87 YO grandma arrested for 'holocaust denial'

[Allanea]

How do you deny the holocaust at age 87? She was alive during it!

I doubt she personally witnessed the death camps. Most people didn't.

[SaintB]

Holocaust denial in Germany is considered a threat on the level of claiming to have put a bomb in an airport in the USA. Both will get your ass in legal trouble for damn good reasons.

It's not a threat. It's a statement.

Holocaust denial does not kill people, under no circumstances. Claiming you have a bomb does have a chance.

70 years ago Germany's government killed 6 million plus undesirables in a very real very terrible violation of human rights. The evidence is fucking everywhere in their country even too today. When somebody stands up, especially someone who was old enough to live through that period of history and flat out lies about what the Nazi party did while in control of the nation it most certainly is considered a threat. For them its not a freedom of speech thing, its almost treason.

[Charmera]

It's not a threat. It's a statement.

Holocaust denial does not kill people, under no circumstances. Claiming you have a bomb does have a chance.

70 years ago Germany's government killed 6 million plus undesirables in a very real very terrible violation of human rights. The evidence is fucking everywhere in their country even too today. When somebody stands up, especially someone who was old enough to live through that period of history and flat out lies about what the Nazi party did while in control of the nation it most certainly is considered a threat. For them its not a freedom of speech thing, its almost treason.

This^
In fact, I don't think theres a more APT comparison. Saying that you're going to bomb an airport while in said airport is nearly the same thing as denying the holocaust in Germany.

[Enfaru]

How do you deny the holocaust at age 87? She was alive during it!

I doubt she personally witnessed the death camps. Most people didn't.

Not only did most people not see them for a very long time, the propaganda was so strong that many people were convinced that what was happening was both humane and necessary. That jews and other undesirables were segregated into their own areas. Very few people actually knew the scope of what was going on and there was a lot of denial about it going on, when the matter came to light, such was the strength of what they had been told.

It is possible that some people might still be deluded after all this time. However this woman did know, her other offences are in line with denying the holocaust for causing offence and discrimination. It's not like this was her first rodeo.

[Novus America]

It's not a threat. It's a statement.

Holocaust denial does not kill people, under no circumstances. Claiming you have a bomb does have a chance.

70 years ago Germany's government killed 6 million plus undesirables in a very real very terrible violation of human rights. The evidence is fucking everywhere in their country even too today. When somebody stands up, especially someone who was old enough to live through that period of history and flat out lies about what the Nazi party did while in control of the nation it most certainly is considered a threat. For them its not a freedom of speech thing, its almost treason.

It did not do so because some hateful old lady said something stupid. Plus this is not the way to go about it, is there any evidence whatsoever this ban is actually effective?

Arrests like this are only use by the Nazis to gain attention and sympathy. If not for the arrest nobody would have heard about this crazy old Nazi and her ignorant comments. Now everyone is talking about her.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Not only does it violate freedom of speech (by restricting speech based on content) it is also counterproductive.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I doubt she personally witnessed the death camps. Most people didn't.

Not only did most people not see them for a very long time, the propaganda was so strong that many people were convinced that what was happening was both humane and necessary. That jews and other undesirables were segregated into their own areas. Very few people actually knew the scope of what was going on and there was a lot of denial about it going on, when the matter came to light, such was the strength of what they had been told.

It is possible that some people might still be deluded after all this time. However this woman did know, her other offences are in line with denying the holocaust for causing offence and discrimination. It's not like this was her first rodeo.

I can't remember now so correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the populace though that the camps were paradises to live in.

[Vassenor]

Not only did most people not see them for a very long time, the propaganda was so strong that many people were convinced that what was happening was both humane and necessary. That jews and other undesirables were segregated into their own areas. Very few people actually knew the scope of what was going on and there was a lot of denial about it going on, when the matter came to light, such was the strength of what they had been told.

It is possible that some people might still be deluded after all this time. However this woman did know, her other offences are in line with denying the holocaust for causing offence and discrimination. It's not like this was her first rodeo.

I can't remember now so correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the populace though that the camps were paradises to live in.

No, they just thought the Jews were being put to work for the good of the Reich.

Which in some cases was true, but in those cases (in collusion with companies such as IG Farben) the conditions were kept so inhumane as to work them to death.

[Allanea]

Many people knew there were labor camps, and that there were terrible conditions in them.

But this was at the time the norm of many countries (the Soviets had them, the Italians had them, the British and Americans at various times used internment camps - yes, I know the US internment camps were much different, but this was hardly known in Germany).

