4 ms·

You do not have the right to express any random 'opinion'. Slander is always defended as 'an opinion' and both juries and judges rightfully punish those guilty

You do not have the right to express any random 'opinion'. Slander is always defended as 'an opinion' and both juries and judges rightfully punish those guilty of slander. Holocaust denial is not 'an opinion': it is a blatant lie. There is no reason why spreading lies about historical facts should be less punishable then spreading lies about a companies' products. They both do damage and the cumulative damage of the first category is much more dangerous. The first amendment is not there to allow idiots, fearmongers, demagogues and pussies to hide behind a twisted interpretation of the word 'opinion'. Neither uninformed statements that are false nor lies are opinions and neither is protected by the first amendment. We forgive those that utter uninformed statements, 'for they know not what they do'. When they are informed of what they do and insist on repeating the statement, it becomes a lie.

randallsquared 18y ago
We forgive those that utter uninformed statements, 'for they know not what they do'. When they are informed of what they do and insist on repeating the statement, it becomes a lie. The phrase "when they are informed" skips the step where they are somehow convinced of the truth of the information. Do you think that they "really know" the Holocaust happened and are actually lying, or do you think they're actually mistaken? If there's any significant chance of the latter (and if you think that Holocaust deniers are a serious problem, which I don't necessarily agree with), then figuring out what evidence would be convincing is important.
- Confusion 18y ago
  Of course they are convinced they are telling the truth, but that is not an acceptable excuse. If you go down that road, you can't put anyone in prison anymore: "they were just born and raised that way". A holocaust denier, or General Relativity denier for what that matters, arrives at his conviction through contingent factors that are nigh impossible to trace. Fortunately, that also isn't required. As in the case of the criminal, we still hold them accountable for their convictions and the damage that those convictions do, irrespective of their capacity to understand why it is wrong. We like to believe that punishment teaches and that even criminals consider their punishments fair. Fact is: they don't consider them fair and they don't learn. Yet we keep punishing them, because locking them away makes life much nicer for the rest of us.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    We like to believe I think you're making broad assumptions about what we (by which I assume you mean world (or maybe just Western) civilization) want and believe which may not hold up to scrutiny. While they're often conflated, there are at least three different goals for what societies do to criminals: retribution, restitution, and punishment. Some of us think that it would be better to use the first two only, and that feeling "punished" should be only an effect of that. But that's another topic.
    - Confusion 18y ago
      I certainly grant that when I write 'we like to believe X, but', it means 'I would like to believe X and I think most people (like to) believe X'. :) Don't most people do that, perhaps without realizing it?
      - randallsquared 18y ago
        I do think most people do that. I just think that here it's not actually the case (though maybe it is with the crowd here on HN; I'm probably more conservative than most here).
mercurio 18y ago
The issue really is weakening of free speech rather than holocaust denial. Distorting facts should never be a justification to suppress speech. This is exactly the justification the Catholic church used for a long time, and they even have a word for it: heresy. Free speech really is our only tool to get out of situations where a bad idea or 'fact' is widely accepted and supported by those in power. The irony here is that if Germans hadn't lost their freedom of expression under the Nazis, the holocaust might not have happened at the scale it did.
philwelch 18y ago
By your reasoning, it should be illegal to deny that the moon landing ever happened, or to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of JFK, or even to deny that human beings are the product of biological evolution. It's not the role of government, or of Facebook, to officially designate one version of past events as "true" and prohibit all consideration of any contrary version. The Holocaust happened. It is sufficient to fully show the evidence of what happened and leave it at that. Prohibiting anyone from making claims to the contrary is no defense of the truth. Only liars need that defense.
- Confusion 18y ago
  By your reasoning, it should be illegal to deny that the moon landing ever happened, or to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of JFK, or even to deny that human beings are the product of biological evolution. The first two don't need to be illegal, because they don't do much damage. There is little emotional attachment, making the controversy less influential or dangerous. The last one is trickier: the education of children is certainly impaired by withholding facts from them. Everyone is entitled to every conviction, but no one is entitled to spreading lies about contrary convictions, not even to their own children. If we could reasonably make that illegal, I'd go for it, but I don't think we could write up a law in such a way that it would work. Those are the trade-offs that have to be considered.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    So you'd allow conspiracy theorists, but outlaw Catholicism.
    - Confusion 18y ago
      Catholics don't lie, do they? >:)
      - tptacek 18y ago
        Catholics do many of the same things that human beings do. They're quite similar species.
uhtyrgh 18y ago
>Holocaust denial is not 'an opinion': it is a blatant lie. > There is no reason why spreading lies about historical >facts should be less punishable then spreading lies about >a companies' products. Creationism is a lie, a flat earth is a lie, that the world was created in 7days by a guy with a white beard is a lie. Fancy banning religions on face book?

