87 YO grandma arrested for 'holocaust denial'

[SaintB]

It's been explained umpteen times by people in better positions to explain it than me. I have more constructive things to do than humor this any further. Things like pick my nose.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The more I see the more convinced I am that 70+ million people all died for nothing.

The more I see this, the more I realise that people are forgetting the value of free speech.

More like antisemitism-enablement.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

It's been explained umpteen times by people in better positions to explain it than me. I have more constructive things to do than humor this any further. Things like pick my nose.

I will take that as you conceding the argument, good day sir. Unless you would want to quote these people, if not I'll take it as conceding.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

The more I see this, the more I realise that people are forgetting the value of free speech.

More like antisemitism-enablement.

More like the start of tyranny and government control of what people can think and say.

[Minzerland II]

It's been explained umpteen times by people in better positions to explain it than me. I have more constructive things to do than humor this any further. Things like pick my nose.

So its the same thing as making a false bomb threat in America. Its not protected speech.

That is a false equivalence, holocaust Denial is in no way comparable to false bomb threats. Also, I don't so much care whether it isn't protected speech, almost all speech to me is protected including holocaust denial.

EDIT: In addition, why should I follow this law?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

More like antisemitism-enablement.

More like the start of tyranny and government control of what people can think and say.

Your "opinion" is hilarious considering that Germany hasn't gone to the Fourth Reich despite ardent attempts lately for 71 years.

[Minzerland II]

More like the start of tyranny and government control of what people can think and say.

Your "opinion" is hilarious considering that Germany hasn't gone to the Fourth Reich despite ardent attempts lately for 71 years.

I didn't know anything not being the '4th Reich' isn't tyranny?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

More like the start of tyranny and government control of what people can think and say.

Your "opinion" is hilarious considering that Germany hasn't gone to the Fourth Reich despite ardent attempts lately for 71 years.

And your attempt at stifling the opinions of others and your support for enforcing laws that punish others for being factually incorrect is hilarious.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Your "opinion" is hilarious considering that Germany hasn't gone to the Fourth Reich despite ardent attempts lately for 71 years.

And your attempt at stifling the opinions of others and your support for enforcing laws that punish others for being factually incorrect is hilarious.

Are we really descending into childish tit-for-tat here?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

And your attempt at stifling the opinions of others and your support for enforcing laws that punish others for being factually incorrect is hilarious.

Are we really descending into childish tit-for-tat here?

Childish tit-for-tat that you are responsible for creating.
Maybe if you had something more productive to contribute then maybe the conversation might not devolved to this stage.

[Novus America]

The more I see this, the more I realise that people are forgetting the value of free speech.

More like antisemitism-enablement.

People have a right to be antiSemitic. We should do what we can to discourage it through education, rather than counterproductive coercive measures that give Nazus grounds to claim persecution and thus raise their status. In countries without such a ban, Holocaust denial is rarely a topic. Almost Nobody listens to the idiots spewing it. But once you arrest them for it you make it a big deal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[The Greater Aryan Race]

More like antisemitism-enablement.

More like the start of tyranny and government control of what people can think and say.

Except that there is no evidence of such "tyranny" taking place now, or in the conceivable future.

Besides, when has the government ever not "controlled" what people can think and say? The United States does it, Britain does it, many major European states do it, China and Russia do it, Japan does it. Virtually every nation has laws regulating the speech and dissemination of opinions by their respective citizens. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Of course not, though the potential for abuse remains.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

More like the start of tyranny and government control of what people can think and say.

Except that there is no evidence of such "tyranny" taking place now, or in the conceivable future.

Besides, when has the government ever not "controlled" what people can think and say? The United States does it, Britain does it, many major European states do it, China and Russia do it, Japan does it. Virtually every nation has laws regulating the speech and dissemination of opinions by their respective citizens. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Of course not, though the potential for abuse remains.

Except the incarceration of a person based on factually incorrect opinion is tyranny.
In all the nations that you have listed, people can easily go onto the Internet and collect information from anywhere in the world, those countries all lets you say whatever you like as long as it isn't inciting violence, encourage violence or threatening and intimidation, except for China and possibly Russia (Russia I haven't kept up with.)