What made the German system so much different was the presence of death camps. This, and some other details, were largely kept in secrecy at the time.

Most Germans did not personally witness the Holocaust, even among those who knew about it.

As such it's entirely feasible for a person -especially someone who was 17 when it ended - to persuade themselves of the - rather idiotic - denialist narrative.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Many people knew there were labor camps, and that there were terrible conditions in them.

But this was at the time the norm of many countries (the Soviets had them, the Italians had them, the British and Americans at various times used internment camps - yes, I know the US internment camps were much different, but this was hardly known in Germany).

What made the German system so much different was the presence of death camps. This, and some other details, were largely kept in secrecy at the time.

Most Germans did not personally witness the Holocaust, even among those who knew about it.

As such it's entirely feasible for a person -especially someone who was 17 when it ended - to persuade themselves of the - rather idiotic - denialist narrative.

I'm not sure about the Second World War, but I know Australia had internment camps in the First World War for German citizens, although as far as I know they weren't particularly in-humane or bad places in general.

[Allanea]

Bear in mind also that lots of countries used some manner of forced labor that buy modern day standards had terrible conditions.

If you lived in Berlin 1939 you'd probably know that people were being taken to "camps" where they'd work very hard with little food, but it might be entirely possible for you not to conclude that something unusually inhuman was happening. You might even think Hitler a tyrant for doing this, but it'd be a 'regular tyranny' of sorts - like has happened in many countries after they got a king or a ruler who was a particularly hard and cruel dude.

In reality Hitler's cruelty was a fairly unusual sort.

[Charmera]

70 years ago Germany's government killed 6 million plus undesirables in a very real very terrible violation of human rights. The evidence is fucking everywhere in their country even too today. When somebody stands up, especially someone who was old enough to live through that period of history and flat out lies about what the Nazi party did while in control of the nation it most certainly is considered a threat. For them its not a freedom of speech thing, its almost treason.

It did not do so because some hateful old lady said something stupid. Plus this is not the way to go about it, is there any evidence whatsoever this ban is actually effective?

Arrests like this are only use by the Nazis to gain attention and sympathy. If not for the arrest nobody would have heard about this crazy old Nazi and her ignorant comments. Now everyone is talking about her.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Not only does it violate freedom of speech (by restricting speech based on content) it is also counterproductive.

Well, it did so because a hateful middle aged man with black hair and a moustace said many stupid things. Underestimating the power of a single person is how Germany got in this whole predicament.

I don't really get how we can have "evidence" of a ban of this nature being effective. Like, do we count the amount of nazi violence this stops?
Like Saint said, it's about the threat it presents and how it can stir up a panic or a rage.

Speech is restricted based on content and context all the time. Even on nationstates our freedom of speech is restricted.
This isn't like some government restricting dissenting speech. It's not even a ban on the nazi ideology.

[Allanea]

I don't really get how we can have "evidence" of a ban of this nature being effective. Like, do we count the amount of nazi violence this stops?

There are plenty of countries that don't ban this sort of activity.

We can reasonably look at them.

Hitler didn't get to power simply through his unique skills.

Most of the things in Mein Kampf and Nazi ideology were relatively non-controversial in its time. In fact, many Germans who opposed Hitler to some extent still agreed with many of the things he had to say.

Anti-semitism, racism, nationalism and so forth - even cruel things like eugenics - were fairly mainstream at the time. Nazism got popular in that context, which just doesn't exist today.

There is of course some degree of racism today, but most people don't think, for example, that the superiority of given races is a scientific trut. Eugenics is generally rejected with disgust, etc.

[Baltenstein]

70 years ago Germany's government killed 6 million plus undesirables in a very real very terrible violation of human rights. The evidence is fucking everywhere in their country even too today. When somebody stands up, especially someone who was old enough to live through that period of history and flat out lies about what the Nazi party did while in control of the nation it most certainly is considered a threat. For them its not a freedom of speech thing, its almost treason.

It did not do so because some hateful old lady said something stupid. Plus this is not the way to go about it, is there any evidence whatsoever this ban is actually effective?

Arrests like this are only use by the Nazis to gain attention and sympathy. If not for the arrest nobody would have heard about this crazy old Nazi and her ignorant comments. Now everyone is talking about her.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Not only does it violate freedom of speech (by restricting speech based on content) it is also counterproductive.

There's far, far less Neo-Nazi activity in Germany than in several countries that don't ban holocaust denial.

It's not as if Germany's only way of adressing the topic is banning Swastikas and Holocaust denial and nothing more. Both the German gov and German societal organizations invest heavily in education and memorial campaigns on the Nazi years.

