I understand your views but holocaust denial has no factual basis for its claims. Once Treblinka II underwent a forensic investigation in 2014 and the evidence was set out, holocaust denial became pure fantasy.

I don't think people should be denied the right to buy horoscopes, either, however horoscopes have a specific disclaimer......Horoscopes are for entertainment purposes only.

It would seem that holocaust denial at a minimum should come with a disclaimer that it is not based on fact. Considering that holocaust denial generates revenue from the sale of pamphlets and cult membership fees, it also attracts consumer law violations with propaganda being not fit for purpose and so on. :)

Exactly. There will be more than one reason why Amazon took down all books and materials promoting this vile viewpoint.

I don't want to get off topic here, but there is a good argument against that


However, this is really a topic that deserves its own thread.

I am rather dicey about the idea of Governments arbitrating what is Historical truth. Stalin's Russia and Maoist China and so many others have gone down that road.

True....but it wasn't the government that did it. It was a forensic archaeological investigation by Staffordshire University and other universities across the planet.

I can't sell you poisonous arsenic with a label "good for colds!" because of government regulations, however the evidence is not from government, but from peer reviewed science papers from universities.

The sad story of Eric Hunt, a schizophrenic, kidnapping Elie Wiesel, a holocaust victim, based on debunked holocaust denial propaganda, clearly show there is a class of victims to holocaust denial nonsense, published to generate revenue.

How so?

The argument that you used about arsenic is a very old one and one used by regimes like, Stalin's Russia and Maoist China. That bad ideas are like selling poison and the public should be protected from them.

I can list a whole series of ideas that many label has false. Should they be suppressed? Should Creationism be criminalized? It is after all easy to demonstrate that it is utterly false. Many people propagate ideas about history that are false, should that be criminalized?. Well is the government going to decide what is true? I can also give a long list of ideas that have led to people believing them to commit crimes. Again should such ideas be criminalized?

I have absolutely no faith in government criminalizing ideas, even stupid, evil ones. I see little in the history of the world that gives me any faith in it. It, when it is "effective", almost always goes into repression. It is interesting that countries that have have outlawed Holocaust denial have been extremely ineffective in enforcing it. The number of prosecutions remains small and prosecutors are generally fairly reluctant to go ahead.

All to the good in my opinion.

By the way people are free to say arsenic is harmless without fear of going to jail.

The internet has had an incredible effect in making information available, and for a while it was possible to say anything on the internet without fear of censorship.

It started with the usenet groups??? (something like that) as I recall. There were internet discussions groups on many topics that were totally unregulated. If you wanted to discuss a topic, like jazz for example, you went to the jazz usenet group. There were no restrictions.

I remember reading on a usenet group a post claiming that the stone plaque at Auschwitz stating that 4 million had been killed there was taken down in 1990 and replaced by one stating that 1.5 million had been killed there. Then there were a number of replies calling the original poster a Nazi or some such. I thought, that's something that can be checked. And, after a few hours (I don't really remember how long), and thanks to the internet, I was able to determine if the OP was true or false.

Then along came YouTube, and anyone could create a video on any topic whatever, and put it up on youtube where thousands could watch it. Anyone could create a website analyzed any subject whatever and google would find it. The way the algorithms worked, if your vid/website attracted viewers then it was promoted. All that is in the past. The ADL is now censoring YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, Google, reddit, and most of the discussion groups on the internet. What you can see on those platforms is controlled by the ADL. It's quite amazing really.

My video channel was deleted from youtube. My website delisted from google.

So, the internet was pretty much a free market for ideas for a while. Free speech existed and wasn't restricted to how loud you could shout. But no longer.

Not necessarily... post your list!

Nope!

Is it? Lets see you demonstrate it then; it will be something new - no-one, in the whole history of the human race has ever been able to prove it false

Keep in mind also that you are not comparing like things. The Holocaust has been proven conclusively to have happened, whereas Creationism has not been proven false (Google "proving a negative").

Not necessarily; again, post your list

The Government doesn't do that with Holocaust Denial, science does that. Holocaust Denial does real harm to people, those who survived are made to relive it again; the descendants of both survivors and victims have their parents and grandparents called liars for telling about the suffering they endured. My uncle was a soldier among the those who were first to liberate the camps; and it affected him mentally for the rest of his life. To his dying day, hated Germans, and railed against deniers for questioning what he knows he saw with his own eyes. He took photographs too.

No necessarily; again, post your list.

Many countries have managed to make Holocaust Denial a criminal act, some for 30+ years - I've yet to see a down side.

Not if they try to sell it and claim its harmless they don't - and Holocaust Deniers are SELLING the the bile they spread.

Just to see where the ADL wants to go with hate speech laws, check out Ireland's Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act of 1989, which contains the following language: http://www.holohoax101.org/thoughtcontrol/

(1) It shall be an offence for a person—
( a ) to publish or distribute written material,
( b ) to use words, behave or display written material—
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,
or
( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds, if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

If true, then this excellent. I will recommend this to my local MP!

