Are Holocaust Denial Laws Legitimate?

[Marat]

Many liberal democracies made it illegal to deny the Holocaust, and some impose serious criminal penalities for doing so. The Netherlands even criminalizes 'relativizing' the Holocaust by calibrating its magnitude against other genocides and arguing that it is comparable. Some court judgments have even argued that it is just the pain that Holocaust denial causes Holocaust survivors which justifies the statute; others suggest that if Holocaust denial is permitted, the state risks the rebirth of Nazism as a serious danger.

 

But it seems to me that the essence of living in a liberal state means that we have to be prepared to hear things we don't like. Everybody hates something, so if we were to forbid free speech for irritating people, we would all have to be silent. The anti-Christian German dramatist Heinrich von Kleist, for example, said he couldn't stand church bells ringing, but no one would seriously say that is a reason for forbidding churches to do so. Free speech doesn't have to be formulated as a right if we only want to allow what the majority doesn't mind hearing. And certainly there is no modern state where Nazism is a serious threat, and such neo-Nazi groups as exist are simply pathetic; the more they speak, the more they increase public anger against them.

 

I am not even sure why denying an historical fact helps promote Nazism. If the speaker denies that the Holocaust happened, doesn't he just say that the Nazis were so incompetent that when they had most of Europe under their control they could not do what they intended to so? And what type of political system is the Holocaust-denier defending? If Nazism really didn't commit the Holocaust, then it was nothing worse than a militaristic, fascist regime like Franco's Spain, and it would seem positively silly to criminalize people for saying today that they like Franco's policies.

 

Typically it is religions which insist that people affirm a specific historical event is a factual truth, such as Christ's resurrection or Mohammed's flight into the sky after his death in Jerusalem. It thus seems almost as if modern liberal states are trying to impose a new state religion of 'Holocaust belief' on their citizens, which is utterly inconsistent with the freedoms those states otherwise affirm. In England until the 19th century you couldn't hold government office unless you swore belief in the Holy Trinity, and you wouldn't be invited to cocktail parties in America until the 1960s if you were known to be an atheist, and now no historian could hold a university academic post, nor would anyone invite a neighbor to dinner, if that person seriously questioned any aspect of the Holocaust.

 

Sociologists have written of the need for society to find a replacement religion as a social glue now that traditional religious belief in the West has declined, and for society to unite on its common agreement that the Holocaust is the most evil event in history seems a vital part of this attempt to generate a new source of social cohesion.

[skyhook]

Historical events were recorded, and it seems nothing can change the facts. neo-nazism exist, I do not know how prevalent though as I have not visited those areas. Some of these groups are associated in some serious crimes that is due to race discrimination. we have heard about the consequence, although some of us don't live in that period of time. History is written in textbooks. Sometimes some facts are remotely useful to living in the future. History class can be quite boring. and some are privately schooled or in religious schools which might have a different curriculum from government schools. A few textbooks can be written by people with motives, some minor facts which they deliberately left out. Considering some scholars have the tendency to quote what other authors write, I would think some historical facts could mutate. or diluted in its significance. In the internet, anyone can be an author of some articles. Some with skills in the art of writing, easily win some fans. So unorthodox ideas may be propagated that way.

Edited August 28, 2010 by skyhook

[DJBruce]

My views of why certain countries have outlawed denying the holocaust is that it is simply political correctness, and an attempt to show respect to those who were effected by the holocaust. It takes a lot of courage for a politician to stand up in front of their constituency and say I support this persons right to deny the holocaust. For many of the constituency will be so offended that they will not look beyond their emotions and consider the politicans actual position, but instead will simply be angered with their politician. Also in a day in age when media coverage and politics often turns into a smear game of misrepresnetaion such a position will easily be used against a politician. So supporting the rights of someone to deny the holocuast puts ones political care in great jepordy. Combine this with the fact that the policiatn is probably equally disgusted by perosns ideas that it is easy for them to ignore the idea of freedom of speech and simply vote to criminalize holocaust denial.

 

Denying the holocaust is something that is much less common than being an atheist, and something that is much less noticeable. I can name numerous people in my town who atheist, but there really is only one person in the world who I can name as a holocaust denier, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. One's stance on the holocaust are very rarely discussed in my opinion, and so I don't think it could take the place of something as prevacive as religion.

[ParanoiA]

It's the inherent problem with democracies. The politicians pander to the constituency so profoundly that they eventually confirm their whims as reason enough for law. They allow the society to be engineered through the governing mechanism because that's where their voices are counted and force applied. Persuading society through the free market of ideas is too arduous and leaves central control unmanned, essentially. Humans are quite uncomfortable without a central control mechanism for any system.

 

Laws against holocaust denial are built from the same wood as Germany's laws to create the holocaust in the first place. Liberal states delude themselves into believing they're liberating people from a great harm as their rights are abridged to accomodate it. France removes a woman's right to wear a Burqa, claiming it liberates them from having to wear a Burqa. This kind of twisted interpretation of liberation is the new affront on freedom that I believe has been, and is, spreading everywhere. Holocaust denial laws fit perfectly.

 

It will all happen in America too. America has no backbone to write its own destiny without reconciling itself with the world's image of it. We used to be proud to be different, now we're ashamed. We will adopt these kinds of laws very soon. I see hate speech as the initial movement, to pry the vault open. Hopefully I'll be dead by then.