[Charmera]

I don't really get how we can have "evidence" of a ban of this nature being effective. Like, do we count the amount of nazi violence this stops?

There are plenty of countries that don't ban this sort of activity.

We can reasonably look at them.

...Not really.
Besides the fact that Germany isn't those other nations. it's, again, about the fact that it's perceived as a threat on the state itself. It's a historical and cultural issue rather than just "they're being horrible mean nazi bashers."

Plus, there are plenty of countries which do ban this.

Hitler didn't get to power simply through his unique skills.

Most of the things in Mein Kampf and Nazi ideology were relatively non-controversial in its time. In fact, many Germans who opposed Hitler to some extent still agreed with many of the things he had to say.

Anti-semitism, racism, nationalism and so forth - even cruel things like eugenics - were fairly mainstream at the time. Nazism got popular in that context, which just doesn't exist today.

There is of course some degree of racism today, but most people don't think, for example, that the superiority of given races is a scientific trut. Eugenics is generally rejected with disgust, etc.

Nationalism is pretty darn alive today I'd say. I think it merely takes another form. But that's another debate.

And that Nazi's didn't actually get into power with just the will of the people. At most they got a third of the voter base and then managed to coast into power through political trickery, then backroom deals and then passing laws which effectively made the Nazi party the power in the land. Nazism didn't need everyone behind it.

I'm not even sure what people are loosing. The right to be an utter bastard and shit on the six million dead and their living relatives? The only thing one can do with a right to Deny the Holocaust is disrespect others. As far as rights go it's one I'd be able to do without.

[Allanea]

It did not do so because some hateful old lady said something stupid. Plus this is not the way to go about it, is there any evidence whatsoever this ban is actually effective?

Arrests like this are only use by the Nazis to gain attention and sympathy. If not for the arrest nobody would have heard about this crazy old Nazi and her ignorant comments. Now everyone is talking about her.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Not only does it violate freedom of speech (by restricting speech based on content) it is also counterproductive.

There's far, far less Neo-Nazi activity in Germany than in several countries that don't ban holocaust denial.

It has a Neo-Nazi party that has gotten over 300,000 votes which is quite a lot.
And that's before we get into hard-right parties that aren't neo-nazis.

[Baltenstein]

There's far, far less Neo-Nazi activity in Germany than in several countries that don't ban holocaust denial.

It has a Neo-Nazi party that has gotten over 300,000 votes which is quite a lot.
And that's before we get into hard-right parties that aren't neo-nazis.

The NPD is currently polling at 0,X %. It's not represented in any regional parliament. I'd say that's a pretty good track record.
The other Far Right parties (or to put it more bluntly, the AfD) have recently surged for a reason that is completely unrelated to Nazism: mass immigration. The same reason why Far Right parties are rising in the polls in most European countries, regardless of wether said countries have banned Holocaust denial or not.

[Novus America]

It did not do so because some hateful old lady said something stupid. Plus this is not the way to go about it, is there any evidence whatsoever this ban is actually effective?

Arrests like this are only use by the Nazis to gain attention and sympathy. If not for the arrest nobody would have heard about this crazy old Nazi and her ignorant comments. Now everyone is talking about her.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Not only does it violate freedom of speech (by restricting speech based on content) it is also counterproductive.

Well, it did so because a hateful middle aged man with black hair and a moustace said many stupid things. Underestimating the power of a single person is how Germany got in this whole predicament.

I don't really get how we can have "evidence" of a ban of this nature being effective. Like, do we count the amount of nazi violence this stops?
Like Saint said, it's about the threat it presents and how it can stir up a panic or a rage.

Speech is restricted based on content and context all the time. Even on nationstates our freedom of speech is restricted.
This isn't like some government restricting dissenting speech. It's not even a ban on the nazi ideology.

No, it did not because Hitler said some stupid things. The depiction of Hitler magically appearing out of nowhere and single handedly taking over an unwilling Germany is popular in Germany, but it is wrong. And a form of denial. Nazis were a product of Germany at the time. Hitler used the already existing hate. He did not create it.

While the were not elected by a majority, before the war went bad they were massively popular after they were in power.

And unless you can demonstrate a restriction on free speech actually works, the benefit cannot be shown to outweigh the downsides.

Nationstates is a private forum, not the government. Freedom of speech only applies to governmental actions. And bans on inciting violence are not content based, but only the violence caused (or likly to be caused) regardless of the specific content or view. This bans only denying one genocide, which is hardly evenly applied. And it certainly bans a certain political viewpoint. A sick and ingnorant one, but we should not be banning things on account of that.

