Earnest Zundel was a German citizen, but lived in america for decades legally, and his wife was an american citizen. 4 years ago, INS delayed his immigration renewal papers, and then arrested him for not turning one in on time, which he was still waitng for in the mail. They sent him to Cananda, and then canada sent him to Germany, where they then pressed charges for the crime of "hate speech" in America. He is now serving his 4th year in prison:

December 4, 2006
>
> My fourth Christmas behind bars is here. This week I will attend the
> second Christmas party organized by our prison chaplain. He is a
> local/regional man, a real Martin Luther type in looks and in his
> down-to-earth approach to things. That party last year was attended
> by the usual types - double murderers, drug dealers, common wife
> beaters, child abusers, pickpockets, check and credit card fraud
> artists, gamblers, and one lone historical revisionist.
>
> The prison staff, the social workers, the prison shrink, some
> security staff were all genuinely nice and humane - a far cut above
> what I experienced in the U.S.A. and Canada. The worst were the
> Tennesseans, I am sad to report. They were big brutes of men,
> ill-bred, obese, nasty, ignorant, cold-hearted. In their
> button-popping, stretched-to-the-limits uniforms, they looked like
> the bottom of the barrel from some central casting office for a cheap
> 1960s anti-Nazi, "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS" type of film. You know
> how Hollywood portrays the Germans.
>
> This was in contrast to some of the giant, blond haired, blue eyed
> Batavians in the area of Attica I met while temporarily imprisoned in
> New York state en route to Canada. That whole region south of Lake
> Ontario was settled and pioneered by Germans, Hessians and
> Pennsylvania Deutsch [not Dutch]. These men were open-faced,
> uncomplicated, kind and human - well, what can I say? They were
> Germanic.
>
> Now on to world news. Unfortunately I have very few sources of
> information - I am reduced to depending on the mainstream media and
> the necessity to read between the lines. Because of the judge's
> ruling, I generally do not receive, nor can I send, much in the way
> of thoughts or ideas. This includes art, science, health care and
> related medical topics - these are redacted from letters without
> mercy. Imagine that - in the 21st Century no less!
>
> Last week I received a letter sent to me by a supporter - in Munich
> on August 2, 2005! The same day I also received another letter mailed
> on July 6, 2006 and several others from July. So don't be
> disheartened if you do not hear from me for months - it means someone
> is holding up the mail. Ingrid sometimes gets no mail from me for six
> to eight weeks, worries like crazy, only to be handed nine letters in
> one day. My oldest son was handed three letters on the same day,
> months ago. It makes me ill to think that these same people prattle
> on all the time about the superiority of their system and their
> humanity when compared to former regimes.
>
> Can you believe the embarrassment Bush and his clique must be
> suffering from in relationship to their trouncing in the polls? I was
> on a high for a week. Ingrid described my letters as euphoric. There
> are of course reasons to be overjoyed. I have said to Ingrid and
> others for a long time that what befell America on 9-11 would come
> back to haunt the true perpetrators - and, no, I don't mean the
> alleged nineteen Arabs the media keep shoving in our faces. Bush Sr.
> and his circle of "old money Republicans" are doing their best to
> save the Bush dynasty's reputation. I doubt it will work this time,
> Bush no longer commands much respect anywhere in the world.
>
> I was overjoyed to see the GOP lose so badly, because many of them
> have defiled American values for decades. Finally they have been
> subjected to a modicum of exposure. Many of them did their best to
> ignore my case and Ingrid's appeals, while at the same time being
> highlighted in the press as alleged champions of American traditions,
> i.e. free speech etc. Swift Karma was done! CNN news with Larry King
> announced this morning at about 11 AM local time that Bill Frist of
> Tennessee, who was once touted as a future Presidential contender,
> decided that it would be better not to run for President than to
> reveal all of his financial dealings over the last several years.
>
> Despite all of the machinations, despite all the lies and innuendo,
> Ingrid and I are not disgraced, because most people can see through
> the lies. They realize that the media and government have no
> credibility. It doesn't take people long to then conclude that these
> same individuals and entities might also be lying about many other
> things.
>
> This nightmare will be over one day - the guilty will be exposed,
> charged and convicted. The night that the Republicans were driven out
> of office signaled the beginnings of a change - now [others] have the
> power to issue subpoenas. We'll soon see if they have any intention
> of using this power. If not, no matter - they'll be exposed in short
> order as well.
>
> I am afraid there is a great deal of bad karma [coming] - too many
> Americans have been mistreated by the powerful and well-connected.
> How that will play out remains to be seen. We now have the means to
> reach virtually every man, woman and child on this planet via the
> Internet - the truth can't be suppressed forever, and judging by the
> speed of world events, I'd say it can't be suppressed much longer.
> Americans appear to be quickly tiring of the lies and deceit.
>
> Perhaps we'll all have ringside seats to watch the ushering in of a
> new era? It won't all happen immediately. It will take more than a
> few years - but it seems inevitable at this point.

