I stand corrected by ddt for my rather loose usage, having written a couple of times about laws against hate speech and Holocaust denial, as the relevant German legislation indeed doesn't specifically mention Holocaust denial (and certainly, as ddt pointed out, not historical debate and rethinking either). As I am sure you can guess, arguing that the Holocaust--that is, a genocide of Europe's Jews carried out by the National Socialist government--did not occur is the commonly understood meaning of Holocaust denial, not your contrivance.
Here are the relevant sections of the German legislation, copied from Wikipedia: Now, there is a lot in this law that I find very troubling, but a provision for arresting and imprisoning people who hold and state varying viewpoints on the Holocaust is not one of them, as I can't find this provision in the law. Indeed, in Germany, very sharp debates have taken place, and continue, about the way in which the mass murder of Jews, and others, was planned and carried out, how and when and by whom key decisions were made, the nature of the National Socialist government, the roles of various groups in Germany and occupied countries, etc.
My opinion of the law aside, given its contents and your statement that ddt's post is his strawman, I am having difficulty following your thinking about the relationship (as noted previously) of laws like the German law, as you introduced such legislation, to the question of the occurrence of the Holocaust. Please explain what the thinking is behind your posting the following? What did you mean, if not Holocaust revisionism, commonly called denial, by your phrase invoking disagreement with "the generally accepted narrartive"? One revisionist here, Clayton Moore, has noted that he believes that these laws were directed at circumscribing discussion of a historical topic. Is that how you understand them? Why was the legislation passed and what was its aim?