Counter it with education. Not counterproductive bans. Again this ban turned this women into a celebrity that people across the world are talking about. It has done the exact opposite of what it intended. It has only helped her evil cause.

[Novus America]

It did not do so because some hateful old lady said something stupid. Plus this is not the way to go about it, is there any evidence whatsoever this ban is actually effective?

Arrests like this are only use by the Nazis to gain attention and sympathy. If not for the arrest nobody would have heard about this crazy old Nazi and her ignorant comments. Now everyone is talking about her.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Not only does it violate freedom of speech (by restricting speech based on content) it is also counterproductive.

There's far, far less Neo-Nazi activity in Germany than in several countries that don't ban holocaust denial.

It's not as if Germany's only way of adressing the topic is banning Swastikas and Holocaust denial and nothing more. Both the German gov and German societal organizations invest heavily in education and memorial campaigns on the Nazi years.

Many countries that do not ban holocaust denial also have less Neo Nazi activity than Germany.

Keep the education and memorials. Use peer and social pressure. Drop the heavy handed restrictions on free speech. Which again we have no reason to believe actually work. The Tsar tried to ban Communist advocacy, how well did that work?

Banning something brings more attention to it. Again nobody would have heard of this woman's idiocy but for the ban.

[Charmera]

Well, it did so because a hateful middle aged man with black hair and a moustace said many stupid things. Underestimating the power of a single person is how Germany got in this whole predicament.

I don't really get how we can have "evidence" of a ban of this nature being effective. Like, do we count the amount of nazi violence this stops?
Like Saint said, it's about the threat it presents and how it can stir up a panic or a rage.

Speech is restricted based on content and context all the time. Even on nationstates our freedom of speech is restricted.
This isn't like some government restricting dissenting speech. It's not even a ban on the nazi ideology.

No, it did not because Hitler said some stupid things. The depiction of Hitler magically appearing out of nowhere and single handling taking over an unwilling Germany is popular in Germany, it is wrong. Nazis were a product of Germany at the time. Hitler used the already existing hate. He did not create it.

And unless you can demonstrate a restriction on free speech actually works, the benefut cannot be show to outweigh the downsides.

Nationstates is a private forum, not the government. Freedom of speech only applies to governmental actions. And bans on inciting violence are not content based, but only the violence caused (or likly to be caused) regardless of the content. This bans only denying one genocide, which is hardly evenly applied. And it is certainly bans a certain political viewpoint. A sick and ingnorant one, but we should not be banning things on account of that.

Counter it with education. Not counterproductive bans. Again this ban turned this women into a celebrity that people across the world are talking about. It has done the exact opposite of what it intended. It has only helped her evil cause.

Yes and no.
Nazis were a product of the time, but it would be foolish to discount the efforts of Adolf Hitler, considering the fact that no one cared about the party until he came along and many a German's reason for supporting it was because of Hitlers Rhetoric.

And Nazi takeover was definitely hitler engineered. Look at the Fire Decree and the Enabling Act, and Hitler only came to power because Hindenburg apointed him, not because he was going to win an election. Of course, he only got so close because of the people backing him, but still.

You could say it's a rallying call for genocide.

They do have education. And I would be inclined to agree with your "celebrity" comment if anyone actually cared about what this woman had to say. More likely, like us, they're arguing the merits of restricted free speech or they just don't care. I doubt anyone will remember this womans name in a month, and I bet you most people talking about this on this thread would need to go back to the article to check her name if I asked. No one really cares about her.

Again. I really don't see why you would defend someone's right to deny the holocaust unless you're using the "slippery slope" arguement, which isn't a great one seeing as this law has been in place for a while. So this really comes down to a subjective judgment. I'm not saying Germany is empirically right in doing this, but they have their reasons.

[Tananat]

It's not a threat. It's a statement.

Holocaust denial does not kill people, under no circumstances. Claiming you have a bomb does have a chance.

70 years ago Germany's government killed 6 million plus undesirables in a very real very terrible violation of human rights. The evidence is fucking everywhere in their country even too today. When somebody stands up, especially someone who was old enough to live through that period of history and flat out lies about what the Nazi party did while in control of the nation it most certainly is considered a threat. For them its not a freedom of speech thing, its almost treason.

!1 million, even, but that just supports your point further.

[Novus America]

No, it did not because Hitler said some stupid things. The depiction of Hitler magically appearing out of nowhere and single handling taking over an unwilling Germany is popular in Germany, it is wrong. Nazis were a product of Germany at the time. Hitler used the already existing hate. He did not create it.