It is sickening that someone can be imprisoned for their beliefs in the first world.

It is sickening that someone can be imprisoned for their beliefs in the first world.

I don't think you would hesitate to lock up a communist.

i hope he gets his ass raped in jail. let him write about that experience.

It is sickening that someone can be imprisoned for their beliefs in the first world.

beliefs is one thing

but being a "mischief to the public interest in social and racial tolerance" and organizing terrorist groups (yes, Muslims aren't the only terrorists out there) are crimes.

i'm not 100% certain about the organizing of terrorist groups, but i can see him doing that. even if he isn't actively a "manager" in the organization effort, he is a sort of "spiritual leader", and as such, a very destructive force.

EDIT:
i hope he rotts in jail and that those fat Tennessee prisoners drill him a second and a third asshole

I don't think you would hesitate to lock up a communist.

So do you believe in the laws that were used as justification for imprisoning Ernst? The German law says that anyone who shows support for a different view of World War 2 than officially supported by the International Jewish community should be arrested. Do you support this law? If not, can you please explain the restrictions on Speech you believe should or should not exist. I am much interested in learning about the political paradigm you support in regards to this specific area.

Regards.

free speech is not unlimited. it is restricted in the interest of the common good. and German law shows where these 2 interests intersect. that's all there is to it. Germans are still free to express themselves with the most perverted porn known to man, and the biggest annual rave in the world (aka the Love Parade)

i hope he gets his ass raped in jail. let him write about that experience.

Do you believe that homosexual rape should be legalized in prison?

Consider a hypothetical situation where you personally were accidentally arrested for something, or even for actually doing something that was illegal, but just a minor crime, like maybe a little too much alcohol in you walking in public, or maybe one day out of uncontrollable anger you shoved someone and was arrested for a minor assault and battery. Would you believe that it would be fair for you to be legally open to homosexual rape while waiting in prison? Do you know that currently 1 in 4 male prisoners are homosexually raped by other prisoners and sometimes receive STDs from the attacker?

Regards.

free speech is not unlimited. it is restricted in the interest of the common good. and German law shows where these 2 interests intersect. that's all there is to it. Germans are still free to express themselves with the most perverted porn known to man, and the biggest annual rave in the world (aka the Love Parade)

Greetings,

Can you please explain the political paradigm you support with regards to speech laws in less vague terms? What do you describe as "common good"? And to what level should the law require one's speech to serve the "common good"? In other words, how much deviation from "common good speech" should be allowed before it is considered illegal speech?

Regards.

i guess each country sets its equillibrium between freedom of speech and the need to preserve the common good according to its own culture and social needs.

also, please remember these are not tyrannical laws. everyone is bound by them... it's not like there's a dictator at the top forbidding people to express themselves. Germany is one of the most liberal countries on the planet. so to portray it as a dictatorship because of its restriction on hate speech is a bit "out there".

by the way, that's what it is -- hate speech. it promotes an unacceptable level of civil strife, and does more harm than good. at least according to German circumstance. you see, the rise of neo-Nazis is against German interests too.

i guess each country sets its equillibrium between freedom of speech and the need to preserve the common good according to its own culture and social needs.

I agree.

also, please remember these are not tyrannical laws. everyone is bound by them... it's not like there's a dictator at the top forbidding people to express themselves. Germany is one of the most liberal countries on the planet. so to portray it as a dictatorship because of its restriction on hate speech is a bit "out there".

There is not an objective definition for words like "tyrannical" "facist" etc. Basically, if one agrees with most of the laws, he says it's "freedom." If one disgrees with the laws, it's "tyrannical/facsist."

by the way, that's what it is -- hate speech. it promotes an unacceptable level of civil strife, and does more harm than good. at least according to German circumstance. you see, the rise of neo-Nazis is against German interests too.

Can you please be more descriptive? For example, how do you define "Hate Speech"? Does the speech have to be accompanied with the speaker experiencing the emotion of hate along with it? How does one scientifically test for presence of the emotion of hate when the actual act of the speech was given? Maybe "Hate" is not the most practical way to define this speech? Maybe it should be re-labeled "Speech that Offers a Political Position that the Current Elites in Power Don't Wan't the Public to Adopt"?

