should holocaust denial be a crime

[mrexcellent2190]

simple yes or no

[Bit]

No.

Freedom of speech.

[Cordyceps]

No, because if we cannot question it then that's fascism which is kind of counter-intuitive.

[Freaki-boy92]

yes

there's a difference between freedom of speech and denial of cold, hard facts. like, when it comes to opinions? fire the fuck away, but you can't deny things that actually happened, that there is cold, hard proof of... hell, some of the people who were interned in those camps are still alive today, there are people still on this planet who lost friends to the holocaust, there are images of mass graves, written german documents from the time which prove that this was happening- documents of the experiments conducted on live (unwilling) test subjects. there is hard evidence that it happened... honestly? i'm all for freedom of opinion, however the holocaust isn't a matter of opinion.

[VJF]

At 9/27/14 09:45 PM, mrexcellent2190 wrote: simple yes or no

If you put people in jail or fined them for voicing their opinions, you would be no better than Hitler himself. People have the right to freedom of speech, even if its for or against something you like or dislike. The one thing that society should not take away from any man is their own thoughts and beliefs.

[SubliminalVirus]

Wouldn't that be like a thought crime..... while I don't agree with that idea...It shouldn't give people jail time...

[Jester]

Why would it be

[WahyaRanger]

At 9/27/14 10:01 PM, SubliminalVirus wrote: Wouldn't that be like a thought crime..... while I don't agree with that idea...It shouldn't give people jail time...

2+2=5

That is double-plus bad thinking, Virus.

You don't want another visit to the Ministry of Hope, now do we?

[NeonSpider]

No. It should only be a crime if they harm others with their actions. Is merely having a strange belief a crime or should it be a crime? I don't think so. But if someone acts on an incorrect belief in a manner that harms others, should that be a crime? Absolutely! And beliefs should not excuse actions.

If you believe people are made of marshmallows, that's weird, but doesn't hurt anyone. No crime. If you then take it a step further and start skewering people to roast them over a fire to make smores, at that point lock you up for life and throw away the key.

[Bit]

At 9/27/14 09:55 PM, Freaki-boy92 wrote: yes

there's a difference between freedom of speech and denial of cold, hard facts. like, when it comes to opinions? fire the fuck away, but you can't deny things that actually happened, that there is cold, hard proof of... hell, some of the people who were interned in those camps are still alive today, there are people still on this planet who lost friends to the holocaust, there are images of mass graves, written german documents from the time which prove that this was happening- documents of the experiments conducted on live (unwilling) test subjects. there is hard evidence that it happened... honestly? i'm all for freedom of opinion, however the holocaust isn't a matter of opinion.

Yeah! Darwin should have been jailed for his unpopular theories, too! Let's not forget Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and every other famous scientist. We had evidence to the contrary, therefore they should not have been allowed to say anything to which contradicted our current models.

Really, though. It doesn't work like that. Nobody should be jailed for believing unpopular theories.

[fieldertiger]

No.

Let's face it. There are still people who deny the Holocaust and we can't stop them. So what if they don't acknowledge that the Holocaust was real? You are a nuisance to them if you keep saying that the Holocaust is real to them.

[xXSp1cyN1njaXx]

no, but a slap on the head should be just fine

[SubliminalVirus]

At 9/27/14 10:03 PM, WahyaRanger wrote:

We apologize, the user known as "SubliminalVirus" will no longer be active on "NewGrounds". Have a good day.

[Boomstick]

I almost forgot about this video, and couldn't find it until now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgcrtvomXoI

[GrizzlyOne]

At 9/27/14 10:06 PM, Bit wrote:

At 9/27/14 09:55 PM, Freaki-boy92 wrote: yes

there's a difference between freedom of speech and denial of cold, hard facts. like, when it comes to opinions? fire the fuck away, but you can't deny things that actually happened, that there is cold, hard proof of... hell, some of the people who were interned in those camps are still alive today, there are people still on this planet who lost friends to the holocaust, there are images of mass graves, written german documents from the time which prove that this was happening- documents of the experiments conducted on live (unwilling) test subjects. there is hard evidence that it happened... honestly? i'm all for freedom of opinion, however the holocaust isn't a matter of opinion.

