MerluFinland to criminalise Holocaust denial
Boomer Humor DoomergodI’m so used to bad news I read that as decriminalize
CoelacanthI fucking love Finland.
Cyrus DraegurFucking GOOD.
Hopefully we’ll also have laws against denying the holocaust israel is inflicting on palestine TOO.
Whoa. That sort of thinking requires nuance. We don’t do that here.
That’s a conflict of interests.
Maybe 50+ years after every palestinian is murdered.
JackGreenEarthI mean, the holocaust definitely happened, was horrific, and people who deny it either deny history happened at all of are conspiracy theorists, but I don’t like the precedent set by the government specifying what opinions are allowed to have - it doesn’t sound like something we should be celebrating, and anyway, banning opinions just drives them underground, if you want to regulate people’s thoughts you have to legalise them.
But it’s not an opinion. It’s a fact. It should be illegal for me to claim I’m disabled when I’m not or that bleach cures autism. Misinformation should be illegal.
Wait…bleach doesn’t cure autism? Should I stop drinking it?
DasusSince you’re asking that on the internet, I should probably say “no”.
The fact you need to (disclaim) that is just… weird… the net was way better in the 90s.
I too enjoyed the internet more before the normies joined.
Although, to be fair, there’s was a lot less of it.
Disinformation is spreading misinformation on purpose, knowing that it is incorrect.
Spreading misinformation should (in my opinion) not be illegal in itself, people should in many cases be given the benefit of the doubt. It might be ignorance.
A jury should decide if it is done knowingly.
As long as the punishment is fair and not unduly harsh, I don’t see any real problem with criminalising misinformation in general. It’s already illegal to lie about facts in a great many contexts (e.g. fraud, perjury), and reasonable people don’t have a hugely difficult time distinguishing a fact from an opinion.
As a trivial example: “This is mine and you can have it for a dollar” is not an opinion someone can be entitled to, it is a statement of fact that is either true or not.
I am not sure. I don’t think we should punish someone that acted in good faith.
There is a possibility (not likely) of someone not learning about the holocaust by the age of 15. In Norway you can be punished from that age and up. Maybe the person had nutjobs for parents etc. I think I learned about it at 13-14. There is a lot about it in the Norwegian curriculum, so you have to really be unlucky to not learn anything about it.
Anyways, it is ethically wrong to punish a person that was unfortunate and did not get a proper education and parenting. How to handle those cases is difficult though. Holocaust is a pretty obvious case of something EVERYONE is exposed to a lot. There are however lots of other historical facts that a person might not know. Is thst fair to punish someone for?
Who decides what is misinformation? Government? You can look at Russia to see the law you want actually at work.
FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é)This has nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with facts.
No no, I think it’s good that you replied. In this case pushing back against misinformation is a great use for repitition.
First off, I am a bit torn here, but will take the opposing side for arguments sake.
This is not an opinion. The holocaust happened, that makes it a fact.
I get your point, but should disinformation (as in deliberate misinformation) be allowed? How much harm should we accept from people spreading disinformation before we do something? The harm here being antisemitism.
Antisemitism is growing because people do not differentiate Israel and Jewish people. Many jews report that they do not feel safe in otherwise safe countries.
This is a hard question. Not sure what I think… Might be side effects that are hard to foresee
Antisemitism is growing because people do not differentiate Israel and Jewish people.
This is also why definitions of antisemitism that include anything about Israel are extremely damaging. The term “antisemitism” should only be applicable when talking about people and never about governments.
Broadening the definition doesn’t help anyone, except for the state of Israel. But it does so at great expense to Jewish people.
banning opinions just drives them underground
which means fewer people will find them and engage with them.
You’re going to get more people turning to Nazis if it’s just out and about in the open. If YouTube was running ads for nazisim, they’d get converts. If the only nazi stuff you see is scribbled on the bathroom walls, it has less legitimacy and thus fewer converts.
hug
Sometimes I forget decent people with common sense still exist. Sometimes it doesn’t feel that way…
OBJECTION!I don’t think that perspective is consistent with facts or evidence. Do you have anything tangible to back it up, or is it just your assumption?Suppressing things and pushing them out of the mainstream can be quite effective, and that’s exactly why it’s dangerous - if it wasn’t effective, there’s be no real reason to fear a ban.
Imo it’s good so long as it’s constrained to just the Holocaust. Slippery slopes can exist but not everything is one, and in this case it’s likely that they intend to just stop there. There’s overwhelming agreement among historians and everyone who’s not a Nazi on this and this alone, there is nothing to be gained from debating or rehashing it and virtually everyone trying to is acting in bad faith. This isn’t necessarily true of all claims of genocide, and there are always going to be edge cases where there’s room for reasonable disagreement.
harkAgreed. People imagine the best case scenario for these kinds of bans, like calls to criminalize “misinformation” but what happens when the government is headed by Donald “Fake News” Trump and suddenly what you know to be fact is labelled “misinformation”? People were getting cancelled for speaking out against the invasion of Iraq, now imagine if it became a crime to deny that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
NatanoxYour argument only works if you assume that this sets some precedence for fascists to use. It doesn’t, fascists like Trump will implement fake news laws anyway.
