Holocaust Denial vs Free Speech in Germany

I'm concerned about the free speech implications of pro-Israel and pro-Jewish policies in Germany, particularly regarding Holocaust denial being illegal. While I disagree with such views, banning them pushes people further into fringe circles where they can't be reasoned with. I believe it's better to allow these ideas to be expressed openly so they can be addressed and countered. How do you feel about this kind of legislation?

------

Quillette is an Australian-based online magazine that focuses on long-form analysis and cultural commentary. It is politically non-partisan, but relies on reason, science, and humanism as its guiding values.

Quillette was founded in 2015 by Australian writer Claire Lehmann. It is a platform for free thought and a space for open discussion and debate on a wide range of topics, including politics, culture, science, and technology.

Quillette has gained attention for publishing articles and essays that challenge modern heterodoxy on a variety of topics, including gender and sexuality, race and identity politics, and free speech and censorship.

---

Quillette's revenue comes from our readers. We are a grassroots organisation that relies on voluntary subscriptions and community membership as our primary revenue stream.

[tmjtpyd]

When you go read the ADL's list of hate words/phrases/coded insinuations, whatever you want to call them, the list is endless. The breadth of things that are considered dangerous/hateful is ridiculous. It undermines their mission completely. You have to let people say the wild things in their hearts, and when you try to stop them you give credence to positions that don't necessarily deserve it. I think that allowing that old party to exist in Germany would be the most effective way of stopping it, ironically.

[angelmartin]

She has the most beautiful speaking voice I've ever heard and I have tried to find every narration she's done on this channel to save to an ASMR Playlist, lol. Her voice calmed me down while waiting in the ER for hours the other night . Voice of an angel. No background music required.

[dakota-sessions]

Anyone who calls it "denial" instead of "revisionism" is wrapped up in the emotional idea that there are things you should not look into due to pure fear.

[jeffguy]

All societies have restrictions on free speech. Defamation laws are the best example of such a restriction. Denying the Holocaust is a variety of defamation save that it's directed against an entire race of people, rather than an individual. Given German complicity in the murder of millions of Jews I can well accept that this law prohibiting Holocaust denial should be enforced in Germany for some time yet.

[bit]

It is true you can ban speech, but you cannot control what people think. Still, banning Holocaust denial keeps those people from spreading their lies at least to some extent. It is kind of like with illegal drugs. Banning heroin won't prevent addicts from getting it and does boost the black market and crime, but offering it at supermarkets at a low price to everyone doesn't seem like a good idea either.

[fraserct]

Hate speach laws & other sensoring are always a problem as 'hate', 'beyond the pale', etc are always subjective & these terms are very open to abuse - eg. to try to sensor someone you merely disagree with.

But, Hollocaust Denial is surely a rare exception to this - it is not subjective because it's a proven genocide. A good example of the high level of objective fact any hate speach law should require.

[ArnoldTohtFan]

You will have a meltdown when you discover the scholarship of Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Joyce, Thomas Dalton, Edmund Connolly, Tobias Langdon, Brenton Sanderson and Thomas Goodrich. If this literature ever became public knowledge, it would induce the sociopolitical equivalent of Krakatoa.

[guidobolke]

There is no reasoning with people that make fun of the holocaust, that are deriding the victims and glorifying the perpetrators. It's not that anybody could convince them that they are wrong. I don't care how they ended up in these circles and what i could have done to prevent that. It's their choice. Freedom has consequence. I just want them gone or at least surpressed. Is there a right to Indecency? I don't think so. I don't want this in my country. Other suibjects we can discuss.

[TheVeganVicar]

freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.

Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.

So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior – again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).

[johnd]

Blatant lies which provoke hatred towards a group of people or race should be banned

[johnl]

Europe has never had freedom of expression