Should it be illegal to deny the Holocaust?

[Ramenasia]

By being a terrorist hell-bent on destroying all of Western civilization.

Hm, and her I thought the western civilization's whole base was "proving that even idiots and villains deserve human rights".

No, that's just Amnesty International. The "West" isn't so concerned about equal rights when it comes to terrorists (e.g prisoners in Guantanamo).

[Wikipedia and Universe]

In Germany? Yes. It's probably good for everyone that it's illegal. However, in other countries? No. It's too good a way to spot an asshole.

I have to agree with you. In fact, I find myself agreeing with you in particular a lot more these days.

[Islamic Hazarastan]

It should not be illegal. Then it wouldn't look like they've got something to hide.

[Set the Unbound]

Hm, and her I thought the western civilization's whole base was "proving that even idiots and villains deserve human rights".

No, that's just Amnesty International. The "West" isn't so concerned about equal rights when it comes to terrorists (e.g prisoners in Guantanamo).

Some elements in the US government haven't been so concerned about equal rights of innocent taxi-drivers, goat-herders and grandfathers at Guantanamo; kidnapped and sold by tribal enemies in exchange for $5000 bounties paid for "terrorists".

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/15/3 ... rists.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 092435.ece

I wouldn't say the brains behind that policy were part of Western Civilization.
Or part of any civilization...

[Arkere]

I don't actually see a "free speech"-issue. The fact that holocaust happened is objectively quite undisputable: Millions of people were round up in camps and killed in an industrial manner for their religious belief, political view, sexual orientation and more. Some were merely exploited in a manner that makes some historic slave keepers in the southern US look like downright humanist civil rights activists.

Saying "That didn't happen!" is just wrong, and justly outlawed. There's no way of sugarcoating that historical fact, either. It is no "idea".
An idea would be something that explains these facts as acts that had to be done to some end. An idea would be some racist ideology. And however completely out of their mind someone would have to be in my opinion to accept such racist ideology or how hilariously insane a justification of holocaust might be, those are ideas that should fall under protection of "free speech". Those are ideas. Holocaust itself is a fact.

It is an intricate issue, and thus has to be debated with exact wording. Bludgeoning the issue doesn't promote the discourse.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't actually see a "free speech"-issue. The fact that holocaust happened is objectively quite undisputable:

Like the fact that there is no god.

*nods*

Saying "That didn't happen!" is just wrong, and justly outlawed.

If you outlaw expression of religion, I'll vote alongside you to outlaw holocaust denial.

*nods*

[Bergrisiheim]

On holiday in Berlin I found out that it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, as well as the national socialists. Germany has done well in trying not to forget its troubled past, erecting many memorials and museums to all those killed by the Nazis. NSG, what do you think?

No! However well intentioned, controlling someone's beliefs sets a VERY BAD PRECEDENT!

[Bergrisiheim]

I don't actually see a "free speech"-issue. The fact that holocaust happened is objectively quite undisputable: Millions of people were round up in camps and killed in an industrial manner for their religious belief, political view, sexual orientation and more. Some were merely exploited in a manner that makes some historic slave keepers in the southern US look like downright humanist civil rights activists.

Saying "That didn't happen!" is just wrong, and justly outlawed. There's no way of sugarcoating that historical fact, either. It is no "idea".
An idea would be something that explains these facts as acts that had to be done to some end. An idea would be some racist ideology. And however completely out of their mind someone would have to be in my opinion to accept such racist ideology or how hilariously insane a justification of holocaust might be, those are ideas that should fall under protection of "free speech". Those are ideas. Holocaust itself is a fact.

It is an intricate issue, and thus has to be debated with exact wording. Bludgeoning the issue doesn't promote the discourse.

Right. Now we've set a dangerous precedent of barring anyone who argues against "facts" from speaking their mind. This is a bad precedent for many reasons. After all, they use to arrest people for denying the "fact" that the sun revolved around the earth. Allowing people to deny this fact, however well proven the hollocaust is, is a good thing, as debate helps to re-enforce the fact, and I strongly believe that no fact, no matter how proven, should go unchallenged. Challenging widely held beliefs is scientific in nature, and will only help to reinforce the fact.

[The Kangaroo Republic]

I personally believe that people should have the right to speak their minds. No matter how goddamn stupid their thoughts might be, they should have the right to have their thoughts and voice them like any other person on this planet.

[Izzyshipper]

Of course not, a line of enquiry should never be outlawed, the evidence quite clearly supports a Holocaust happened, but then why worry if someone says it is wrong? Either they will discover evidence to back up their claim or they will fail.

[SaintB]

Well, it shouldn't be illegal... but such people should be disdained and looked down upon in society as liars and ignoramuses.

This.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I don't actually see a "free speech"-issue. The fact that holocaust happened is objectively quite undisputable: Millions of people were round up in camps and killed in an industrial manner for their religious belief, political view, sexual orientation and more. Some were merely exploited in a manner that makes some historic slave keepers in the southern US look like downright humanist civil rights activists.

Saying "That didn't happen!" is just wrong, and justly outlawed. There's no way of sugarcoating that historical fact, either. It is no "idea".
An idea would be something that explains these facts as acts that had to be done to some end. An idea would be some racist ideology. And however completely out of their mind someone would have to be in my opinion to accept such racist ideology or how hilariously insane a justification of holocaust might be, those are ideas that should fall under protection of "free speech". Those are ideas. Holocaust itself is a fact.

It is an intricate issue, and thus has to be debated with exact wording. Bludgeoning the issue doesn't promote the discourse.

Free speech includes the right to publish fiction.

[Zavea]

unless it's hate speech (which it's really not, since saying "the holocaust didn't happen" is not nearly as vicious as "all jews should be burned") there is no rational basis for banning it since it's just an opinion.