In fact Holocaust denial is illegal in quite a lot of countries for quite a while now, most of them democracies (in number, not necessarily km²). Obviously you have to be reeeeally careful with any legislation that somehow restricts any freedom (like freedom of speech), but since every freedom requires boundaries to ensure other freedoms (like the freedom to live in peace and safety) and this is a historical, culture-defining fact and not some political agenda, we are absolutely fine.
I agree that fascists will try to force through what they can, but there is a wide range on the political spectrum outside of fascism, and they wouldn’t force through fake news laws like fascists, but they will take advantage of legal tools provided to them. A domestic mass surveillance program, the likes of which a fascist would want, was instituted by Bush and then continued and expanded by Obama. The justification was to combat terrorism, which would seem like a worthwhile goal, but I’d argue the negatives far outweigh any supposed positives.
Additionally, having these tools laying around only makes the job of fascists easier. Fascists still have to work within the legal framework set up before them, at least initially. Sure, they can try to ignore and force through measures, but the courts have legal backing to challenge them. A blanket misinformation law would make it so much easier for fascists to label something as misinformation and the courts can’t do anything about it.
In this case, it’s specifically about outlawing Holocaust denial, so I can’t imagine it being abused, but at the same time, I can’t imagine it doing much to stop fascism. It’s such a highly specific law, it even causes some to think “why only outlaw Holocaust denial and not the denial of other atrocities?” and that’s where the opportunity for a more general law comes in, which increases the potential for abuse.
In this case, it’s specifically about outlawing Holocaust denial, so I can’t imagine it being abused, but at the same time, I can’t imagine it doing much to stop fascism.
Well, it combats the most obvious ones, but I don’t think it’s the main goal of such a law to work wonders against fascism (after all they could’ve also banned the original logo (the fasces), however that one is rarely used (except in some really bad places). It’s more of a clear statement and moral boost to democracy, probably. Given it’s so highly specific about symbolism that defined western history in a negative way the dangers of it being abused as some kind of excuse to ban even more are really, really low. Given the rise of extremism all over the place a law like this can do wonder for the sense of safety and participation of endangered social groups (in this case most obviously jews, but also LGBT and anyone else hated by western fascists). I mean, that’s pretty much how it ended up here.
I’d also like to point out that the argument you’re using can also be somewhat of a slippery slope. Some people went way too far down that road and ended up somewhere where they feel suppressed because they can’t use the N-word or other slurs anymore due to anti-discrimination laws, and start screaming about their “freedom of speech”. What I want to say with this is that we absolutely should not stop to use our democratic institutions so society can regulate itself. We managed to wander towards a cliff due to a false understanding of freedom, liberty and tolerance as absolutes, while it’s actually a social contract. Without those rules (or with bad rules set up one-sided, i.e. corruption and lobbyism) extremism will take hold.
I do like your vigilance though.
In fact Holocaust denial is illegal in quite a lot of countries for quite a while now
That seems like an ad populum fallacy.
Too many here mistake progressivism for removing fundamental rights to express (illiberal) ideas they oppose. Safeguarding fundamental rights unconditionally to deter legal challenges & protect free society is paramount to progressivism. Testing integrity by trying to provoke society to weaken its legal protections enough to punish offensive exercise of fundamental rights is a classic challenge illiberals pose to lure society to attack free society. Progressives before would recognize the challenge & not fall for it. It seems too many “progressives” today are either too stupid or have come up some “reasonable” rationalizations to fail these challenges.
Imposition of government penalty/force over peaceful (even if detestable/false) expression is difficult to justify. What does it achieve & why is this type of government penalty/force necessary to achieve it? Pretty much everyone knows their falsehoods are false. Legal compulsion can’t convince people of the truth, and it doesn’t deter people from disagreeing or speaking & organizing privately. It does deter people openly revealing their problematic ideas so we can openly challenge & deradicalize them. Taking them underground makes them harder to track.
peace and safety
What peace and safety is gained with the law exactly?
every freedom requires boundaries to ensure other freedoms
Direct harm (eg, incitement, defamation) is a firmer, narrow boundary worked out generations ago. A looser boundary requiring more judgement makes legal protections more vulnerable to poor judgement. Weakening legal integrity of fundamental rights threatens free society.
When I look at the bigger picture, this looks like a loss of integrity in fundamental principles protecting free society for a cheap “win” (ironically, a loss). I’m less clear what good was gained here, but I’m absolutely clear what good was lost.