And unless you can demonstrate a restriction on free speech actually works, the benefut cannot be show to outweigh the downsides.

Nationstates is a private forum, not the government. Freedom of speech only applies to governmental actions. And bans on inciting violence are not content based, but only the violence caused (or likly to be caused) regardless of the content. This bans only denying one genocide, which is hardly evenly applied. And it is certainly bans a certain political viewpoint. A sick and ingnorant one, but we should not be banning things on account of that.

Counter it with education. Not counterproductive bans. Again this ban turned this women into a celebrity that people across the world are talking about. It has done the exact opposite of what it intended. It has only helped her evil cause.

Yes and no.
Nazis were a product of the time, but it would be foolish to discount the efforts of Adolf Hitler, considering the fact that no one cared about the party until he came along and many a German's reason for supporting it was because of Hitlers Rhetoric.

And Nazi takeover was definitely hitler engineered. Look at the Fire Decree and the Enabling Act, and Hitler only came to power because Hindenburg apointed him, not because he was going to win an election. Of course, he only got so close because of the people backing him, but still.

You could say it's a rallying call for genocide.

They do have education. And I would be inclined to agree with your "celebrity" comment if anyone actually cared about what this woman had to say. More likely, like us, they're arguing the merits of restricted free speech or they just don't care. I doubt anyone will remember this womans name in a month, and I bet you most people talking about this on this thread would need to go back to the article to check her name if I asked. No one really cares about her.

Again. I really don't see why you would defend someone's right to deny the holocaust unless you're using the "slippery slope" arguement, which isn't a great one seeing as this law has been in place for a while. So this really comes down to a subjective judgment. I'm not saying Germany is empirically right in doing this, but they have their reasons.

Hitler himself coming to power was partly engineered, sure. But he was just the symptom not the disease. Somone else horrible would have taken power had he not. Maybe less bad, maybe worse. Hidenburg appointed Hitler because the Nazi party won an overwhelming plurality in the elections. This is common in parliamentary systems.

He did win the election, true not with an absolute majority. But still won.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ ... _July_1932

And it is a denial of genocide. Not a rallying call for genocide. Now many if not most of the people advocating holocaust denial really support genocide, but that is not enough reason to ban it. Indirect advocacy is different than direct incitement.

People do not really care about her pets se, the problem is the attention we have brought to her cause. People almost never talk about flat earthers, banning holocaust denial takes a stupid front ideology and elevates it to a massive political debate. That is the real problem.

Sure Germany has their reasons. I still think they are wrong. People have to political views regardless of how despicable or ignorant I believe them to be. I still think it is wrong to restrict expressing unpopular and ignorant political views.

[Fordorsia]

It's not a threat. It's a statement.

Holocaust denial does not kill people, under no circumstances. Claiming you have a bomb does have a chance.

70 years ago Germany's government killed 6 million plus undesirables in a very real very terrible violation of human rights. The evidence is fucking everywhere in their country even too today. When somebody stands up, especially someone who was old enough to live through that period of history and flat out lies about what the Nazi party did while in control of the nation it most certainly is considered a threat. For them its not a freedom of speech thing, its almost treason.

Describing what happened in the Holocaust has no relevancy, and is a clear sign that the person describing it has no real argument for why Holocaust denial should be illegal. "Uh, this stuff happened and it was really bad, so denying it should mean you go to prison for some reason. What even is Human rights."

Will you call the police if I say Mao didn't do anything? Or how about Stalin? Oh that's right, people only care about getting offended over the Holocaust, everything else doesn't matter.

[Alvecia]

70 years ago Germany's government killed 6 million plus undesirables in a very real very terrible violation of human rights. The evidence is fucking everywhere in their country even too today. When somebody stands up, especially someone who was old enough to live through that period of history and flat out lies about what the Nazi party did while in control of the nation it most certainly is considered a threat. For them its not a freedom of speech thing, its almost treason.

!1 million, even, but that just supports your point further.

This confused the shit out of me until I looked at my keyboard to see where the ! key was

[ImperialistSalvia]

If I lived in Germanistan, I'd be tempted to deny the Holocaust just to make a statement ;D

[Fordorsia]

If I lived in Germanistan, I'd be tempted to deny the Holocaust just to make a statement ;D

That statement being hurt feelings have no place in the justice system, which is what this is all about. People want her to say "Okay fine, I believe it happened", even though no one would actually believe her, but they would no longer be offended, if they were ever genuinely offended in the first place. Arresting her is just PR.