Should there be laws against denialism?

Post Reply New Topic

Should there be laws against denialism?

Sounds kind of 1984-ish to me.

The answer is, of course, NO!

True.

People have the right to deny the holocaust, and other people have the right to accuse them of being full of crap. It's the best way to preserve freedom of speech.

No, people can say whatever stupid s**t they want, that way we know when they are racists or just mentally unstable.

People can even say the Earth is 6000 years old.

ruveyn

Not sure but isn't holocaust denial illegal in Germany?

I don't believe in the concept of though crime every thought should be legal no matter how stupid.
but on the topic of denial-ism I have found Palestinian denial-ism to be quite common and growing
in both Jewish and Xtian quarters. I it is just as ugly and slimy as the other kinds.

I believe it is. It's quite arrogant to deny something where the evidence is conveniently located right in your back yard.

It is wrong to forbid free speech. Germany is remiss in this regard. However foolish it may be, one should be free to deny anything and do it out loud.

ruveyn

It's also explictly or implicitly illegal in 15 other countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

All rather ill considered positions. Free Speech is a necessary condition for liberty.

There should be no prior restraint on free speech (or publication) which is not fomenting a riot or a lynch mob. Whupping up public disorder is actionable.

ruveyn

No, there absolutely should not be laws against 'denialism'. That is (excuse the cliche) a slippery slope; how soon would it be that actual legitimate skeptics become censored because it is claimed they are 'denialists'? No censorship whatsoever, people are capable of making their own choices; often the wrong one, but our ancestors fought for this right

I think we are being a little bit slippery on the use of the sobriquet "denialism."

Freedom of thought, belief and opinion is in many respects an empty right, because there is no practical way for a government to infringe the right. But it stands, nonetheless, at the centre of liberalism because it is a valuable filter with which to understand other rights--not the least of which is freedom of expression.

No one can legislate away holocaust denial. But one can legislate against expression that promotes a belief that the holocaust did not occur. We should be clear that when we talk about "laws against denialism" that it is the latter that we are talking about.

I, for one, believe that outright prohibitions are misplaced. When government curtails free expression, it should be clear that it is doing so for a transparent and legitimate purpose.

Prohibitions against transmitting material subject to copyright, for example, is a restriction on free speech, but one that is generally accepted as necessary and fair to protect creators.
Legal remedies for defamation are another restriction, but one that is generally accepted as necessary to permit people to protect their own interests.
Criminalization of incitement to riot is a restriction on free expression, but one that is generally accepted as necessary to preserve the peace.

I see capacity for the government to prohibit denialism on to the extent that government can demonstrate a legitimate purpose in doing so. That's not an easy burden to discharge.

Not in the United States. The First Amendment stands.

ruveyn

Nope. People have the right to be hateful asswipes.
As Larry Flynt has observed, freedom of speech isn't just for the popular, but for the most unpopular.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I see a lot of people standing up for free speech, including vaccine denialism/fear mongering. But I don't think vaccine denialism should be protected. The First Amendment does have limits, namely one cannot say something that might incite a panic/riot or other situation that endangers the public. I think the rise in childhood measles cases is a clear indicator that vaccine denialism is a threat to the public's wellbeing.

Speeech ought not be censored, but it should be censured if attrocious and facile