6 ms·
Playing devils advocate here, how is holocaust denial dangerous?
by imwillofficial 5y ago
Playing devils advocate here, how is holocaust denial dangerous?
- slg 5y agoAt the most basic level, denying or downplaying a previous genocide increases the odds of a future genocide.
- imwillofficial 5y agoDo you have data to support that by any chance, I’ve heard old axioms, but nothing more than that.
- slg 5y agoI don't want to be a jerk, but if you want to play devil's advocate, you can do the research yourself. I am comfortable believing the old "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" adage without having a peer reviewed study on it.
- imwillofficial 5y agoI don’t take it as being a jerk, I’m just trying to question my assumptions in being intellectually rigorous. I’m failing to see how denying an event leads to repeating it, or the inverse, how accepting a historical event shields you from repeating it. Genocide existed before hitler, and I’m assuming hitler knew about some of it, so why didn’t it work there? This is a valid line of questioning.
- skissane 5y agoBut the Turkish government and its supporters are allowed to deny and downplay the Armenian genocide to their hearts content. The European Court of Human Rights even decided (Perinçek v. Switzerland) that people have a free speech right to deny the Armenian genocide, yet it has also held that people don't have a free speech right to deny the Holocaust (Pastörs v. Germany). Both genocides happened, both genocides were awful, but it seems like different rules apply to denying different genocides, and that those rules are based on political calculations rather than defensible principle.
- slg 5y agoYes, the laws in Turkey, Switzerland, and Germany are not going to be identical. And as I said elsewhere in this thread: "My original comment was about laws against misinformation in Germany. That doesn't mean I endorse or need to defend all free speech laws in all of Europe."
- skissane 5y agoGermany passes laws to ban Holocaust denial. The European Court of Human Rights upholds them as compatible with human rights. Switzerland passes laws to ban both Holocaust denial and Armenian Genocide denial. The European Court of Human Rights rules the second aspect of the law is a human rights violation. My complaint isn't about either the laws of Germany or of Switzerland, it is about the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, who have jurisdiction across almost all of Europe. The ECHR believes one has a free speech right to deny some genocides but not others.
- slg 5y agoThe European Court of Human Rights doesn't rule on abstract ideas. It rules on particular cases. They didn't say denying the Armenian Genocide is okay while denying the Holocaust isn't. They ruled on two individual cases that seem to be contradictory when summarized in a single sentence. That doesn't mean they truly are contradictory once examined in depth.
- skissane 5y agoYou haven't explained how they aren't contradictory. You've just claimed that, if one examines them in depth, they will be found not to be contradictory. Have you examined them in depth yourself?
- slg 5y agoI'm not sure why the burden is on me, but here is the first Google result when plugging in both case names[1]: >The Court began by noting the decisions in its previous cases concerning the denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes. Previous statements have been held to be inadmissible, either as being ill-founded under Article 10(2) when read with Article 17 (citing Williamson v. Germany ECtHR [2019] 64496/17), or otherwise as having incompatible subject matter jurisdiction under Article 17 (Perinçek v. Switzerland ECtHR [2015] 27510/08). The Court reiterated that Article 17 is reserved for extreme cases and on exceptional bases, and should only be used in Article 10 cases if it is “immediately clear” that the statements in issue seek to employ the right to freedom of expression “for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention” (para 37) – such as inciting hatred or violence or aiming to destroy the rights and freedoms listed in the Convention. Any case concerning Holocaust denial must be taken on a case-by-case basis and depends on all the circumstances of that particular case, when it comes to the Court’s decision to either apply Article 17 directly to the applicant’s Article 10 application and declare it incompatible with the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court, or instead to apply the general law principles under Article 10 and invoke Article 17 at a later stage as an interpretive aid when examining the necessity of any alleged interference by the domestic courts. [1] - https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/pasto%CC%88rs-v-germany/ https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/pasto%C...
- joshuahaglund 5y agoWTF is up with this thread, that a comment like this would generate down votes? And that people would think disinformation is not harmful?
- mancerayder 5y agoWho judges what's disinformation? In the case of holocaust denial, you have historians who can easily disprove the deniers. What the hell is Google's claim to credentials? In terms of harm measurement, it's not as straightforward as you would like. Are we judging feelings or violence that results or...? Next, end goal. You want to squash every individual who denies the Holocaust occurred or downplays it? Good luck, you'll have your hands full in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Iran.
- imwillofficial 5y agoI’m asking for data on harm, we may assume it’s harmful, but how harmful? Can it even be measured? These are interesting questions.