Holocaust denial is not a religion.....however yes, Creationism, if commercial, should, like horoscopes, come with a standard warning it is not based on fact.

In addition, although it is a bit harder to identify a class of victims that can be directly connected to creationism, unlike holocaust denial. I did take care to show Eric Hunt was convicted of a hate felony. :)

....... and universities have peer review to bring all the facts together.

Are you academically disputing Caroline Coll's forensic archaeological investigation of Treblinka II?

You are aren't you. You are simply repeating falsified propaganda knowing it has debunked.

Not for commercial gain. You need to read consumer law. :)

Racism
Marxism
Socialism
Fascism
Atheism
Anarchism
Christianity
Islam
Scientology
Maoism
Stalinist Denialism
Armenian Denialism
Feminism

The list goes on and on.

And many believe that those ideas do real harm and are evil and point to alleged real world "negative" effects.

Is it? Lets see you demonstrate it then; it will be something new - no-one, in the whole history of the human race has ever been able to prove it false

Keep in mind also that you are not comparing like things. The Holocaust has been PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY to have happened, whereas Creationism has not been PROVEN FALSE (Google "proving a negative").[/quote]

Well if we are going to get into philosophical games here. I know damn well you can't in a philosophical sense absolutely prove a negative but for all practical purposes it is done all the time and in that sense Creationism has been proven false. And besides a Holocaust Denier in his or her usual bottom dwelling way will simply respond to this little bit of semantic philosophical game work with - prove that the Holocaust is not a hoax. And of course one can always argue that philosophically nothing can be proven conclusively, beyond all doubt. These sorts of arguments are like jam to Holocaust Deniers.


Mentioned above:

Armenian Genocide Denial. (In Turkey today claiming what happened to the Armenians was genocide is a crime punished by the state.)
Stalinist Denialism (So-called Tankies)

Others

The stab in the Back legend, (lie), in Germany After World War I
That the United States was a largely empty wilderness when Europeans began settling it.
That British Policy caused famines in India.
That the American Civil War was not largely about slavery.
Catholics were never oppressed in Ireland.

I could go on.

All of those beliefs have had in in many respects still have adverse effects on large numbers of people and in many respects are deeply insulting and malicious. Should they be criminalized because of that?

If the government decides that a particular idea is false and stating it is punishable it is deciding what is true. Where the Physicists and others who denied Einstein's Theory of Relativity charged in court for denying the truth. For the rest see below.

Lassiz-faire Capitalism
Marxism
Socialism
Fascism
Liberalism
Conservatism
Anarchism
Maoism
Stalinism
Fascism
Religion
Racism (Should Charles Murray be prosecuted for The Bell Curve?)

I could go on.

Has I said in my post one of the reasons for that is because prosecutions are very rare. Further I have always found it very easy to find and get Holocaust Denial crap. And from people I know who have lived in Germany such material is very easy to get there. So the laws have been ineffective too boot, along with rare enforcement. I have little doubt that rigorous enforcement would lead to places we don't want to go.

Also Prosecutors realize that prosecuting such people tends to make martyrs of them. Not exactly what you want to do.

First they are selling ideas not a 'potion" and in many cases not even selling it, just giving it away. For example is a Holocaust Denier posting on a message board "selling" anything? Secondly many of the ideas I have mentioned have been sold and have had baneful effects.

Liking an idea to a poison is of course exactly what both Stalinists, Maoists etc., have said to justify the suppression of ideas. After all we can't have ideas that cause harm and are "obviously" false floating about. And of course the all wise state will determine that.

Holocaust Deniers utterly disgust me but my personal belief is freedom of speech for me means freedom of speech for speech I utterly despise.

....and some can be already be indictable as felony hate crimes. I've pointed that out twice.

Which part of this do you have a problem with?
Would you feel oppressed by not being able to threaten or abuse people in public? Do you consider it your right to publicly stir up hatred against people?

The internet has indeed had a tremendous democratising effect on data, facts and information. It has, as an unfortunate corollary, allowed the unfettered and unchallenged spread of lies and misinformation. It is extremely difficult to tell the two apart at times, particularly if the latter is framed with snappy catchphrases, cherrypicked data, and easy to digest memes that appeal to the conformation bias culture of the credulous and gullible.

If you want youtube to show your videos try sticking to their terms and conditions. It's a commercial entity, not a public library. Google delisting your site has not prevented it from existing. You are free to post whatever deluded nonsense takes your fancy, but no-one is obliged to do your muckspreading for you.

As Cosmic Yak said, your problem with this is?

It's almost like you don't know about some things which happened on the island of Ireland during the 20th century which might have some bearing on why an Irish government might want such a statute...