[John Cuthber]

Criminalising holocaust denial is a relatively simple way to limit the noise made by a rather obnoxious group.

On the other hand, criminalising stupidity is not a clever move unless you are very sure that you will never be seen as one of the stupid ones.

[Marat]

I agree with what the previous posters have said about the difficulty politicians and others encounter in defending free speech when hate speech is at issue. Fortunately the United States has a very strong free speech right able to resist the forces of political correctness which would like to impose paternalistic restrictions on liberties.

 

But the problem is that no freedoms in a civil society can be absolute, since any constitutionally entrenched liberty will always have to accommodate pressing and substantial policy interests. For example, no government could operate if officials had to get a search warrant to be able to search every individual at customs, and free speech cannot mean the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. The problem is that this need to moderate rights opens rights up to both necessary and unnecessary limitations, and in countries without a strong tradition of individual liberty like the U.S., rights limits quickly come to include limitations on people using rights in harmless ways the majority doesn't like.

[Pangloss]

It's a valid point. While I think most Americans favor free speech with regard to Holocaust denialists, the water gets a lot muddier when you bring up something like flag burning.

[swansont]

It's a valid point. While I think most Americans favor free speech with regard to Holocaust denialists, the water gets a lot muddier when you bring up something like flag burning.

 

Actually, I think it becomes a lot clearer in identifying those who believe in 'freedom of speech' vs those who believe in 'freedom of speech of which they approve.'

 

Anyway, I think that US attitudes are likely to be different because of how our laws came about, being heavily influence by British common law (the UK has no holocaust denial law), vs the systems of other European countries (which is where most of these laws are on the books), plus the fact that we were removed from the problem — it didn't happen in our backyard and we were not occupied by an invading force inflicting the genocide. We do, however, recognize that there is speech that is not protected, so it's really a matter of where that line is drawn.

[cypress]

Let's not loose sight of the purpose behind constitutional rights in general and free speech rights in particular. Most constitutional rights were designed as limitations on what government is able to impose on citizens, primarily to prevent tyranny from reoccurring. Free speech, freedom to assemble, and freedom of religion were all intended to prevent the government from controlling particular aspects of ones lives and by doing so, allowing the power of government to exceed the ability of the majority from tossing out an unpopular government. This was the kind of free speech that was intended by the constitution. In evaluating free speech one compares the benefit of of this particular speech or expression with respect to limiting government control against the damage it may cause society as a whole.

 

Free speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theater because there is very little or no benefit in terms of limiting government powers while there is huge potential for damage to society. The same logic is used to limit holocaust denial speech. Allowing denial speeches provides only a small benefit in terms of limiting governmental powers, but in certain societies, there is reasonable benefit for the public as a whole to pronounce holocaust denial speech morally wrong and therefore prohibited. Perhaps one day it won't be the lightning rod it is today and prohibition will not be demanded by the majority of that society.

[DJBruce]

In evaluating free speech one compares the benefit of of this particular speech or expression with respect to limiting government control against the damage it may cause society as a whole.

 

Free speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theater because there is very little or no benefit in terms of limiting government powers while there is huge potential for damage to society. The same logic is used to limit holocaust denial speech. Allowing denial speeches provides only a small benefit in terms of limiting governmental powers, but in certain societies, there is reasonable benefit for the public as a whole to pronounce holocaust denial speech morally wrong and therefore prohibited.

 

I have to strongly disagree with you interpretation that the evaluation of speech should incorporate the idea of how it would affect the limits of a government. No matter what type of speech it is restricting it will automatically expand the sphere of influence of the government. Therefore the criteria for deeming speech restrictable should be as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated:

 

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

 

I can see no way the denial of the holocaust presents a clear and present danger, which would require a blanket restriction. Not to mention that the restrictablity of speech should not hinge on its morality since immoral behavior does not equate to a clear danger.

 

Perhaps one day it won't be the lightning rod it is today and prohibition will not be demanded by the majority of that society.

 

I highly doubt that the genocide of millions of people will ever stop being an emotional lightning rob as long as there are those who continue to preach their denial of the event.

Edited August 29, 2010 by DJBruce

[swansont]

In the US, the constitution is a document that delineates the power of the government, and also lists some of the rights the people have, which the founders thought important to list (and later amended as circumstances warranted), and our founders got to start with basically a clean slate. This is not true of European countries, where power was long held in divine monarchies, and rights had to be won or negotiated. Their right to free speech took a different path, and may be more limited than in the US as a result.

[Marat]

Although common law countries in some cases have a good rights record, the British Parliament has considered instituting anti-hate speech laws and Canadian Supreme Court judgments have restricted holocaust-denying speech on fairly flimsy grounds.

 

The U.S. 'clear and present danger' standard is a good one for limiting restrictions on free speech, since it strikes at the tendency of majorities to believe that everything they morally disapprove must also, somehow, somewhere, ultimately also cause real harm. (E.g., masturbation will cause hairy palms and blindness) Now feminists are making a strong bid to trim free speech rights around the world to deny the right of people to publish, buy, possess, or view pornography, on the argument that the very existence of pornography somehow poisons the social atmosphere and harms women by mysterious causal chains which no one has yet been able to trace.