Yeah! Darwin should have been jailed for his unpopular theories, too! Let's not forget Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and every other famous scientist. We had evidence to the contrary, therefore they should not have been allowed to say anything to which contradicted our current models.

Really, though. It doesn't work like that. Nobody should be jailed for believing unpopular theories.

Are you seriously justifying counter-productive behavior like denying something like the holocaust existed which is present in history books, witness accounts, and the damn camps themselves which many are still up today by comparing it to the lack of knowledge of modern science?

I bet you're one of those people who think "muh FIIIIIIIIIIIRST amendament makes 'ME allowed to say i hate gays 'n blacks on A&E" or thinks they can make threats to people because of it.

[WahyaRanger]

At 9/27/14 10:09 PM, SubliminalVirus wrote: We apologize, the user known as "SubliminalVirus" will no longer be active on "NewGrounds". Have a good day.

That is double-plus good.

I love Big Brother.

[Bit]

At 9/27/14 10:13 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Are you seriously justifying counter-productive behavior like denying something like the holocaust existed which is present in history books, witness accounts, and the damn camps themselves which many are still up today by comparing it to the lack of knowledge of modern science?

I bet you're one of those people who think "muh FIIIIIIIIIIIRST amendament makes 'ME allowed to say i hate gays 'n blacks on A&E" or thinks they can make threats to people because of it.

I'm saying that a theory should not be illegal only because it is unpopular. It may be incorrect to claim that the Holocaust did not happen, but making such a claim is not a crime. It's just another (widely disproved) theory. If we arrest Holocaust deniers then we need to arrest the conspiracy theorists, flat Earth theorists, and Scientologists, too.

And saying that you hate blacks and gays shouldn't be a crime, either. You can have whatever opinion you want as long as you're not interfering with the rights of others. Having the right to say such a thing does not exempt you from the social consequences of doing so, though. You definitely won't be a popular person if you say that you hate gays and black, but you should not be arrested for it.

[Freaki-boy92]

At 9/27/14 10:06 PM, Bit wrote:

At 9/27/14 09:55 PM, Freaki-boy92 wrote: yes

there's a difference between freedom of speech and denial of cold, hard facts. like, when it comes to opinions? fire the fuck away, but you can't deny things that actually happened, that there is cold, hard proof of... hell, some of the people who were interned in those camps are still alive today, there are people still on this planet who lost friends to the holocaust, there are images of mass graves, written german documents from the time which prove that this was happening- documents of the experiments conducted on live (unwilling) test subjects. there is hard evidence that it happened... honestly? i'm all for freedom of opinion, however the holocaust isn't a matter of opinion.

Yeah! Darwin should have been jailed for his unpopular theories, too! Let's not forget Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and every other famous scientist. We had evidence to the contrary, therefore they should not have been allowed to say anything to which contradicted our current models.

Really, though. It doesn't work like that. Nobody should be jailed for believing unpopular theories.

the thing with darwin, galileo, copernicus, newton and other scientists is that they had suitable evidence to back up their hypotheses, which is what made them from hypotheses into theories. a theory is a hypothesis backed up by enough data to outweigh the existing theory and the data supporting it.
in other words, you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word theory.
thing is, hypothesizing about history is fine right up until you get to the point where there are enough contemporary records to render hypothesizing invalid and useless.

it's not a case of unpopular opinions, or shit not fitting current models, it's a case of this happened and there is undeniable proof that it did happen- stuff that will not be supplanted at a later date because of a misinterpretation of currently available data, because the current data is so plainly and clearly pointing in a single direction in such a way as it cannot be misinterpreted.

i do not think that new ideas in science should be illegal, as new ideas are what keeps science going, new hypotheses are what makes science wonderful, especially when they get proven and become fully-fledged theories, however new ideas about (relatively) recent history, where the documentation from the time still exists, is just kinda.... toxic, y'know?