Criticising Mohammed and Islam would most certainly stir up hatred. Is it therefore illegal under this doctrine to piss off the muslims, but not the quakers?

Ask the Irish government...

But you agree that it should?

Given the vile and offensive lies you promulgated on them, I'm not surprise to see them do that (and really pleased they have). They should do it more, to others who spread pro-Nazi & Holocaust denial lies.

You can jump up and down about your free speech rights being curtailed, but the facts are that they haven't, and no such thing has happened to you. Google and YouTube are private media companies, they are not restricted by 1A because they are not the US government.

Excellent: Another way to look at this is to ask Saggy if he thinks he has to accept Israelis putting stickers on his personal vehicle?

I brake for Hassidics

Honk if you love Netanyahu

Hitler was a loser

How so?

What is your point here?
You appear to be arguing that, because of the sometimes hostile and violent reactions of some Muslims to some criticisms of their religion, that all criticism of all creeds should be outlawed.
I'm hoping I've misread or misunderstood your point.
Have I?

You have. I'm on the side of free speech and open discussion and completely opposed to "hate speech" laws, especially because of the selective enforcement of those laws. I don't trust any government in history to determine what is truth and what is hatred.

I once heard a German politician say something along the lines of "Of course we have free speech in this country but that doesn't mean you have the right to hurt people's deeply-held religious feelings."

That sounds so reasonable to a lot of people today, especially Europeans, but it's clear to me that anybody who would say that or agree with it does not understand free speech.

The problem is that whatever you say there almost always will be someone who takes offence.

On the other hand, no right can be absolute, at some point it will intersect with other people's rights.

So the trick is to find a fair and practical ballance.

Because the last time full free speech was allowed in Europe it led to some unpleasantness, so yes there are some limits on it now.
Criticizing Muslims is actually still allowed. Calling for all Muslims to be killed is not.

The interesting bit is that the OP's favorite person in the world was not exactly an advocate for free speech. In fact, the moment he got power he forbade free speech for everyone except those that agreed with him.

Nobody in power really likes free speech even if they pay it lip service. That's something to guard against when the "right" people who agree with you get to be in charge.

Holocaust denial is the clear expression of an idea. No government who bans the expression of that idea can have the moral high ground over a government that would ban acknowledging that it really happened (cf Turkey today with regards to the Armenian genocide).

And when Martin Luther was allowed to criticise the Catholic Church of his day for its excesses, it led to the Reformation and eventually to one of the bloodiest wars in history, the 30-year war.

Argument from consequences is a non-starter with me.

That was the John Larrouquette Show. Hard to find most episodes; many have been removed from YouTube and no DVD or VHS set exists, IMHO. Too bad; it had its moments.

Given the propensity of people not to play nice and to abuse the freedoms they get in this area, I don't have too much of a problem with a law like that.

If/when most folk display enough maturity and don't abuse those freedoms I might feel differently. I spent far too much work time picking up the pieces after some people had "free speeched" at others and bullied them into suicide attempts to believe we are there yet.

(I still remember being an interested spectator in the British university "No platform for fascists!" squabbles of the late '70s and how utterly futile much of that was.)

The government might rely on science or even some other branch of knowledge to guide it. But it’s the government that is restricting people from saying things about the Holocaust that is false.

Denying an event somebody experienced doesn’t cause them to relive that event. Being reminded of the event, being asked to talk about the event, or anything that triggers a memory of that event can cause a person to relive it.

Being called a liar is insulting. But potentially hurting people’s feelings isn’t a good example of something that causes “real harm” to either the individual or society at large.

It sounds like the Holocaust is what causes hate. Maybe we should make it illegal to teach in schools. Not only would it stop people from hating but survivors wouldn’t be forced to relive the event.

This,This,This.

Slight problem. Its not true. You can go to gaol for exactly doing that. It's called consumer protection law.

I don't get this. "Argument from consequences" is a logical fallacy (if A were true then bad things would happen, therefore A is false), but not a fallacy with regards to good/bad or right/wrong. As an example, why should drunk driving be illegal, if the lawmakers aren't allowed to consider the possible consequences of drunk driving?

Non sequitur. You're comparing free speech with physical acts.

In many cases, physical acts are classed as speech, e.g. protesting, demonstrating and cross-burning, banana hanging and graffiti.

If you don't like the drunk driving example, then in your bizzarro world where all speech is absolute and free of consequences, would lawmakers be allowed to consider the possible consequences someone giving step-by-step instructions on how to turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic machine gun, or how to make a car-bomb and plant it so that it kills the maximum number of people?

Strawman. Read back what I wrote earlier in this discussion: I already said I didn't support direct incitement and even listed examples of the difference between free speech and incitement. I said the US supreme court pretty much had it right with the narrow exceptions.

I said I supported the free exchange and promulgation of ideas, and that governments had no place judging the veracity or desirability of those ideas.

So you are OK with arguments from consequences. Glad we got that straightened out ;)