extinct. Are you sure these are the main groups of people who would be hurt by legalized holocaust denial? I find that hard to believe, especially since we allow denial of most other large scale killings - even those bigger than the holocaust.
- zippoxer 11y ago
  Survivors are few and will soon be extinct, but what about their children and grandchildren, who kept hearing their stories and were raised feeling their trauma and terror?
- hussong 11y ago
  Dignity exceeds lifetime.