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Except the incarceration of a person based on factually incorrect opinion is tyranny.

Is it tyranny to incarcerate people who deliberately choose to buy into a factually distorted view of history, who deliberately disseminate a factually false version of historical events, the only goal being to legitimise historically barbaric events?

I think not, otherwise governments worldwide should automatically release all terrorist suspects, all individuals convicted of hate speech, genocide denial, of preaching radical and extremist doctrines and racist activity from detention and imprisonment immediately. There is no legitimate excuse for being factually incorrect about events such as these and the only reason why these neo-Nazis and their ilk continue to peddle such falsehoods is because they seek nothing less than to marginalise the gravity of the Holocaust.

In all the nations that you have listed, people can easily go onto the Internet and collect information from anywhere in the world, those countries all lets you say whatever you like as long as it isn't inciting violence, encourage violence or threatening and intimidation, except for China and possibly Russia (Russia I haven't kept up with.)

That doesn't change my point. Governments worldwide censure and monitor what their citizens browse on the Internet, is that not regulating and controlling free speech?

[Sanctissima]

Except the incarceration of a person based on factually incorrect opinion is tyranny.

Is it tyranny to incarcerate people who deliberately choose to buy into a factually distorted view of history, who deliberately disseminate a factually false version of historical events, the only goal being to legitimise historically barbaric events?

I think not, otherwise governments worldwide should automatically release all terrorist suspects, all individuals convicted of hate speech, genocide denial, of preaching radical and extremist doctrines and racist activity from detention and imprisonment immediately. There is no legitimate excuse for being factually incorrect about events such as these and the only reason why these neo-Nazis and their ilk continue to peddle such falsehoods is because they seek nothing less than to marginalise the gravity of the Holocaust.

In all the nations that you have listed, people can easily go onto the Internet and collect information from anywhere in the world, those countries all lets you say whatever you like as long as it isn't inciting violence, encourage violence or threatening and intimidation, except for China and possibly Russia (Russia I haven't kept up with.)

That doesn't change my point. Governments worldwide censure and monitor what their citizens browse on the Internet, is that not regulating and controlling free speech?

There's quite a few Jewish groups that exist for the sole purpose of denying Israeli human rights abuses in both the Gaza Strip and Palestine, should we incarcerate them too?

There's a difference between incarcerating people for talking out of their ass, and incarcerating them for advocating or trying to organize violence against specific groups. The latter is justified, but the former is just feel-good nonsense. People have a right to be willfully wrong, whether that's denying the occurrence of a genocide or favouring one theocratic polity in the Middle-East over another.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Except the incarceration of a person based on factually incorrect opinion is tyranny.

Is it tyranny to incarcerate people who deliberately choose to buy into a factually distorted view of history, who deliberately disseminate a factually false version of historical events, the only goal being to legitimise historically barbaric events?

I think not, otherwise governments worldwide should automatically release all terrorist suspects, all individuals convicted of hate speech, genocide denial, of preaching radical and extremist doctrines and racist activity from detention and imprisonment immediately. There is no legitimate excuse for being factually incorrect about events such as these and the only reason why these neo-Nazis and their ilk continue to peddle such falsehoods is because they seek nothing less than to marginalise the gravity of the Holocaust.

In all the nations that you have listed, people can easily go onto the Internet and collect information from anywhere in the world, those countries all lets you say whatever you like as long as it isn't inciting violence, encourage violence or threatening and intimidation, except for China and possibly Russia (Russia I haven't kept up with.)

That doesn't change my point. Governments worldwide censure and monitor what their citizens browse on the Internet, is that not regulating and controlling free speech?

Firstly, yes it is tyranny, your inprisoning someone for simply being in denial of a historical fact, perhaps you would like to incarcerate people that enforce racist stereotypes, seeing as stereotypes lead to racism and that could lead to a multitude of violent reactions on the part of the person who believed it.

