Opinion of Holocaust denial bans?

[lfromnj]

For me its obviously HB as its just a restriction of free speech even if the speech expressed is odious. The question is government only such as Germany and not a ban like by atlas.

[John Dule]

HB; if we're imprisoning those who advocate for abhorrent ideologies that killed millions of people, we can start by locking up all the commies.

[TJ in Oregon]

HB. Free speech is meaningless if it doesn't allow for the ability to make a simple truth claim, even if it is a very stupid one.

And if we allow banning Holocaust denial, why single that out? Should we also ban denying, say, the Armenian Genocide?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Obvious violation of Free Speech so it’s clearly HP.  Europe’s laws that limit free speech are outrageous and should be repealed .

Yes Holocaust Deniers are terrible people as well but the solution to that is not adopting fascist laws and the government has far more potential to be  dangerous to the liberty of an ordinary citizen than a random terrible person does 

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

HB, but that doesn’t mean that anyone who thinks seven million Jews just went on vacation isn’t literally retarded.

[smoltchanov]

HB, but that doesn’t mean that anyone who thinks seven million Jews just went on vacation isn’t literally retarded.

[parochial boy]

Does free speech really cover outright lying though? Holocaust denial isn't an "opinion". It's a straight out factual inaccuracy.

[John Dule]

Does free speech really cover outright lying though?

Yes. Next question.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Does free speech really cover outright lying though? Holocaust denial isn't an "opinion". It's a straight out factual inaccuracy.

This. I realize America has a very strong tradition of extreme free speech that includes allowing nazis to freely march in the streets and incite the murder of billions. That's ok. But it's definitely a freedom ban in countries like Israel, Germany and the rest of Europe.

Does free speech really cover outright lying though?

Yes. Next question.

Slander laws exist in America too, no?

[parochial boy]

Does free speech really cover outright lying though?

Yes. Next question.

Why?

If a newspaper or other source of authority could just present outright lies as fact then that would seem far more consequential for "freedom of speech" than banning the practice, seeing as being informed is a necessary precondition of having liberty.

[FairBol]

Slander laws exist in America too, no?

My two cents; yes, slander/libel laws do exist here.

Legally speaking, any accusation of libel must satisfy two conditions.  First, is the speech expressed inherently false, or can it be regarded as true? Second, if the speech expressed is false, does the expression of such speech cause actual harm to someone's reputation or person?

If the speech is false, and the answer to the second question is yes....boom, there's your slander/libel. 

(Just my non-professional legal opinion, brought to you by "Eagle Consulting And Legal Services", LOL)

[FairBol]

(Just my non-professional legal opinion, brought to you by "Eagle Consulting And Legal Services", LOL)

Ahem....

(ad) For all your legal needs, call us at 800-538-5555! (/ad)

[John Dule]

Does free speech really cover outright lying though?

Yes. Next question.

Slander laws exist in America too, no?

Slander is a very specific case and it requires that a lot of criteria be met. Just as murder is sometimes legal in self-defense, lying is sometimes illegal if it meets the bar for "slander." This is very rare, and it doesn't apply at all to Holocaust denial. Furthermore, there are a lot of legal defenses for slander. Some examples:

1. The statement in question is true.
2. The error was not made knowingly.
3. The person being slandered is deceased.
4. The person committing the slander was simply expressing their own opinion (i.e. the claim is not falsifiable).
5. The person committing the slander had no reason to believe that the statement was defamatory.
6. The statement was not meant to be taken literally (i.e. calling a politician a “motherf**ker” does not mean he actually has an Oedipal complex).
7. The comment was made from a fair (if misinformed) perspective, on a matter of public interest.
8. The suit for defamation was not filed quickly enough (statute of limitations).
9. The statement was not made publicly/had no influence outside of private circles.

Now, let's say my client has been accused of Holocaust denial. Right off the top of my head, here's a few ways I'd apply these to his case:

1. Can't use this one!
2. Plausible. There are some people who honestly dispute certain figures and events regarding the Holocaust either out of conflicting historical records or plain woeful ignorance.
3. In this case, the people being slandered would be the deceased millions who died at Hitler's hands. Also, it's hard to claim slander when it's against such a large group of people, and even harder when the event in question happened so long ago. And this doesn't even really meet the definition of "slander" as "attacking a person's reputation"; rather, it's a criticism of a historical narrative. Whose reputation are you attacking in this instance, exactly? Hitler's, by saying he wasn't as efficient as he claimed to be?
4. I mean, it's not a matter of opinion that the Holocaust happened. But it's also not falsifiable in the same way that claiming the moon landing didn't happen isn't falsifiable. It seems to me that if you're going to ban this type of historical revisionism, you have to lock people up for a lot of things. What happens to 9/11 truthers in this scenario? Does Jill Stein go to prison?
5. I've never heard of such a thing, but I suppose it's entirely possible that there are people out there who deny the Holocaust while harboring no ill will towards the Jewish people. Thus the person in question wouldn't have considered the statement defamatory.
6. Hard to argue, but in the context of a joke it would make sense.
7. We can quibble about what counts as a "fair" perspective, but it's important for everyone-- at least average citizens-- to be able to speak their minds on matters of public interest without fear of violent repercussions.
8. Not really applicable unless I have better context.
9. Again, it would depend on context, but this probably applies to a lot of Holocaust deniers, who (rightfully) withdraw from society due to their reprehensible beliefs.

Overall, the best case is probably #4; I really can't understand how anyone could want to outlaw "lying" about the Holocaust while still permitting "lying" about Rwanda, Bosnia, Mao's Long March, Stalinism, American slavery, the Armenian genocide, or the friggin' Napoleonic Wars. I understand the perspective you're coming from, and I understand that the Holocaust is the undisputed king of all human atrocities... but if you separate it from the rest of this list by making it illegal to even question it, you are implicitly saying that the suffering under the Holocaust matters more than the suffering under those other atrocities. I don't see how that's fair.

On a more philosophical note, I'm wholly on the side of J.S. Mill, who argued that to outlaw debate on a subject is to claim one's own infallibility and to essentially decide the issue for the whole rest of the human race. I don't think anyone should have that kind of power, so I'm against criminalizing Holocaust denial both in practice and in principle.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Does free speech really cover outright lying though? Holocaust denial isn't an "opinion". It's a straight out factual inaccuracy.

This. I realize America has a very strong tradition of extreme free speech that includes allowing nazis to freely march in the streets and incite the murder of billions. That's ok. But it's definitely a freedom ban in countries like Israel, Germany and the rest of Europe.

Does free speech really cover outright lying though?

Yes. Next question.

Slander laws exist in America too, no?

- Governments that ban types of free speech Are the ones which have committed the vast majority of atrocities in history .

- “ Hate Speech” literally can mean anything the government wants to ban . That’s why the US court rules that unless the Speech by someone unless the speech incites imminent lawless action cannot be banned .

- Governments have the power to restrict our liberty far more than some random deplorable person does

- European Free Speech laws would not have prevented WW2 like they claim or prevent the rise of the Nazis . What would have are these things : Not imposed such a harsh treaty on Germany at the end of WW1 which made their economic problems worse than they already were , and Appeasement. The Nazis could have been stopped in 1936 if not for British and French Appeasement.

- Slander is a civil offense not a criminal one

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

FB as long as its restricted to cases where the person ought to have known better (basically, exempt young people from the ban if they have not gotten to the point in high school where it is generally discussed or something like that)

Same ought to go for denial of other genocides as well such as the Armenian Genocide.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

No, because it makes it look like we're trying to hide something.  In reality, this is one of the most well-documented events in history, there's nothing to hide.

[Karpatsky]

If one agrees that the principle of freedom of speech does not cover the 'fire in a crowded theater case', then it follows that there is a reasonable exception to speech which causes public harm. I would argue that speech inciting violence, even if through dog whistles (stochastic terrorism) technically qualifies as such. That said, I think it is far healthier for citizens to take independent action against such people, rather than relying on the government to suppress them, which does in itself set a bad precedent.

[dead0man]

on one hand, a free message board that lets everyone get their opinion out, no matter how stupid, is a good thing.  On the other hand, we don't have that here.  We'd certainly ban people advocating for pedophilia or that there should be another holocaust.  So where to draw the line is the question.  I don't care one way or the other.  I like when dummies advertise, but I've got no problem getting rid of them either.

but it doesn't matter, this is not a "free speech" issue.  This is Dave's house, so we have to play by Dave's rules.  There are many other places on the internet where one can say the Holocaust didn't happen if feel you must.

[Santander]

Generally, I am not supportive of such bans, no matter how wicked Holocaust denial is. Freedom means that we should allow people to say things that are blatantly wrong or offensive, as long as they don't threaten or incite harm to others or the state.

However, I think in places like Germany or Austria, such bans may be necessary.

[lfromnj]

Does free speech really cover outright lying though?

Yes. Next question.

Slander laws exist in America too, no?