How do you define "civil strife"? What percent of the population must feel they are feeling strife before it should be considered civil strife?

Regards.

There is not an objective definition for words like "tyrannical" "facist"
there is.
try wikipedia :)
even if you take the generally accepted meaning of these words... surely you'll agree that Germany is not tyrannical or fascist.


If one disgrees with the laws, it's "tyrannical/facsist."
there's a difference between hyperbole and fact. and one's disagreement with a law does not make the law tyrannical
Churchill said "democracy is the tyranny of the majority"... but it's true that people enjoy much more personal freedom in democracies than in tyrannical regimes.

how do you define "Hate Speech"? Does the speech have to be accompanied with the speaker experiencing the emotion of hate along with it?
here are 2 definition (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Ahate+speech&meta=) of hate speech

to be more to the point, "hate speech" is undesirable speech. some of it is so undesirable that it is made illegal. IMO it's irrelevant what the person feels when he speaks it. the problem is that the speech does damage... just like some jokes, even if you don't really "hate niggers", you can't stand up in the middle of your office and tell a "nigger lynching" joke. it's irrelevant if black people are your only friends. it's undesirable speech regardless

How do you define "civil strife"? What percent of the population must feel they are feeling strife before it should be considered civil strife?

civil strife (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil): strife occurring within the state or between or among citizens of the state

each country's way of "measuring civil strife" is different. i am sure there are legal tests the judges in Germany use as guidelines. and i'm sure that one of the planet's most liberal countries will protect the freedom of speech and expression just as it protects the freedom to conduct golden showers (if you don't know what that is you probably shouldn't google it) when they judge a case of hate speech.

as i mentioned, even if these hate speech laws were tyrannical, Germany's interest of forbidding this sort of speech superceeds their liberal speech laws. this means Germany as a nation... not just one small group or one political party. these laws are widely accepted and are not controvercial at all. they are also not thought of in terms of freedom of speech limitations, but in terms of hate speech restrictions.

...and then arrested him for not turning one in on time, which he was still waiting for in the mail.

Gotta do your paperwork. Why should I be sympathetic to this loser who couldn't keep track of his own citizenship process? Other countries don't have the same laws we do, that's what being a sovereign state means.

While I do not agree with the revisionist viewpoint I will not condone the abridging of the freedom of speech.
Why can the subject not be open to debate? I suspect making it taboo actually lends some credibility to an otherwise very weak theory.
That the US government participated in sending someone to a country that prosecuted them for remarks made legally in the US is an outrage.

He was not a US citizen. That makes all the difference. We have higher standards for who we allow citizenship to than native born Americans. How many native born Americans know all the US history that immigrants are required to learn?

otheadp,

I am unable to debate your points unless you use more concrete definitions for terms like "freedom," "fascist," "tyrannical," and "hate speech."

While I do not agree with the revisionist viewpoint I will not condone the abridging of the freedom of speech.
Why can the subject not be open to debate? I suspect making it taboo actually lends some credibility to an otherwise very weak theory.
That the US government participated in sending someone to a country that prosecuted them for remarks made legally in the US is an outrage.

It appears to me that the Jewish community fear that an academic discussion of World War 2 might end up providing enough evidence to portray a different version of the history, a version that may be detrimental to Jewish interests.

One argument I think can be used is that if the current accepted version of WW2 is true, then their should be no fear from the Jewish community of an open debate because the very strong evidence the Jewish people claim to have would easily debunk the claims of the Revisionists. So the fact that they are desiring to outright criminalize the debate may be an indication that the Jewish community covertly believe that Revisionists are actually correct.

Gotta do your paperwork.

According to Zundel, no paperwork was even due: he sent everything that he usually does. Then some "surprise" papers were out of the blue claimed to be missing a signature and some info, they don't even discuss it with Zundel or let him know that something is wrong; rather, at 4 am in the morning when he was sleeping, arrested him by surprise, a squad of police as if he was a mass murderer.

I believe the U.S. government, knowing that Zundel was an internationally known figure of Revisionism, intentionally worked with the Israeli Lobby, the Jewish diaspora, and Israel to accuse him of a fake crime as an excuse to imprison him.

Why should I be sympathetic to this loser

Please define "loser."

Regards.