Secondly, I stated what wasn't protected by freedom of speech, things I've being: Incitement of violence, Encouragement of Violence, intimidation and threats, all of the types of people that you listed that would go free commit one the things I have listed.

Lastly, yes it is censorship, something of which that would be easily picked up on, a government censoring certain information in today's society would not go unnoticed.

[Risottia]

Except the incarceration of a person based on factually incorrect opinion is tyranny.

Yeah, but that's not what happened in this case, so, what's your point anyway?

Protip: she's not tried for holding an opinion, she's tried for publishing falsehoods whose purpose is rehabilitating the memory of the Nazi regime.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

There's quite a few Jewish groups that exist for the sole purpose of denying Israeli human rights abuses in both the Gaza Strip and Palestine, should we incarcerate them too?

By all means, incarcerate them too.

There's a difference between incarcerating people for talking out of their ass, and incarcerating them for advocating or trying to organize violence against specific groups. The latter is justified, but the former is just feel-good nonsense. People have a right to be willfully wrong, whether that's denying the occurrence of a genocide or favouring one theocratic polity in the Middle-East over another.

Feel-good nonsense? There is a clear, ulterior motive for genocide denial which is to minimise the stigma and moral outrages that we associate with such events. Why should we permit people the right to desecrate the dead?

People may have a right to be wilfully wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so. We incarcerate extremist religious preachers and demagogues because the ideas they disseminate threaten to disrupt communal relations, why should genocide deniers and revisionists be any different?

Firstly, yes it is tyranny, your inprisoning someone for simply being in denial of a historical fact, perhaps you would like to incarcerate people that enforce racist stereotypes, seeing as stereotypes lead to racism and that could lead to a multitude of violent reactions on the part of the person who believed it.

Sure by all means, incarcerate racists and those who perpetuate racial stereotypes.

Secondly, I stated what wasn't protected by freedom of speech, things I've being: Incitement of violence, Encouragement of Violence, intimidation and threats, all of the types of people that you listed that would go free commit one the things I have listed.

Incidentally, as would neo-Nazis. Why should inflammatory and provocative speech be given a free pass?

[Gauthier]

Have to wonder how many decrying Germany's Holocaust denial laws also get up in arms over Turkey denying the Armenian Genocide.

[Sanctissima]

There's quite a few Jewish groups that exist for the sole purpose of denying Israeli human rights abuses in both the Gaza Strip and Palestine, should we incarcerate them too?

By all means, incarcerate them too.

There's a difference between incarcerating people for talking out of their ass, and incarcerating them for advocating or trying to organize violence against specific groups. The latter is justified, but the former is just feel-good nonsense. People have a right to be willfully wrong, whether that's denying the occurrence of a genocide or favouring one theocratic polity in the Middle-East over another.

Feel-good nonsense? There is a clear, ulterior motive for genocide denial which is to minimise the stigma and moral outrages that we associate with such events. Why should we permit people the right to desecrate the dead?

People may have a right to be wilfully wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so. We incarcerate extremist religious preachers and demagogues because the ideas they disseminate threaten to disrupt communal relations, why should genocide deniers and revisionists be any different?

Firstly, yes it is tyranny, your inprisoning someone for simply being in denial of a historical fact, perhaps you would like to incarcerate people that enforce racist stereotypes, seeing as stereotypes lead to racism and that could lead to a multitude of violent reactions on the part of the person who believed it.

Sure by all means, incarcerate racists and those who perpetuate racial stereotypes.

Secondly, I stated what wasn't protected by freedom of speech, things I've being: Incitement of violence, Encouragement of Violence, intimidation and threats, all of the types of people that you listed that would go free commit one the things I have listed.

Incidentally, as would neo-Nazis. Why should inflammatory and provocative speech be given a free pass?

If a country incarcerated every member of its population that denies a genocide or other mass killing, it would face both an economic and demographic crisis, since at least 10% of its population would be behind bars. Do you realize how many racists there are in the world? These laws are not sustainable. All they succeed in doing is fueling the flames of extremism. It's at least partially the reason why the far-right and Neo-Nazism are on the rise in Europe.

