MerluFinland to criminalise Holocaust denial
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.
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.
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.