[GrizzlyOne]

At 9/27/14 10:22 PM, Bit wrote:

At 9/27/14 10:13 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Are you seriously justifying counter-productive behavior like denying something like the holocaust existed which is present in history books, witness accounts, and the damn camps themselves which many are still up today by comparing it to the lack of knowledge of modern science?

I bet you're one of those people who think "muh FIIIIIIIIIIIRST amendament makes 'ME allowed to say i hate gays 'n blacks on A&E" or thinks they can make threats to people because of it.

I'm saying that a theory should not be illegal only because it is unpopular

1: Saying the holocaust didn't happen isn't a theory, at best it's a hypothesis.

2: It shouldn't be illegal because it's unpopular, it should be illegal/criminalized because it's denying the event that happened as a result of years of racism, intolerance, and an anti-productive culture. Denying when events like the Holocaust happened basically gives room for other people to do stuff along the lines of "HA, HA LET'S MAKE INTOLERANT JOKES AND BE TOTAL RACIST SHITHEADS OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND SAY NEVER NOTHING EVER HAPPENED UNTIL IT BOILS DOWN TO ANOTHER GENOCIDE LOL".

It may be incorrect to claim that the Holocaust did not happen, but making such a claim is not a crime. It's just another (widely disproved) theory. If we arrest Holocaust deniers then we need to arrest the conspiracy theorists, flat Earth theorists, and Scientologists, too.

None of those apart from Scientology are actually counter-productive in terms of, you know, people being weeded out in some hate-induced campaign of "MAKING A PURE RACE", and even then, Scientology was nowhere near the Holocaust or any other genocide.

And saying that you hate blacks and gays shouldn't be a crime, either.

It isn't iirc, I was just referring to the Duck Dynasty incident.

You can have whatever opinion you want as long as you're not interfering with the rights of others. Having the right to say such a thing does not exempt you from the social consequences of doing so, though. You definitely won't be a popular person if you say that you hate gays and black, but you should not be arrested for it.

...Except denying that mass genocides happened, if enough believed it, would lead to having an excuse to spread hate.

[GrizzlyOne]

lol freaki posted about that guy misusing the word theory before i did

[Freaki-boy92]

At 9/27/14 10:45 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: lol freaki posted about that guy misusing the word theory before i did

tbh, i'm glad you spotted it as well, grizzly, because it /really/ pisses me off the fact that the word theory is misused so widely. Like, to the point where people misusing theory is one of my pet hates. not pet peeves, pet /hates/

[NeonSpider]

At 9/27/14 10:39 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: ...Except denying that mass genocides happened, if enough believed it, would lead to having an excuse to spread hate.

Doesn't matter. Having a belief, no matter how twisted, wrong, or etc that belief may be, in and of itself should not be illegal. But if you harm others based on a belief, at that point it very much becomes illegal.

It's the action, and not the belief, which should be illegal.

Ignorance spreads, and it's bad, but there's not really much that can be done about that other than try to educate people. But ultimately it's up to each individual person what they believe or not.

There are groups I absolutely think should not exist (racist hate groups, etc...) but as long as they don't do anything illegal that you can pin on them, there's not really a lot that can be done. Just having incorrect beliefs in itself shouldn't be illegal. That's the general American view of things.

[FinaLee]

No. Everything should be free to question, no matter how silly it is. I hear that there are actually laws against Holocaust denial in Europe, which is crazy to me. I think when you try to prevent discussion of an unpopular opinion, you're actually perpetuating it.

[NekoMika]

There are just some idiots, no matter how much you confront them with the hard facts, will refuse to believe it and make up every excuse in the book to not believe it.

[NGPulp]

Didn't even know holocaust denial was a thing.

[Bit]

At 9/27/14 10:39 PM, Freaki-boy92 wrote: Stuff

I used scientists as an example because they are a group which has often been met with serious opposition with regards to their ideas. Yes, there is substantial modern evidence which proves many of their hypothesis, but many of them had highly controversial ideas in their time. People could have justified arresting Darwin because 'evidence' against evolution can be found in the Bible. That was the limit of most peoples' understanding of life because it was all of the evidence most people needed. Certainly people would have agreed that his ideas were 'toxic'.

