German here. Not entirely sure what your comment is trying to convey. Germany doesn’t have that much of a free-speech history, at least compared to the US.
So the fact that publicly denying or trivializing the holocaust has been illegal (since 1949, I figure) is not seen as dystopian at all. On the contrary, the ban is even widely accepted, and perceived as a good thing.
Mind clarifying a bit as to what exactly you’re criticizing?
The part that's always missing from this kind of argument is: then you're wrong. You are incorrect. It's mind-boggling to me that the actual fact of what actually happened never seems to matter in this argument. Look, I understand the practical problems with a law like "It's illegal to lie on the news" -- of course that's problematic: who decides what a lie is? But if you could guarantee unambiguous, 100% accurate, oracle-level determination of lies, then that law would be fantastic for society. That's of course not possible in general, but that doesn't mean there aren't very special cases where we can get close to that. There are some things that we know for 100% certain definitely happened, and also that certain awful people have certain horrifying motivations to lie about. I'm totally fine with those being illegal to lie about. If you disagree with me about it, it simply means you are an awful piece of shit. Again, that's not true in general, about any opinion or controversial issue: of course it's not! But it's true about the Holocaust, and that matters.
> There are some things that we know for 100% certain definitely happened
If anything, this is one of those things you should 100% question. Such a politicized event, almost 80 later, with most proofs being unreliable testimonies and confessions by physical force. As the saying goes, history is always written by the winners. Not saying that it didn't happen, or it was only exaggerated, or anything like that.
I'm only saying that making ILLEGAL to negate or downplay is an extremely dangerous precedent.
> If you disagree with me about it, it simply means you are an awful piece of shit.
I wouldn't care about this comment at all, if it wasn't because my question was flagged and this is not. As always, a heavily enforced voting/moderation system results in a perverted, deranged way of reality that's only perpetuated by such system.
For anyone reading this, if you want to be somewhat in touch with reality just leave this garbage forum.
The community which committed that genocide has the prerogative to decide its own moral responsibilities. If you're part of that community, and violate them, then the consequences will be as they wish.
Its deeply implausible to say that Germans have no collective right against the individual here. What you wish to say really isnt all that important, and doubly so, when many around you were wrapped-up in a system of mass torture, genocide and violence.
You can defend it all you want with "historical precedent," it's still quite dystopian whether or not conditioning for 70 years has any impact. My point is that any law against free speech probably has more sinister intentions than are presented.
"Do you have any proof?"
Read 1984 and try to understand how close laws against holocaust denial are to thought crimes.
You really don't understand what part of the timeline we're in. Time is running out.