You can't incarcerate people for stating their opinions at the same time as claiming liberty as a virtue. The two concepts are mutually exclusive, and when combined they only serve to justify the beliefs of the denialists.

[Tananat]

If the imprisoning of people who deny the Holocaust happened makes you question just whether the Holocaust actually happened, you should probably re-evaluate just whether you can call yourself a person of reason...

[Sanctissima]

If the imprisoning of people who deny the Holocaust happened makes you question just whether the Holocaust actually happened, you should probably re-evaluate just whether you can call yourself a person of reason...

It's not a question of whether or not people who deny the Holocaust are idiots. It's a question of whether or not they deserve to be incarcerated. If your answer to that question is yes, then you essentially believe that it's okay to criminally prosecute people for being wrong.

[Novus America]

Have to wonder how many decrying Germany's Holocaust denial laws also get up in arms over Turkey denying the Armenian Genocide.

I doubt the people complaining about the government of Turkey denying genocide are advocating people getting jailed for it. You have a right to decry what the government of Turkey does too.

Denying the Holocaust is wrong. It is vile. It should not be a crime. We cannot ban content of speech just because we disagree with it. We can use our free speech to harshly crticize it though.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

If a country incarcerated every member of its population that denies a genocide or other mass killing, it would face both an economic and demographic crisis, since at least 10% of its population would be behind bars. Do you realize how many racists there are in the world? These laws are not sustainable.

You exaggerate. The deterrent effect of punishing those who publicly disavow and deny genocides and mass killings is more than sufficient to ensure that the rest of the lot, even if they do not genuinely see the error of their ways and reform, will at least be compelled to hold their tongue. That and of course, extensive educative and public awareness programmes to ensure that people are left in no doubt as to the facts of such historical events.

These laws are perfectly sustainable as long as the politicians are committed enough to see them through.

All they succeed in doing is fueling the flames of extremism. It's at least partially the reason why the far-right and Neo-Nazism are on the rise in Europe.

You exaggerate. The far-right and Neo-Nazis are not on the rise in Europe. They are certainly not gaining traction in countries such as Germany for that matter. And if they are, that is only because the European governments are too frightened of clamping down on these organisations because they don't want to lose votes or because they intend to exploit these organisations for political support and more votes.

You can't incarcerate people for stating their opinions at the same time as claiming liberty as a virtue.

For the record, I've never claimed Liberty as a virtue, just so because I don't want to deal falsely. I make no pretensions that incarcerating such folk and denying them the right to voice their opinions is censorship. The only difference is that we censor people, and rightly so, for deliberately distorting historical facts and using that as a platform to legitimise hateful and extremist ideas, as compared to tyrants and autocrats who suppress their citizens because they wish to retain political power and nothing else. And that makes all the difference.

The two concepts are mutually exclusive, and when combined they only serve to justify the beliefs of the denialists.

The denalist is a person who is already so convinced and steeped in his worldview that no amount of education, coaxing and hectoring will ever change his beliefs. He has been conditioned to view the current Paradigm as being inherently biased against his own actions and beliefs, no matter what the State does. If the State punishes him, he believes himself vindicated by his own conspiracy belief that the State is trying to silence him for challenging the so-called "official consensus". If the State does nothing, he believes himself vindicated all the more so because silence is tantamount to the State conceding that the denialist's claims are correct.

You cannot reason with such people nor hope that they'll play nice by adhering to the rules of the game. That is feel-good nonsense. What you can do is keep them away from society to ensure that they have no space to disseminate their content.

[Herador]

You exaggerate. The deterrent effect of punishing those who publicly disavow and deny genocides and mass killings is more than sufficient to ensure that the rest of the lot, even if they do not genuinely see the error of their ways and reform, will at least be compelled to hold their tongue. That and of course, extensive educative and public awareness programmes to ensure that people are left in no doubt as to the facts of such historical events.

These laws are perfectly sustainable as long as the politicians are committed enough to see them through.

Huh, based on the username I thought this post was gonna go in a whole different direction.