should Holocaust denial be illegal in britain

[burmballgeetar]

The wrench in the cog with freedom of speech or expression is that it can't exclude stupidity. Here in the US, we have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean that there is freedom from consequences.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

 

[Meed]

The wrench in the cog with freedom of speech or expression is that it can't exclude stupidity.

That isn't a wrench in the machine, it's simply how free speech works. Nobody out there is saying "I want to ban smart, reasonable speech that I like!" Therefore, to be in favor of free speech means to be in favor of freedom, specifically, for speech that one finds stupid/despicable.

Here in the US, we have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean that there is freedom from consequences.

It does mean freedom from (certain) consequences. If it didn't mean freedom from certain types of consequences then it wouldn't mean anything.

 

[Craig B]

That isn't a wrench in the machine, it's simply how free speech works. Nobody out there is saying "I want to ban smart, reasonable speech that I like!" Therefore, to be in favor of free speech means to be in favor of freedom, specifically, for speech that one finds stupid/despicable.

The traditional view of the Roman Catholic Church was expressed by Pius XII in this way.

Public worship of false religions may be, in cases, tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil, but, in essence, it may be repressed even by force if necessary. But the right to tolerance is a contradiction, because, as is evident even from the term, whatever is tolerated is never a good thing, rather, it is always a purely bad thing. In the social life of nations, error may be tolerated as a reality, but never allowed as a right. Error “has no right to exist objectively nor to propaganda, nor action”

(Pius XII Speech Ci Riesce 1953).

The development of freedom of expression in the last decades has consisted in breaking free of that horrible principle and stating by contrast that "only the things that are believed to be errors are the things that require rights". Rosa Luxemburg expressed the idea well, and with prophetic anxiety, in her famous comment on the Russian Revolution

Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden.
Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.

Die russische Revolution. Eine kritische Würdigung (1920) p. 109.

 

[burmballgeetar]

No, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It means freedom from legal consequences.

For example, let's say a white dude goes to a club and feels like shouting the n-bomb. He is free to do so. The consequence is that he is labeled a racist and possibly gets his tail whipped.

Also, you're absolutely right that not excluding stupid speech is how freedom of speech works. It is a wrench in the cogs because then ignorant people are free to speak ignorant things. It's how ignorant ideas spread. Unfortunately, the prevalence of stupidity ensures that this will continue.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

 

[Craig B]

No, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It means freedom from legal consequences.

For example, let's say a white dude goes to a club and feels like shouting the n-bomb. He is free to do so.

Is he? I think there would be a good case for arresting him for incitement to violence, disturbance of the peace, or similar offences. It has been pointed out here several times that freedom of speech does not entail freedom to engage in acts designed, or likely, to cause disorder.

If a person wants to publish holocaust denial in a newspaper, I don't think that should be punished. But if a gentile dude goes into a synagogue during a service and shouts this denial while using disparaging epithets about Jews, that is not a reasonable exercise of freedom of speech; and the perpetrator should be arrested and punished. There should be "legal consequences", and whatever chastisement he might receive at the hands of those he has insulted should not be the only sanction.

 

[Meed]

It does mean freedom from (certain) consequences. If it didn't mean freedom from certain types of consequences then it wouldn't mean anything.

No, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It means freedom from legal consequences.

"Legal consequences" falls under "certain"/"certain types". While I don't agree with you that legal consequences are the only types of consequences relevant to free expression, our posts are not in contradiction to one another.

I was just throwing that out there because I think "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is a mantra that gets thrown around way too often these days. The thing is, virtually everyone believes that freedom of speech means freedom from certain consequences (e.g. legal consequences) and virtually no one believe freedom of speech means freedom from all consequences (e.g. your friend making a disgusted face). Thus, the phrase is rendered rather meaningless.

Also, you're absolutely right that not excluding stupid speech is how freedom of speech works. It is a wrench in the cogs because then ignorant people are free to speak ignorant things. It's how ignorant ideas spread. Unfortunately, the prevalence of stupidity ensures that this will continue.

Indeed, the spread of ignorant ideas is a huge problem. I think we're mostly in agreement.

 

[burmballgeetar]

I guess there's nothing left but to agree to agree

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

 

[jimbob]

If the question is should it be made illegal in the UK, then no.

If the question is should it be made legal in Germany, then I think that is more complex. There was a good reason for the original law, and whilst it isn't ideal, changing it might cause problems. I am not sufficiently familiar with German politics to have an opinion on that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If the question is should it be made illegal in the UK, then no.