You mean Fox News?
moitoiNot all opinions have to be around the table to debate. It’s a false idea of democracy. Your freedom of opinion has limits and one fundamental is humanity. Denying a crime against humanity isn’t an opinion.
I respectfully disagree. Note that we are talking about holocaust denialism, not holocaust support. The first is just very dumb, whereas the latter is morally despicable.
In other words: Supporting a crime against humanity is never an option. Denying a crime against humanity is always an option.
“Holding a lit cigarette next to the mouth is not smoking” is not “smoking”
that’s a petty distinction, with dubious benefits
“Holding a lit cigarette next to the mouth is not smoking” is not “smoking” : that’s a petty distinction, with dubious benefits
It’s pointless arguing with a leftist. It’s like arguing with a pig.
The holocaust happened. Why do you want to deny it and what do you feel that achieves?
Because I think censorship is worse.
But the holocaust actually happened. What does denying it achieve? I don’t think that this is the best example of being anti-censorship.
How TF can you have an opinion on a fact?
Always trust Finland!
It should be illegal everywhere. Germany knows how to deal with Nazis (well, unless they’re part of a party)
starlingukGermany considers criticising Israel antisemitism.
all criticism?
Meaningful criticism.
lol, on all topics?
Others were the ones who dealt with Nazis not Germany.
Let’s not glorify the forced compliance of Germany with what was imposed on them by the nations which had to fight them to stop them as some kind of achievement of Germany.
Germany kept most of the Nazis around - not the “upper management” but certainly the “middle management” and below - doing the jobs in the State appartus that they did before.
Probably explains both the rise of the AfD and how still now after Israel is has been for over a year fully and unashamedly acting in a way painfully similar to Nazism - just with different ubermenschen and untermenschen (or as Israeli politicians say it, “chosen people” and “human animals”) - almost the entirety of the German political class continues to unwaveringly support them overtly because of the dominant ethnicity of that nation.
Change from the inside changes mindsets, change imposed from the outside mainly changes the visible expressions of the mindsets rather than the mindsets themselves.
Probably explains both the rise of the AfD and how still now after Israel has been for over a year fully and unashamedly acting in a way painfully similar to Nazism
The far- right has been on the rise all over Europe, not just Germany.
Over a year? Are you fucking kidding me? They’ve been acting that way for decades.
I don’t think that what Israel did before was at the level of being “painfully similar to Nazism”.
Before the last year and a half they were acting as an Apartheid state, but they weren’t actually working hard at making a XXI century version of the Holocaust happen as they are right now.
Before it was bad, but now it has reached the level of Evil.
Jorunn (she/her)They’ve been systematically eradicating palestinians for a long time. It just wasn’t legally recognized as a genocide by many. Fun things they’ve been doing before that is stuff like forceful relocations, murder, and denying water and medicine to civilians
Good, but add Armenian and Gaza genocide denial to the list too.
OmegaArmenian and Gaza is fully confirmed, but human rights violations of Xinjiang not so much, it’s semantics at that much, like calling the modern Turkish state genocidal for destroying the culture of Kurds in northern Syria, when it was not explicitly to destroy the people itself
Its forced assimulation just like what the US did to the natives of America. If what the US did was genocide (it is), then what PRC is doing to Xinjiang and Tibet is also genocide.
Fair enough, but the term genocide is far too inclusive, I’ve heard people use cultural genocide instead.
No, “cultural genocide” is not genocide. There is a pretty clear legal definition:
… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Culture is a part of ethnicity, however.
It’s pretty hilarious how tankies suddenly start quibbling over definitions once China is mentioned.
Where’s that definition from?
Raphael Lemkin, who first coined the term, defined genocide as “the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group” by means such as “the disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its] culture, language, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic existence”.[2]During the struggle to ratify the Genocide Convention, powerful countries restricted Lemkin’s definition to exclude their own actions from being classified as genocide,[3][4] ultimately limiting it to any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.[5] While there are many scholarly definitions of genocide,[6]almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Genocide Convention.[7]
From that wiki page, and I appreciate the just barely academically masked sass about why it’s such a narrow definition
So is regime change to bring about a liberal democratic government also considered cultural genocide? Like if I’m working against the Saudi monarchy and Wahhabi religious order of laws (which is their long term culture) am I guilty of genocide?
Was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan cultural genocide? Is forced rendition or even “nation building” genocide? Guantanamo? Rendition?
Are Starbucks and McDonalds guilty of genocide for spreading their “franchises” (Temples of a neoliberal globalist culture really) everywhere?
If you’re in Finland, don’t deny any of this! It’s illegal now!
PS: Sorry this is a late reply, and obviously it’s argued to absurdity.
The difference is that the US did actual genocide against the natives of America
I’d swear that there is a message group specifically for .ml users to jump in whenever any criticism is leveled at China.