Should questioning the holocaust be legal in Germany?

[Tarfeather]

I see a lot of liberals get very upset when it comes to freedom of speech issues, for instance when it comes to mocking Islam etc. They claim we should always be on the side of free speech, on a matter of principle. However, if we apply this in general, this would mean that questioning or denying the holocaust should also be legal, on principle.

Opinions?

[Yatogami]

People should be allowed so say what they want. No matter how much fractured ass there will be. Mlk and womans sufferage was once considered offensive by the majority. The freedom of speech allowed for that to change. Sure you gotta hear stuff you do not like. But that is a small price to pay. People should also be able to question everything. That is standard logic and allows for new ideas and new discoveries. History is not set in stone. We make new discoveries about old history all the time. Limiting the ability to review stuff is disastrous and opressive.

[sophy38]

If it's freedom, you can question every thing. If there is a answer, you'll listen to the answer.

But mocking something in the name of freedom is unacceptable. Mocking means that you don't want an answer, you want to humiliate others and it's not the meaning of freedom.

[tali.lynn]

Legal, sure. You can't arrest someone for being wrong.

My concern would be at the point where those who believe that begin preaching or teaching it to others. Our history books already ignore, misrepresent and explain away so many atrocities from the past, and I do think it should be illegal to teach (at least in most settings) the viewpoint that the Holocaust didn't happen.

[ThaHoward]

Of course it should be legal to present your own viewpoints - no matter how deluded they are.

[Yatogami]

If it's freedom, you can question every thing. If there is a answer, you'll listen to the answer.

But mocking something in the name of freedom is unacceptable. Mocking means that you don't want an answer, you want to humiliate others and it's not the meaning of freedom.

How do you prove who is mocking and or if they legit believe what they say?

[Zerο]

Unless you're outright instigating hate crimes or violence, my approach to any subject has always been you can say whatever you want, but I don't need to:

1) respect you

2) humor your views

3) be forced to listen

[sophy38]

How do you prove who is mocking and or if they legit believe what they say?

It's difficult to prove it and that's why the real freedom is a myth. The politicians who claim they defend speech freedom, know that it's just a show. There is no real freedom. The illegality of questioning Holocaust is one of the examples.

[Yatogami]

How do you prove who is mocking and or if they legit believe what they say?

It's difficult to prove it and that's why the real freedom is a myth. The politicians who claim they defend speech freedom, know that it's just a show. There is no real freedom. The illegality of questioning Holocaust is one of the examples.

Doesnt matter if its real or not. As long as the option remains. And I thought I was nihilistic. This is why America is better at freedom.

[ThaHoward]

Better at freedom how and compared to who?

[Yatogami]

Better at freedom how and compared to who?

A lot of European countires are stuffing out freedom of speech atm. Lableing it as "hate speech". No one is even allowed to joke about it lest they be branded bigots and racists. They arrested a guy in scottland for teaching his pug to seig heil as a joke to annoy his girlfriend. The man himself was a liberal. Give an inch and theyll take a foot.

[ThaHoward]

You certainly seem to know every law om Europe.. Ironically this whole tumblerism seem to only be a problem in Anglo-Saxon countries. And again the social stigma, in both sides, in US seem much worse than here :p

[Sally]

name="Tarfeather" post="1061758544" timestamp="1463492666"]

I see a lot of liberals get very upset when it comes to freedom of speech issues, for instance when it comes to mocking Islam etc. They claim we should always be on the side of free speech, on a matter of principle. However, if we apply this in general, this would mean that questioning or denying the holocaust should also be legal, on principle.

Opinions?

There's a big difference between mocking something that everyone agrees exists (Islam) and "teaching" (as someone above termed it) that the Holocaust may not have existed. They're both contemptible but while the first can be refuted by most peoples' experience with Muslims, the second is rapidly becoming history because survivors have almost all died, and presenting the Holocaust as possible non-history is dangerous from a justice perspective.

'

And I have no idea why this thread is pointed toward liberals as such -- especially since the German idea of liberals may not coincide with other countries'.

[Guest]

Freedom of speech should have reasonable limits. And yes, that does mean legal limits, and I'm glad to live in a country where the constitution directly allows for such legal limits to be imposed to follow and protect the values delineated in the entirety of the constitution.

I'm definitely not on the side of free speech as an absolute - I have never been, and will never be. It's clear to me that absolute free speech only enables hateful extremism, and leads to a culture of disrespect where I just would not ever want to live. Liberalism should not be confused with primitive anarchy. Not every opinion deserves to be spoken in public.

As for questioning the holocaust... if one could do so neutrally, factually, with providing tangible empirical evidence... I think that should be okay. But I severely doubt how that would be possible, as there's a mountain of horrific evidence that it did happen.

[Tarfeather]

Not every opinion deserves to be spoken in public.

That's just an empty claim. Could you at least try to convince me?

[ThaHoward]

And I am glad I don’t live in a country where even anti-nazi WWII propaganda is banned on youtube. Germany have many great things. Their limit on freedom of speech is not one of them.

[Guest]

Not every opinion deserves to be spoken in public.

That's just an empty claim. Could you at least try to convince me?

