5 ms·
There is a perfectly good reason why it is against the law to deny the Holocaust in Germany. Can anyone guess what it is?
by ddp 8y ago
There is a perfectly good reason why it is against the law to deny the Holocaust in Germany. Can anyone guess what it is?
- emiliobumachar 8y agoTotal control of information is the best way to differentiate ourselves from the Nazis?
- daseiner1 8y agobanning holocaust denial == “total control of information” ?
- adamcw 8y agoNot allowing information to exist, regardless of intent or how it's perceived as "good", is an authoritarian act in and of itself. It will only polarize those that feed on it. It's the "let's burn books" mindset, which is just a bad tactic. Misinformation in the modern(or any) age can't be fought that way. The internet is good at amplifying that which people seek to censor. I hope we can agree this is good for positive ideas, but the mechanism employed doesn't care how "good" you find the idea. And to be entirely clear: I think the subject matter at hand is abhorrent. Fascism feeds on censorship. It doesn't hurt that side, it helps them control the narrative.
- rjvbk 8y agoBanning the spreading of ideas requires control of information, yes.
- salvar 8y agoSure, but is it a binary thing? Either zero control of information or total control of information and nothing in between? That seems wrong.
- adamcw 8y agoNot a binary thing, no. But who gets to be in charge of that speech? Do you trust them? Do you trust who will follow them in power? Where I live, I'm vastly outnumbered by people who have vastly different values than me. Their party is in control now. Pretty scary to think they could shut off my voice at whim, or worse.
- zaarn 8y agoIt does not require total control or even partial control of information. There is a ban but it doesn't mean the german government goes out of it's way to remove any piece of such material before it even hits the internet. It's largely post-factum, when the piece is already on the internet and spread elsewhere when the original author of the information is punished.
- noobhacker 8y agoI honestly don't know why it's better to ban denial rather than trying to engage and educate. It's been very confusing to me. Could you please explain?
- mc32 8y agoProbably because it's "simply" easier (said). Let's take SandyHook (and the false information that is was all faked.) It would be much easier to say "let's ban the dissemination of the idea that it was faked" than to say, let's go out there and show all those deniers and people who listen to them and show them the facts. We know it's difficult to change the minds of people who hold steadfast views like these. But the side-effect of something like this is pretty dire. You get what the PLA and the CCP exercise in China. There is the official, sanctioned version, which because it is shaped by body can take any shape the controllers want. So instead of random people making up facts, you can have a center of power making up faked facts --and you can't dispute it, since they provide the official version of things.
- acchow 8y agoSo you'd be in favor of he government banning "Sandyhook was faked" dissemination? What other information should the government deem fake? And where should this Ministry of Truth be headquartered?
- YuukiRey 8y agoActually that's not at all what the post you're referring to said. Quite the opposite rather.
- JamilD 8y agoBrandolini's Law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
- IGI-111 8y agoQueue long post about why such witty proverbs are overtly large generalizations that are never entirely true This is so self referential it should be called Brandolini's paradox.
- axaxs 8y agoThere is no good reason to make a law against free speech, however objectively dumb it may be. But enjoy your collapsing police state.
- zaarn 8y agoWell, that's a pointless argument since free speech as in the US doesn't exist in Germany. There is freedom of opinion which has a higher level of entry, so the speak, than free speech. It's simply a different philosophy than the US freedom of speech. As long as it is merely your opinion and only your opinion, you can use any medium you want to tell others your opinion without repercussions. The moment your opinion starts to hurt others, even if it's not directly violent, those protections collapse. It's part of the concept of a defensive democracy.
- axaxs 8y agoLook at what's happening in the US recently... we live in an outrage culture. Everything is offensive and hurtful now. Because things like this can happen, can you see why hurtful opinions being outlawed is risky?
- patrickg_zill 8y agoSo the German people can be guilted into paying over 80 billion dollars yet the Allies pay nothing for the war crimes of Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
- DanielBMarkham 8y agoBecause the allies were much more interested in population control after WWII than they were free speech and a dynamic, evolving society. Nobody wanted the Nazis to return. That goal was more important than any other. The Soviets accomplished it through pogroms. The west was more subtle.