- cross-posted to:
- Finland@europe.pub
- cross-posted to:
- Finland@europe.pub
Let’s say better late than never.
I’m so used to bad news I read that as decriminalize
This is a dumb law
I seriously believe that in an adult society you can set one or two historically damaging things aside from “freedom of speech.” I believe it was Trevor Noah who explained that when black people took back South Africa from its apartheid masters, they didn’t burn those people at the stake or prosecute them out of existence or even steal all their property. They just said you won’t be ruling this country like that anymore OH and that ONE WORD… you don’t get to say that ONE WORD ever again.
JD Vance will be pissed.
Based! Fuck Nazis
Is this tacked on with a bunch of other laws related to criticism of Zionism also being against the law?
Tons of laws Israel is trying to get passed in western countries to associate anti Zionism with Antisemitism.
I doubt this is the only part of the law.
No this law only outlaws denying recognized genocides by the international court and in a hateful way.
Always trust Finland!
Censorship just hides it. Better would be to educate them. Make them meet with survivors, send them to the remaining concentration camps.
I don’t know if this is really censorship in that way. Like yeah don’t hide the genocide, hide the denial, because it doesn’t deserve a platform. Holocaust denial has no basis in reality, especially considering it’s one of the most well documented genocides of all time.
Don’t censor history, teach the children about all the bad shit humans have done.
Holocaust denialism is censorship. It’s an attempt to hide reality itself by controlling the narrative. If anything, outlawing holocaust denialism is anti-censorship, as it’s helping ensure that Nazis won’t be able to suppress the truth about what happened.
Someone claiming that outlawing holocaust denialism is censorship is trying to flip the script and overwrite reality (or just repeating someone else who is doing so, I guess). It’s like saying “Hey! Stop censoring my attempt to censor others! This is censorship!” It’s a mind game, an attempt at manipulation through deception. Look up the term DARVO: Deny, Accuse, Reverse Victim and Offender. That’s what saying “Outlawing holocaust denialism is censorship!” is: Reversing the Victim and Offender.
Lies and misinformation and other attempts to deceive and suppress the truth are not a form of free speech. Quite the opposite, they’re what results when free speech remains unprotected.
Exactly
There aren’t that many survivors left, but you wouldn’t know judging by the noise some jewish.groups make while clamoring for reparation.
This is effective censorship – of a bad thing, but still censorship.
Education is the way, don’t let people forget history, remind them of all the horrors the nazi regime inflicted on gays, gypsies, political dissidents, criples, … Remind them genocides are still occurring: in Palestine and elsewhere.
you will apply this law with the same rigour to every genocide right? right?
It should be illegal everywhere. Germany knows how to deal with Nazis (well, unless they’re part of a party)
Germany 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 whitewash 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 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, a purely Racist rationale.
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.
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
Yeah they won’t use this to evil ends…
Fuck israel
It’s too bad we can’t make being a fucking idiot illegal, but then there wouldn’t be anywhere near enough prisons.
Curb your fascism.
Excuse me? My definition of idiot includes fascists. Curb your kneejerk.
Ok, curb your enthusiasm for fascism.
Ok troll.
Will they punish communism glorification as well? I’m thinking anything nazi is shit but most of the people here are shitty tankies so Hitler bad Stalin good yet both were monsters… different types but monsters and no one criminalizes the glorification of Stalinism.
deleted by creator
I 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.
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…
Agreed. 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.
You mean Fox News?
Your 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.
deleted by creator
The holocaust happened. Why do you want to deny it and what do you feel that achieves?
deleted by creator
But the holocaust actually happened. What does denying it achieve? I don’t think that this is the best example of being anti-censorship.
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.
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.
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?
Are you a Bleach Boy?
Since you’re asking that on the internet, I should probably say “no”. Specifically the second question, that is.
(Yes I know he’s joking, so am I.)
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.
deleted by creator
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 judge/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?
Not 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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How TF can you have an opinion on a fact?
This has nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with facts.
Edit: I see someone made a similar reply at the same times as me. I didn’t mean to spam reply the same thing as someone else.
No no, I think it’s good that you replied. In this case pushing back against misinformation is a great use for repitition.