Keep in mind that the U.S. government does almost nothing about overt illegal Mexicans who are much more represented in crimes like drug trafficing, yet carries out this project against Zundel, an 80 year old phD European Male with a 100%clean criminal background. Seems extremely suspecious to me.

So do you believe in the laws that were used as justification for imprisoning Ernst? The German law says that anyone who shows support for a different view of World War 2 than officially supported by the International Jewish community should be arrested. Do you support this law? If not, can you please explain the restrictions on Speech you believe should or should not exist. I am much interested in learning about the political paradigm you support in regards to this specific area.

Regards.

I'm quite happy with this restriction in some of the European countries.

It's not about having a different view. If you think that I suggest reading up on the history of Europe.

Or do you think there is a rational reason for holocaust denial?

otheadp,

I am unable to debate your points unless you use more concrete definitions for terms like "freedom," "fascist," "tyrannical," and "hate speech."

Fascism (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Afascist&meta=): authoritarian political movement

authoritarian (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aauthoritarian&meta=): characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule

Hate speech (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Ahate+speech&meta=): (although i've already defined it for you) seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.

it's irrelevant whether you actually hate the group or not. the speech itself is hateful.

i hope this clears up any vagueness.


now, let's apply these definitions:

the law for jailing Holocaust deniers is not "tyrannical". a law cannot be tyrannical in itself. the source of the law (i.e. who passes it) must be tyrannical. but it isn't, since Germany is a liberal democracy. hence, any law in Germany cannot be tyrannical by definition. people hyperbolically using this term are simply misusing it.

do some people dislike it? sure. just like people dislike paying taxes, or being arrested for smoking :m:. but a law is a law.
and let me assure you, this law is not as controvercial as Holocaust-deniers would like to make it seem. it is a widely accepted law which is passed in many different countries.

I have to agree with Charles Wong that the whole mess just does not pass the smell test.
It is suppose to be US policy not to send people to a country where they will be imprisoned solely for their political beliefs. In this case there seems to have been a circumvention this concept by transshipping him via Canada.
The US government usually ends up regretting it when they abandon established principals of ethical behavior.

otheadp,

All governments are authoritarian, because all governments use coercive force to enforce laws. There is no such thing as "freedom" since every country uses coercion to impede certain freedoms to engage in various behavior. Perhaps anarchy would be closest to freedom, but in that case to, people will be inflicting impedements upon the actions of others. And then even the laws of physics impedes freedom: I want to be "free" to live forever, but the law of enthropy impedes my freedom in this respect. I would like to be free to fly like Superman all througout outerspace and not be damaged by UV energy and sub-atomic particles and enthalpy, but again nature is impeding my freedoms here.

seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.

Dehumanize: so what if I say that race x has genes that make them on average more intelligent than race y, but I claim that they still belong to the human species. I would not be engaging in your definition of "Hate" then, right? Can you more objectively define "dehumanization"?

anger/hate/contempt: So if person x says that he/she hates murderers, he would be engaging in your definition of "Hate" speech? Can you please define your parameters on what type of hate you would allow and what types you would not? What about if one says he hates all people with freckles? Or people with small penises? Or people with curly hair? What about people who hate people who hate, thus hating himself in the process?

You need to severely objectify all your thoughts, please sir.

What if someone does not believe the Holocaust not because they hate anyone, but because he believes the evidence does not support the claim or that the evidence is inconclusive? What if any person has a different version of any historical event from the past, is he "Hate Speaking"?

Germans are still free to express themselves with the most perverted porn known to man, and the biggest annual rave in the world (aka the Love Parade)

These don't threaten the established order at all.

According to Zundel, he was plinking for homeless niggers under the bridge with his Luger, when accosted for no reason by Jew INS agents, who sent him to a re-education camp in the Catskills run by the ACLU. They fried his Nazi balls with electrodes and made him watch Oprah 27/4 until extradition to the fatherland.


Please define "loser."

Regards.

A holocaust revisionist is another word for fascist white supremacist Nazi scumbag. So what if they make things difficult for him? Aren't these bastards suppose to own villas in Paraguay or something?

http://xs310.xs.to/xs310/06525/giveadamnprogress9iw.gif (http://xs.to)

According to Zundel, he was plinking for homeless niggers under the bridge with his Luger, when accosted for no reason by Jew INS agents, who sent him to a re-education camp in the Catskills run by the ACLU. They fried his Nazi balls with electrodes and made him watch Oprah 27/4 until extradition to the fatherland.

I never wrote the above, you have falsely claimed I wrote it, please delete your fabricated post.