Slander is a very specific case and it requires that a lot of criteria be met. Just as murder is sometimes legal in self-defense, lying is sometimes illegal if it meets the bar for "slander." This is very rare, and it doesn't apply at all to Holocaust denial. Furthermore, there are a lot of legal defenses for slander. Some examples:

1. The statement in question is true.
2. The error was not made knowingly.
3. The person being slandered is deceased.
4. The person committing the slander was simply expressing their own opinion (i.e. the claim is not falsifiable).
5. The person committing the slander had no reason to believe that the statement was defamatory.
6. The statement was not meant to be taken literally (i.e. calling a politician a “motherf**ker” does not mean he actually has an Oedipal complex).
7. The comment was made from a fair (if misinformed) perspective, on a matter of public interest.
8. The suit for defamation was not filed quickly enough (statute of limitations).
9. The statement was not made publicly/had no influence outside of private circles.

Now, let's say my client has been accused of Holocaust denial. Right off the top of my head, here's a few ways I'd apply these to his case:

1. Can't use this one!
2. Plausible. There are some people who honestly dispute certain figures and events regarding the Holocaust either out of conflicting historical records or plain woeful ignorance.
3. In this case, the people being slandered would be the deceased millions who died at Hitler's hands. Also, it's hard to claim slander when it's against such a large group of people, and even harder when the event in question happened so long ago. And this doesn't even really meet the definition of "slander" as "attacking a person's reputation"; rather, it's a criticism of a historical narrative. Whose reputation are you attacking in this instance, exactly? Hitler's, by saying he wasn't as efficient as he claimed to be?
4. I mean, it's not a matter of opinion that the Holocaust happened. But it's also not falsifiable in the same way that claiming the moon landing didn't happen isn't falsifiable. It seems to me that if you're going to ban this type of historical revisionism, you have to lock people up for a lot of things. What happens to 9/11 truthers in this scenario? Does Jill Stein go to prison?
5. I've never heard of such a thing, but I suppose it's entirely possible that there are people out there who deny the Holocaust while harboring no ill will towards the Jewish people. Thus the person in question wouldn't have considered the statement defamatory.
6. Hard to argue, but in the context of a joke it would make sense.
7. We can quibble about what counts as a "fair" perspective, but it's important for everyone-- at least average citizens-- to be able to speak their minds on matters of public interest without fear of violent repercussions.
8. Not really applicable unless I have better context.
9. Again, it would depend on context, but this probably applies to a lot of Holocaust deniers, who (rightfully) withdraw from society due to their reprehensible beliefs.

Overall, the best case is probably #4; I really can't understand how anyone could want to outlaw "lying" about the Holocaust while still permitting "lying" about Rwanda, Bosnia, Mao's Long March, Stalinism, American slavery, the Armenian genocide, or the friggin' Napoleonic Wars. I understand the perspective you're coming from, and I understand that the Holocaust is the undisputed king of all human atrocities... but if you separate it from the rest of this list by making it illegal to even question it, you are implicitly saying that the suffering under the Holocaust matters more than the suffering under those other atrocities. I don't see how that's fair.

On a more philosophical note, I'm wholly on the side of J.S. Mill, who argued that to outlaw debate on a subject is to claim one's own infallibility and to essentially decide the issue for the whole rest of the human race. I don't think anyone should have that kind of power, so I'm against criminalizing Holocaust denial both in practice and in principle.

Also slander can only have financial and no criminal penalties. It is very narrow in the us unlike other countries.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By governments, HB.

By private forums or social media companies, FB.

There's zero reason those who want to discuss what is truth should be made to suffer the whines of those who peddle blatant falsehoods.

[S019]

FF, I don't think allowing genocide denial is a good thing

[Goldwater]

on one hand, a free message board that lets everyone get their opinion out, no matter how stupid, is a good thing.  On the other hand, we don't have that here.  We'd certainly ban people advocating for pedophilia or that there should be another holocaust.  So where to draw the line is the question.  I don't care one way or the other.  I like when dummies advertise, but I've got no problem getting rid of them either.

but it doesn't matter, this is not a "free speech" issue.  This is Dave's house, so we have to play by Dave's rules.  There are many other places on the internet where one can say the Holocaust didn't happen if feel you must.

AFAIK, none of the people voting "HP" are making any comment one way or the other about what the ToS here should be. I think most of us interpreted this as being about government policy, at least I know I did.

[HillGoose]

By governments, HB.

By private forums or social media companies, FB.

There's zero reason those who want to discuss what is truth should be made to suffer the whines of those who peddle blatant falsehoods.

[OSR stands with Israel]

By governments, HB.

By private forums or social media companies, FB.

There's zero reason those who want to discuss what is truth should be made to suffer the whines of those who peddle blatant falsehoods.

If you are talking private forums, then definitely FF