No modern ideas should be censored for the same reason. Even though most people may believe the contrary, the idea itself is not necessarily incorrect. Making it illegal to present new ideas - even ones which have been disproved in some respect - is completely counterproductive. If the idea is wrong then it will be disproved again, but it should never be illegal to present an idea.

At 9/27/14 10:39 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: 2: It shouldn't be illegal because it's unpopular, it should be illegal/criminalized because it's denying the event that happened as a result of years of racism, intolerance, and an anti-productive culture. Denying when events like the Holocaust happened basically gives room for other people to do stuff along the lines of "HA, HA LET'S MAKE INTOLERANT JOKES AND BE TOTAL RACIST SHITHEADS OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND SAY NEVER NOTHING EVER HAPPENED UNTIL IT BOILS DOWN TO ANOTHER GENOCIDE LOL".

Why should it be illegal, though? And what makes you think that a very, very small group denying a historical event will bring about another genocide?

None of those apart from Scientology are actually counter-productive in terms of, you know, people being weeded out in some hate-induced campaign of "MAKING A PURE RACE", and even then, Scientology was nowhere near the Holocaust or any other genocide.

I don't think we're on the same page. I'm saying that, in principle, Holocaust denial is just as ignorant and harmful as any religious or conspiracy group who believe that history is incorrect, and feel the need to 're-educate' people using lies.

...Except denying that mass genocides happened, if enough believed it, would lead to having an excuse to spread hate.

But they don't. In fact, Christianity has done quite a bit more to spread hate than Holocaust deniers. Especially hate for women and homosexuals.

At 9/27/14 10:48 PM, Freaki-boy92 wrote:

At 9/27/14 10:45 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: lol freaki posted about that guy misusing the word theory before i did

tbh, i'm glad you spotted it as well, grizzly, because it /really/ pisses me off the fact that the word theory is misused so widely. Like, to the point where people misusing theory is one of my pet hates. not pet peeves, pet /hates/

There is a non-scientific definition of the word 'theory', but I'm not here to argue semantics.

[GrizzlyOne]

At 9/27/14 10:52 PM, NeonSpider wrote:

At 9/27/14 10:39 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: ...Except denying that mass genocides happened, if enough believed it, would lead to having an excuse to spread hate.

Doesn't matter. Having a belief, no matter how twisted, wrong, or etc that belief may be, in and of itself should not be illegal. But if you harm others based on a belief, at that point it very much becomes illegal.

Except harmful beliefs like for example neo-nazis denying the holocaust lead to harmful actions 90% of the time, that's why they have things like neo-nazi rallies in the first place to discuss and promote their hate.

It's the action, and not the belief, which should be illegal.

So you're saying that KKK rallies to just name one example are alright by themselves, even though they initially fuel and get the members going in blood rush on their quest to go kill or harm African Americans.

Ignorance spreads, and it's bad, but there's not really much that can be done about that other than try to educate people. But ultimately it's up to each individual person what they believe or not.

ok

There are groups I absolutely think should not exist (racist hate groups, etc...) but as long as they don't do anything illegal that you can pin on them, there's not really a lot that can be done. Just having incorrect beliefs in itself shouldn't be illegal. That's the general American view of things.

Yet the US, in terms of the developed world has some of the strongest open racism and is the one of the countries with the least amount of social rights in the developed world, especially in the south. What a coinky-dink.

[Slint]

Are you a jew?

[coderchick94]

At 9/27/14 09:45 PM, mrexcellent2190 wrote: simple yes or no

no, however...

I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.

[mrexcellent2190]

At 9/27/14 11:13 PM, Slint wrote: Are you a jew?

no what does that have to do with anything ? as far as the theory that holocaust denial leads to other forms of hate your proving them right bro at least in my opinion idc about it being illegal either way but don't hate on ppl. individuals should have the right to say whatever this is jus a poll I'm doing to pass time