I never wrote the above, you have falsely claimed I wrote it, please delete your fabricated post.

are you zak?

otheadp,

All governments are authoritarian, because all governments use coercive force to enforce laws. There is no such thing as "freedom" since every country uses coercion to impede certain freedoms to engage in various behavior. Perhaps anarchy would be closest to freedom, but in that case to, people will be inflicting impedements upon the actions of others. And then even the laws of physics impedes freedom: I want to be "free" to live forever, but the law of enthropy impedes my freedom in this respect. I would like to be free to fly like Superman all througout outerspace and not be damaged by UV energy and sub-atomic particles and enthalpy, but again nature is impeding my freedoms here.



Dehumanize: so what if I say that race x has genes that make them on average more intelligent than race y, but I claim that they still belong to the human species. I would not be engaging in your definition of "Hate" then, right? Can you more objectively define "dehumanization"?

anger/hate/contempt: So if person x says that he/she hates murderers, he would be engaging in your definition of "Hate" speech? Can you please define your parameters on what type of hate you would allow and what types you would not? What about if one says he hates all people with freckles? Or people with small penises? Or people with curly hair? What about people who hate people who hate, thus hating himself in the process?

You need to severely objectify all your thoughts, please sir.

What if someone does not believe the Holocaust not because they hate anyone, but because he believes the evidence does not support the claim or that the evidence is inconclusive? What if any person has a different version of any historical event from the past, is he "Hate Speaking"?

dude you're nitpicking the fuck out of the topic at hand.
and you're talking about Holocaust denial as if it's the same as Santa Clause denial.

but you're not an "objective social scientist" here. you have an agenda and you cloak yourself with abstract bullshit, telling me that "Enthropy will prevent me from flying" instead of responding to what i said.

what on earth have you been smoking / mainlining?

anyway, you don't seem to want to actually respond to my post so i'll just leave you be.

dude you're nitpicking the fuck out of the topic at hand.
and you're talking about Holocaust denial as if it's the same as Santa Clause denial.

but you're not an "objective social scientist" here. you have an agenda and you cloak yourself with abstract bullshit, telling me that "Enthropy will prevent me from flying" instead of responding to what i said.

what on earth have you been smoking / mainlining?

anyway, you don't seem to want to actually respond to my post so i'll just leave you be.


In other words, you cannot objectively state your views, meaning that they have no substance. I accept your capitulation.

Regards,

Charles Wong

i hope he gets his ass raped in jail. let him write about that experience.

Kudos!

:D

Do you believe that homosexual rape should be legalized in prison?

normally i wouldnt let that happen, but in this case i'll make an exception. who knows he might as well enjoy it :p

normally i wouldnt let that happen, but in this case i'll make an exception. who knows he might as well enjoy it :p

So you believe the law should be altered stating that only Holocaust Revisionists in prison should not receive legal protection from homosexual rape.

Have you taken pro-active actions to bring this law to fruition? For example, people start non-profit organizations aimed at influencing politicians and the public. Are you aware of any politicians or prospective politicians that are open to the law you suggest?

Regards.

I guess that would be up to German prisons.

I guess that would be up to German prisons.

But we can't let them take away people's human rights!!! That's just wrong and terrible! We must invade at once and set the people free of the tyranny of the German government!

Oh, wait! No, that's not how it works, is it? No, we just continue to let other nations violate human rights and do nothing about it except complain and write silly posts on the sciforums, right? :D

We don't really give a shit about people's human rights, we only want things to talk about on sciforums. ;)

Baron Max

What "human right" would that be, then?

So you believe the law should be altered stating that only Holocaust Revisionists in prison should not receive legal protection from homosexual rape.

I would like to state my tentative support for this position. Not terribly nice, speakin' all legal-like; yet, it seems so appropriate somehow that it's difficult to imagine a reason not to support it.

Regards.

:rolleyes:

What if someone does not believe the Holocaust not because they hate anyone, but because he believes the evidence does not support the claim or that the evidence is inconclusive? What if any person has a different version of any historical event from the past, is he "Hate Speaking"?

"What if" indeed! Unfortunately, we'll never know, since there is little doubt of the, ah, underlying reasons behind Holocaust Denial today. Our very own little mountainhare - he of the little logic and the "Holohoax" comment - is ample evidence of that.

Charles_Wong,

Good effort. Why didn't the man petition for political asylum?

Charles_Wong,

Good effort. Why didn't the man petition for political asylum?

He did everything he could, but when the governments themselves believe that Holocaust Revisionists deserve no rights, they will not provide any protection.


