You know, if Holocaust deniers can go to prison, maybe eventually "Torturer deniers" will also

[Duer 157099]

I never understood how ignorance can be illegal, but hey, if so, why can't we make a law like that too?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3851228&mesg_id=3851228

[Demeter]

1. Rush Limbaugh Would Be the First Resident

They would need a whole building just for his ego to fit in.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Because our Constitution explicitly prohibits such a law.

This has been another episode of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.

[Duer 157099]

8. Lol, Constitution? You mean the one that forbids torture?

Hey I'm just sayin' that if things are so easily subject to change...

[walldude]

9. Not exactly... while it's not criminal we do have laws

against libel and defamation. They are just civil laws.

[MrSlayer]

3. Fortunately we have the First Amendment in this country.

And will not pass such a ludicrous law.

[Political Heretic]

4. Um Holocaust deniers can't and shouldn't go to prison.

Being a moron isn't a crime.

[cali]

6. they can and they do in those countries where it's a crime

And most holocaust denial has zip to do with being a moron. not saying I agree with those laws, but those are the laws.

[Political Heretic]

10. Sorry I assumed we were talking about the US

But given the title I should have figured out we were talking about other countries.

Anyway, in that case I would be in the "thank god we have the first amendment" crowd.

I'm sorry but being wrong, being a bigot, and just being a general asshole is not a crime.

[Occam Bandage]

15. There are free-speech limitations in America, too. Fighting words are not protected.

Neither are libel and slander.

[Political Heretic]

17. You can't be thrown in jail for libel or slander.

If someone wants to sue someone for denying the holocaust, good luck with that.

I'm sorry but I don't want the fucking thought police in my country.

[Occam Bandage]

19. We already have "the thought police." Murder one, murder two, and manslaughter are different crimes,

with the distinction being only what you were thinking at the time.

[Political Heretic]

21. "thought police" - as Orwell coined it - refers to the censorship of unpopular opinion.

And I feel that you know this, and are just purposefully being a shit.

I vehemently oppose censorship. Do we have some legal censorship? Yes, and in many instances I oppose it. Sometimes it may be necessary. But as a rule, I want as little censorship as possible, and I don't feel that denying the holocaust meets a criteria for censorship or punitive sanction.

That clear enough for you?

[cali]

5. simple: because we have the first amendment and the countries

that outlaw holocaust denial don't. not to mention that our use of torture is hardly in the same league as 12 million dead in the holocaust. not that I like the laws in Germany and other European countries, but I get where they're coming from. Keeping a sense of proportion is not the same as denial.

[tocqueville]

12. wrong

France has a "1st amendment" but holocaust denial is forbidden :

French constitution

PREAMBLE

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004.

or what says the Declaration of 1789 :

The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of man's most precious rights. Every citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except that he shall be responsible for the abuse of that freedom in cases determined by law. Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen -- France- August 26, 1789

so there are exceptions which shows that both concepts can coexist

in the US (wikipedia)

Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation<36> and incitement to riot.<37> Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement only qualify as criminal if the threat of violence is imminent.<38> This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

"Hate Speech" in U.S. Professional and Educational Contexts

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.<39> See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).

Both public and private educational institutions in the United States frequently adopt rules prohibiting stigmatization on the basis of attributes such as race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or national origin. In the 1980's and 1990's, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.<40> These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.<41>

so even if the latitude of free speech in the US is formally broader, it's still subject for litigation and interpretation.

BTW "apology of torture" is illegal in France.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Holocaust denial is not criminal in the United States.

It is criminal in many European countries, as a means of suppressing neo-Nazis.

[anonymous171]

13. I was just about to mention that.

For them it was/is a necessity to keep hateful elements in check.

[RadicalTexan]

11. No one should go to court for speaking publicly or expressing their views, so matter how repugnant

First, Holocaust deniers, then torture deniers, then YOU.

Free speech is just that. It's not called free true speech. Just free speech.

[Political Heretic]

18. I agree with this. I am a strong supporter of the most radical free speech possible.

With only the most absolutely necessary exclusions.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. i would not go as far as prison for them, but I do like the analogy.

Why is it wrong to deny that the Holocaust happened but it is just fine and dandy to deny that America tortured prisoners?

[BuyingThyme]

16. They all live in their own little prisons.

No, wait... No they don't. They kill people and suck their brains out.

[Hugabear]

20. I would prefer to throw climate change deniers in prison

Denying that climate change exists, and trying to convince governments to do nothing, should be criminal - BILLIONS of people could die if governments heeded their advice.

[Political Heretic]

22. I wish people on the left weren't so eager to throw people they disagree with in jail

... I thought this was a "people on the right" thing. But occasionally, DU reminds me that no, it isn't... the eagerness to jail and silence people who have opinions we don't like seems to go across the ideological spectrum.