Seeing as you admit to not giving much of a damn about the feelings of people who you don't rate as interesting/intelligent enough, I doubt I could convince you. ;)

I just prefer a society where the dignity and honor of people is protected, by law, from being violated by people who can't behave themselves. There is no value in hate speech, and protecting it under a "right to free speech" would make a mockery of the values of the constitution. They're free to rant in the privacy of their home, but yes, I do think people should be held accountable by law for what they say in public whenever it degrades the dignity of other people.

And I am glad I don’t live in a country where even anti-nazi WWII propaganda is banned on youtube. Germany have many great things. Their limit on freedom of speech is not one of them.

I disagree, it's one of the very great things about Germany... and I would not want to live in a place like America, with the way too broad scope of the 1st Amendment. (Just one of the reasons, but it is a big one for me.)

[Tarfeather]

Seeing as you admit to not giving much of a damn about the feelings of people who you don't rate as interesting/intelligent enough, I doubt I could convince you. ;)

And now that's just a false claim about me.

[Guest]

Really? I do seem to remember you describing your stance like that more than once, yourself.

[Tarfeather]

You mean recently?

[Guest]

No, not just recently... but I fear we're starting to derail your thread into a private convo here. Let's not.

[Tarfeather]

Well, I can give you a counter-argument to the free speech thing. It's a simple case differentiation.

Assume the thing said is beyond a doubt false or wrong. Then we can benefit from putting it in public view and exposing it to everyone how wrong it is. As it is without a doubt false or wrong, by definition anyone who has all the data will disagree with it.

Assume the thing said is not beyond a doubt false or wrong. Then we would need an arbiter to decide whether it is wrong or not, and by definition, that arbiter would not be infallible. I would rather risk having false or wrong ideas floating around, than I would be willing to allow "collatoral" censorship of true or good ideas.

[Homer]

I never saw the point in questioning the holocaust being illegal. Such a law won't make people stop questioning anyway. You have to deal with it, one way or the other.

[Sally]

As it is without a doubt false or wrong, by definition anyone who has all the data will disagree with it.

That's not true. Holocaust deniers are not lacking data -- including actual survivors with numbers on their arms.

[LenaLuthor]

No, it should not be illegal. If it is, then that cuts into free speech. Denying the holocaust is pretty God damn stupid though.

Shit, I'm not liberal though. Sorry. I was not very attentive to the thread title and or did not let it sink in.

[Yatogami]

The only people who I seen saying anything against the validity of the Holocaust, simply said it was not as bad as they claimed it to be. Which could very much be true, since things are easily exaggerated. WWII was fought with so much propaganda, some of the truth was lost.

Freedom of speech should have reasonable limits. And yes, that does mean legal limits, and I'm glad to live in a country where the constitution directly allows for such legal limits to be imposed to follow and protect the values delineated in the entirety of the constitution.

I'm definitely not on the side of free speech as an absolute - I have never been, and will never be. It's clear to me that absolute free speech only enables hateful extremism, and leads to a culture of disrespect where I just would not ever want to live. Liberalism should not be confused with primitive anarchy. Not every opinion deserves to be spoken in public.

As for questioning the holocaust... if one could do so neutrally, factually, with providing tangible empirical evidence... I think that should be okay. But I severely doubt how that would be possible, as there's a mountain of horrific evidence that it did happen.

Um, how will you separate extremism from the legitimate stuff? You cannot make laws based on opinions. Times change, and so do opinions. Your law must be timeless, and protecting the simple notion of freedom to say as you want is the simplest and most effective way to do it. Making laws simply because you don't like something makes you an oppressor.

[m4rble]

I don't think publicly denying the holocaust should be illegal anywhere. If we put limits on other people's freedom of speech, what's to stop them from turning around and limiting ours using the similar reasoning?

[Sally]

The only people who I seen saying anything against the validity of the Holocaust, simply said it was not as bad as they claimed it to be. Which could very much be true, since things are easily exaggerated. WWII was fought with so much propaganda, some of the truth was lost.

Why don't you read a bit more about it, because what you said above is really stupid.

[m4rble]

Not every opinion deserves to be spoken in public.

That's just an empty claim. Could you at least try to convince me?

Seeing as you admit to not giving much of a damn about the feelings of people who you don't rate as interesting/intelligent enough, I doubt I could convince you. ;)

I just prefer a society where the dignity and honor of people is protected, by law, from being violated by people who can't behave themselves. There is no value in hate speech, and protecting it under a "right to free speech" would make a mockery of the values of the constitution. They're free to rant in the privacy of their home, but yes, I do think people should be held accountable by law for what they say in public whenever it degrades the dignity of other people.

Why do you view words as the only things capable of degrading the dignity of people? Other people might see refusing services based on sexual orientation as degrading the dignity of people. Where do we draw the line here? This allowance of public censorship seems unnecessary and risky.

[Yatogami]

The only people who I seen saying anything against the validity of the Holocaust, simply said it was not as bad as they claimed it to be. Which could very much be true, since things are easily exaggerated. WWII was fought with so much propaganda, some of the truth was lost.

Why don't you read a bit more about it, because what you said above is really stupid.

Yeah, straight for the ad hominems. Great way to debate. You didn't even try to debunk what I said.