FReepers are wrongfully looking at this from an American viewpoint.
Nazism, WWII and the Holocaust have been by far Germany's worst moment in their history. They are rightfully, willing to do whatever it takes to make sure those times never set upon them again. By the end of World War II their country laid in ruins and they are willing to jail anyone who hints at bringing an ideology that could once again be destructive to their country.
Free speech brings personal responsibility with it. Holocaust denial is in many ways not free speech. Free speech means you can have an opinion, but not necessarily that you can deny a horrible fact and in doing so you in fact advocate another genocide since you do not even recognize the first one.
"Death and life are in the power of the tongue". Proverbs 18:21
"FReepers are wrongfully looking at this from an American viewpoint. "
The American viewpoint is what put an end to those attrocities.
During WW II, Americans were ALSO "looking at this from an American viewpoint. ". View from a German viewpoint in WW II, Americans would have been considered wrong.
Simply, this is a case where we are right, and they are wrong.
"Nazism, WWII and the Holocaust have been by far Germany's worst moment in their history.
WWII worst moment was the killing of tens of millions of people, 90% of which were Christians - 25 millions of which were Russians.
you are the first voice of historical perspective I have read on this thread. thank you.
simply put, germany was burnt to the ground by 1945. this means no food, no water, no law and order, nothing but chaos and wondering which military unit will move through next. This is a situation no living american has experienced IN the US, and furthermore germany is surrounded by potential, current, or former enemies, and was even partitioned, and of course they would ban anything (nzi paraphanelia, certain speech) that would benefit the supporters of the nsdap.
this is not a moral post (for the confused, i am not saying this is right or wrong, simply that the germans do have some fairly compelling reasons for some of their laws, for better or worse.
or to put it another way, if you think this law is wrong, what do you think of similar laws they have proscribing nsdaq paraphanelia, the name, etc.
(One of the interesting rulings by the Tribunal, when Zundel's Canadian attorney presented evidence that Zundel had not written the words he was being accused of saying was "The truth is not a defense in this court."
L
I know it is a fact. You know it is a fact. How will future generations know that is was a fact?
Because they will be jailed if they even raise the question?
Would raising the question that the Katyn Massacre was not a Nazi atrocity be a punishable offense?
As it turned out, the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet atrocity and even Russia belatedly admitted it.
If you jail those who question or argue a position, with time, new generations will wonder if, like the Soviets, the powers that be are trying to hide the truth.
The way to combat such lies is to prove them wrong after the fool has given his best effort. Jailing the fool only gives him the glory of martyrdom and makes young minds wonder why you must resort to forcibly silencing him rather than proving him wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt.
It appears Europeans are not the only ones who need lessons in free speech. Free speech means allowing speech we do not agree with, and in many cases find repugnant. Holocaust denial falls into these categories. There are some forms of speech which are not permissible, i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater and inciting criminal behavior, but they do relate to the free expression of ideas and opinions. Natan Sharansky calls it the "Town Square Test".
When you get on the slippery slope of outlawing speech with the reasoning you outline, who will be the arbiter? Who will decide what is allowable or not? The irony is that engaging in such government regulated speech control, i.e. censorship, leads to the very thing that the Germans wish to avoid once the wrong people get control of the government.
Personally, I would rather have people with such opinions out in the open, where they can be refuted and repudiated.
I will stand by my original statement that Europe, and the rest of the world have much to learn from the USA about freedom of speech. And freedom of religion as well.