If the question is should it be made legal in Germany, then I think that is more complex. There was a good reason for the original law, and whilst it isn't ideal, changing it might cause problems. I am not sufficiently familiar with German politics to have an opinion on that.

Never a good reason to banit, especially in Germany.

 

[Craig B]

Never a good reason to banit, especially in Germany.

I think it might be possible to understand why that was done in Germany, where precautions against a recrudescence of Nazism were thought to be desirable.

 

[jimbob]

Never a good reason to banit, especially in Germany.

I think it might be possible to understand why that was done in Germany, where precautions against a recrudescence of Nazism were thought to be desirable.

Especially as this happened just after WWII, when there was a problem with Nazism.

I don't think anyone is saying it would be a good idea to impose that now, however it mightn't be such a good idea to repeal the law.

 

[angrysoba]

If the question is should it be made illegal in the UK, then no.

If the question is should it be made legal in Germany, then I think that is more complex. There was a good reason for the original law, and whilst it isn't ideal, changing it might cause problems. I am not sufficiently familiar with German politics to have an opinion on that.

It's not only Germany, in fact.

Rational Wiki has a helpful list of countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, as well as a list where it is legal.

Illegal:

Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland have such laws. The Netherlands has no law against genocide denial, but the courts have ruled that such a statement is a form of hate speech.

 

[Craig B]

It's not only Germany, in fact.

Rational Wiki has a helpful list of countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, as well as a list where it is legal.

Yes, but I think recent comments refer to this post.

Never a good reason to banit, especially in Germany.

I think we may understand the case of Germany, even if the reason for the ban may not be as clear in some other countries.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, but I think recent comments refer to this post. I think we may understand the case of Germany, even if the reason for the ban may not be as clear in some other countries.

Some of the other countries such as Austria, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, France etc... have a certain problematic history when it comes to the Holocaust and their own roles in it.

But I agree that can understand in these cases why the laws are there.

 

[Craig B]

Some of the other countries such as Austria, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, France etc... have a certain problematic history when it comes to the Holocaust and their own roles in it.

Yes but in each and every case the mass murders happened because Nazi Germany had occupied or annexed the countries you enumerate, and in the absence of that occupation it is inconceivable that anything resembling the Holocaust would have happened in these places, albeit that antisemitism was common there.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes but in each and every case the mass murders happened because Nazi Germany had occupied or annexed the countries you enumerate, and in the absence of that occupation it is inconceivable that anything resembling the Holocaust would have happened in these places, albeit that antisemitism was common there.

That maybe so in most cases (Hungary was not annexed), but it is still understandable in their cases that Holocaust denial is illegal just as it is understandable in Germany's case given that the perpetrators and participants of war crimes cannot be exculpated on the grounds that the Nazis made them do it.

 

[MCel58]

That maybe so in most cases (Hungary was not annexed), but it is still understandable in their cases that Holocaust denial is illegal just as it is understandable in Germany's case given that the perpetrators and participants of war crimes cannot be exculpated on the grounds that the Nazis made them do it.

Yes, I spent some time recently at a holocaust museum in Belgium and was quite overwhelmed by the stories of how certain Belgian officials had used the nazi occupation to justify their own anti-semitism and how quickly many countries in Europe had rushed to comply with the nazi regime in this regard whilst resisting many other things. So I can understand why many of these countries have this law.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Honestly people, I see the reasons cited here as the post war environment is Germany using an excuse to engage in equally reprehensible behavior. It was a completely unjustified, immoral decision at that time.

 

[Craig B]

Honestly people, I see the reasons cited here as the post war environment is Germany using an excuse to engage in equally reprehensible behavior. It was a completely unjustified, immoral decision at that time.

Equally reprehensible behaviour? Equal to what?

 

[Craig B]

That maybe so in most cases (Hungary was not annexed), but it is still understandable in their cases that Holocaust denial is illegal just as it is understandable in Germany's case given that the perpetrators and participants of war crimes cannot be exculpated on the grounds that the Nazis made them do it.

I said occupied or annexed. Austria was annexed. Hungary was at first an allied power, and during that time Hungarian Jews were oppressed, but not subjected to mass murder. In 1944 Germany occupied Hungary, and the genocide started there at once. Hungary is a perfect example to illustrate my point.

The same applies to Italy, of which most was occupied in 1943, after the Italian government defected from its alliance with Germany. Jews were rounded up and murdered immediately. Up to that time they had been oppressed, but not murdered on a large scale.