4 ms·

Are you allowed to deny the Holocaust?

by throwaway8879 8y ago

thecatspaw 8y ago
If you can provide scientific proof that it didnt happen, yes. Otherwise no
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  You can't do that, it's impossible. You'd have to go with something like "show that the massive decline in the Jewish population of Nazi Germany was by means other than genocide". Which is also impossible, but due to truth instead of poor epistemology.
- NietTim 8y ago
  Ehhhh, you're "not even" allowed to investigate it, so this one doesn't really work
  - UncleMeat 8y ago
    This is false. I personally know academics who study genocide who do serious research on the Holocaust in Europe. It's just that these people are dingbats who have decided ahead of time to deny the Holocaust and desperately search for any shred of broken evidence for this claim.
w4tson 8y ago
Sure. UK crackpot David Irving has been denying the holocaust since the 80s. There’s a drama on Netflix about him called Denial
- uncle_d 8y ago
  Perhaps you forgot about this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefarright https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefar...
  - w4tson 8y ago
    Well I didn’t know. But now I do, so thanks.
DandyDev 8y ago
No, most EU countries have laws in some form that prohibit Holocaust denial. But as with any country that has the rights to freedom of speech, these rights are inevitably balanced and restricted by other laws. This is a good thing, because while freedom of speech is important, the general wellbeing of the population and preventing people getting hurt is important as well. It is my belief for example that allowing racist remark under the banner of free speech, hurts more than it helps. It leads to an overall negative impact in the wellbeing of the population. I think the same balance was considered when prohibiting holocaust denial. Question: why use a throwaway account?
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  > the general wellbeing of the population and preventing people getting hurt is important as well I fail to see how speech does hurts anyone. Would you mind elaborating? Should it not be solely the responsibility of whoever hears said speech to decide on whether to act on it? Does censorship of any shape or form not actually hurt the ones that wanted to listen to said speech the most?
- dnadler 8y ago
  On the other side of the argument, I think many would ask where do you draw the line? And who draws that line? It seems like the majority of the people I know feel like it's better not to draw that line at all and instead focus on teaching people why these arguments are wrong. The failing of our education system is another (bad) problem entirely. Ex: what if the government one day decides that criticizing the government is too offensive?
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    This is what I'm concerned about too. Where I'm from, offending those in power/religion/etc will get you into a whole lot of trouble. When I was young, maybe two decades ago, there was an inkling of hope that perhaps one day my people would follow the Western ideal(at least to an extent), when it comes to free of speech, human rights and so on. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening anymore. I don't want to sound gloomy, but the web back in the day had a completely different feel to it. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I can feel it's vibrancy dying. Maybe it started a while ago. Anyway, there's still hope with decentralization and such. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.
Certhas 8y ago
Are you allowed to slander in the US? Are you allowed to publish Child pronography? Are you allowed to publish Obscene materials (as judged by the average citizen)? Are you allowed to utter words that might incite someone to fight you? [1] Some of it depends on state law, but the 1st amendment does not protect any of those [1]. Bottom line: No country has absolute freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of the basic liberties, and it's balanced against others. Different countries come to different conclusions on the balance. Generally speaking Germany tends more towards Freedom than the US according to comprehensive surveys [2]. Specifically When it comes to denying history, citing the US Supreme Court: "[There is] no constitutional value in false statements of fact". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... [2] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-country-scores https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-cou...

Are you allowed to deny the Holocaust?

thecatspaw 8y ago

If you can provide scientific proof that it didnt happen, yes. Otherwise no

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
You can't do that, it's impossible. You'd have to go with something like "show that the massive decline in the Jewish population of Nazi Germany was by means other than genocide". Which is also impossible, but due to truth instead of poor epistemology.
NietTim 8y ago
Ehhhh, you're "not even" allowed to investigate it, so this one doesn't really work
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  This is false. I personally know academics who study genocide who do serious research on the Holocaust in Europe. It's just that these people are dingbats who have decided ahead of time to deny the Holocaust and desperately search for any shred of broken evidence for this claim.

w4tson 8y ago

Sure. UK crackpot David Irving has been denying the holocaust since the 80s. There’s a drama on Netflix about him called Denial

uncle_d 8y ago
Perhaps you forgot about this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefarright https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefar...
- w4tson 8y ago
  Well I didn’t know. But now I do, so thanks.

DandyDev 8y ago

No, most EU countries have laws in some form that prohibit Holocaust denial. But as with any country that has the rights to freedom of speech, these rights are inevitably balanced and restricted by other laws. This is a good thing, because while freedom of speech is important, the general wellbeing of the population and preventing people getting hurt is important as well. It is my belief for example that allowing racist remark under the banner of free speech, hurts more than it helps. It leads to an overall negative impact in the wellbeing of the population. I think the same balance was considered when prohibiting holocaust denial. Question: why use a throwaway account?

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
> the general wellbeing of the population and preventing people getting hurt is important as well I fail to see how speech does hurts anyone. Would you mind elaborating? Should it not be solely the responsibility of whoever hears said speech to decide on whether to act on it? Does censorship of any shape or form not actually hurt the ones that wanted to listen to said speech the most?
dnadler 8y ago
On the other side of the argument, I think many would ask where do you draw the line? And who draws that line? It seems like the majority of the people I know feel like it's better not to draw that line at all and instead focus on teaching people why these arguments are wrong. The failing of our education system is another (bad) problem entirely. Ex: what if the government one day decides that criticizing the government is too offensive?
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  This is what I'm concerned about too. Where I'm from, offending those in power/religion/etc will get you into a whole lot of trouble. When I was young, maybe two decades ago, there was an inkling of hope that perhaps one day my people would follow the Western ideal(at least to an extent), when it comes to free of speech, human rights and so on. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening anymore. I don't want to sound gloomy, but the web back in the day had a completely different feel to it. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I can feel it's vibrancy dying. Maybe it started a while ago. Anyway, there's still hope with decentralization and such. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Certhas 8y ago

Are you allowed to slander in the US? Are you allowed to publish Child pronography? Are you allowed to publish Obscene materials (as judged by the average citizen)? Are you allowed to utter words that might incite someone to fight you? [1] Some of it depends on state law, but the 1st amendment does not protect any of those [1]. Bottom line: No country has absolute freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of the basic liberties, and it's balanced against others. Different countries come to different conclusions on the balance. Generally speaking Germany tends more towards Freedom than the US according to comprehensive surveys [2]. Specifically When it comes to denying history, citing the US Supreme Court: "[There is] no constitutional value in false statements of fact". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... [2] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-country-scores https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-cou...