randallsquared 18y ago

We forgive those that utter uninformed statements, 'for they know not what they do'. When they are informed of what they do and insist on repeating the statement, it becomes a lie. The phrase "when they are informed" skips the step where they are somehow convinced of the truth of the information. Do you think that they "really know" the Holocaust happened and are actually lying, or do you think they're actually mistaken? If there's any significant chance of the latter (and if you think that Holocaust deniers are a serious problem, which I don't necessarily agree with), then figuring out what evidence would be convincing is important.

Confusion 18y ago
Of course they are convinced they are telling the truth, but that is not an acceptable excuse. If you go down that road, you can't put anyone in prison anymore: "they were just born and raised that way". A holocaust denier, or General Relativity denier for what that matters, arrives at his conviction through contingent factors that are nigh impossible to trace. Fortunately, that also isn't required. As in the case of the criminal, we still hold them accountable for their convictions and the damage that those convictions do, irrespective of their capacity to understand why it is wrong. We like to believe that punishment teaches and that even criminals consider their punishments fair. Fact is: they don't consider them fair and they don't learn. Yet we keep punishing them, because locking them away makes life much nicer for the rest of us.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  We like to believe I think you're making broad assumptions about what we (by which I assume you mean world (or maybe just Western) civilization) want and believe which may not hold up to scrutiny. While they're often conflated, there are at least three different goals for what societies do to criminals: retribution, restitution, and punishment. Some of us think that it would be better to use the first two only, and that feeling "punished" should be only an effect of that. But that's another topic.
  - Confusion 18y ago
    I certainly grant that when I write 'we like to believe X, but', it means 'I would like to believe X and I think most people (like to) believe X'. :) Don't most people do that, perhaps without realizing it?
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      I do think most people do that. I just think that here it's not actually the case (though maybe it is with the crowd here on HN; I'm probably more conservative than most here).

mercurio 18y ago

The issue really is weakening of free speech rather than holocaust denial. Distorting facts should never be a justification to suppress speech. This is exactly the justification the Catholic church used for a long time, and they even have a word for it: heresy. Free speech really is our only tool to get out of situations where a bad idea or 'fact' is widely accepted and supported by those in power. The irony here is that if Germans hadn't lost their freedom of expression under the Nazis, the holocaust might not have happened at the scale it did.

philwelch 18y ago

By your reasoning, it should be illegal to deny that the moon landing ever happened, or to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of JFK, or even to deny that human beings are the product of biological evolution. It's not the role of government, or of Facebook, to officially designate one version of past events as "true" and prohibit all consideration of any contrary version. The Holocaust happened. It is sufficient to fully show the evidence of what happened and leave it at that. Prohibiting anyone from making claims to the contrary is no defense of the truth. Only liars need that defense.

Confusion 18y ago
By your reasoning, it should be illegal to deny that the moon landing ever happened, or to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of JFK, or even to deny that human beings are the product of biological evolution. The first two don't need to be illegal, because they don't do much damage. There is little emotional attachment, making the controversy less influential or dangerous. The last one is trickier: the education of children is certainly impaired by withholding facts from them. Everyone is entitled to every conviction, but no one is entitled to spreading lies about contrary convictions, not even to their own children. If we could reasonably make that illegal, I'd go for it, but I don't think we could write up a law in such a way that it would work. Those are the trade-offs that have to be considered.
- tptacek 18y ago
  So you'd allow conspiracy theorists, but outlaw Catholicism.
  - Confusion 18y ago
    Catholics don't lie, do they? >:)
    - tptacek 18y ago
      Catholics do many of the same things that human beings do. They're quite similar species.

uhtyrgh 18y ago

>Holocaust denial is not 'an opinion': it is a blatant lie. > There is no reason why spreading lies about historical >facts should be less punishable then spreading lies about >a companies' products. Creationism is a lie, a flat earth is a lie, that the world was created in 7days by a guy with a white beard is a lie. Fancy banning religions on face book?