So, I think that before anyone desires torture for Holocaust Revisionists in prison, put yourself in their shoes. If one type of speech deserves torturous retribution, then there could be the same retribution for other types of speech that go out of political fashion: anti-homosexual speech, anti-Muslim speech, anti-affirmative action speech, or any speech that which is acceptable now can become taboo and illegal in the future.

Non-Whites who support torture for White hate speakers, a time may come when whites get fed up and decide to torture minority groups. I believe that a significant chance exists that several white countries may decide that multiculturalism is not worth the trouble and decide to have major ethnic cleansing.

These are just some things to keep in mind. So, think about all this before you decide what you want.

He did everything he could, but when the governments themselves believe that Holocaust Revisionists deserve no rights, they will not provide any protection.

These are just some things to keep in mind. So, think about all this before you decide what you want.

A curious thing. I was talking with a Russian immigrant some few years back, his claim was that his relative was denied a visa into the US for no better reason than being Jewish. I find that hard to accept.

I have no doubt that much of what you say is true.

So you believe the law should be altered stating that only Holocaust Revisionists in prison should not receive legal protection from homosexual rape.

ofcourse not, that was just an expression. holocaust deniers, like all other criminals, should have full rights.

Why should having an opinion different from the generally accepted viewpoint be a crime?

Why should having an opinion different from the generally accepted viewpoint be a crime?
holocaust denial is not an opinion, its a lie. the nazis became the first holocaust deniers when they tried to hide their atrocities by covering up the evidence. sadly they managed to fool some people.

Holocaust denial maybe untrue but it still is an opinion and having an uninformed opinion should not be a crime.

holocaust denial is not an opinion, its a lie.

Don't one have to know the truth in order to lie? If I'm not mistaken, if someone is totally ignorant of some subject he can't lie about it. Lying is an INTENTIONAL act, not one of ignorance.

Baron Max

Holocaust denial maybe untrue but it still is an opinion and having an uninformed opinion should not be a crime.

some opinions are worse than others, even if they're uninformed. and some are absolutely the worst. so bad that you need to isolate individuals with these opinions from society.

by the way, it isn't a crime in the US, only in some European countries, right? so whatever happened to moral relativism so favoured by bleeding hearts?

EDIT:
i'm not sure about this but it seems that all the countries that have criminalized Holocaust denial had all been invaded and occupied/ravaged by the Nazis. just something to point out...

While it maybe necessary to curtail speech that is intended to cause panic or riot questioning the validity of the accepted data about the Holocaust does not rise to that level. It is more like the flat earth proponents.
It is my point of view that people who can not tolerate freedom of expression in other people are philosophical fascists.

Holocaust denial maybe untrue but it still is an opinion and having an uninformed opinion should not be a crime.

Should expressing it in books and media then be a crime? Why or why not?

Freedom of the press is the same concept as freedom of speech. Therefore freedom of expression would extend to writing a book or to media publication of ideas that are contrary to generally accepted history.
The only limitations on freedom of expression should be to acts solely designed to create riot or panic. The classic example is falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater to create chaos.
The people who want to deny that the Nazi's had a program of mass genocide seem to genuinely believe that it did not happen. It is a far greater threat to the freedom of people in the present to be jailing people for dissenting thoughts than tolerating radical ideas.

The people who want to deny that the Nazi's had a program of mass genocide seem to genuinely believe that it did not happen. It is a far greater threat to the freedom of people in the present to be jailing people for dissenting thoughts than tolerating radical ideas.

I agree, and feel the same way about extreme leftists who deny Stalin's purges. We should tolerate and be open-minded about many weird things, from UFOs to fascisms to bestiality.

holocaust denial is not an opinion, its a lie. the nazis became the first holocaust deniers when they tried to hide their atrocities by covering up the evidence. sadly they managed to fool some people.

Question...
I'm not a historian and have never had any reason to doubt the standard version of the holocaust. But both the Allies and the Axis were known to have propaganda. The allies exaggerated somethings, and some smaller details of the holocaust may have been part of that. Is disputing a few details of the holocaust considered "holocaust denial" or does that only pertain to denying the majority of the holocaust?

IMO this suppression of rights helps the holocaust deniers more than it hurts. It makes it look suspicious. If this were open to debate a few details or so can potentially be changed but it would totally end this historical revisionism.

I'm not very sympathetic to the revisionist here, he sounds like a waste of life. However, I find it frightening that his rights have been violated and nothing has been done. It sets a dangerous precedent. It's also a little frightening how many people support this.