It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalize genocide denial. In addition, the European Union has issued a directive to combat racism and xenophobia, which makes provision for member states criminalising Holocaust denial, with a maximum prison sentence of between one and three years. Also, the Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cyber Crime, concerning the prosecution of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems includes an article entitled Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity, although this does not have the status of law. Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, a number (Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Romania) were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and many of these also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as Nazi symbols.
David Irving, the controversial British historian, was arrested in Austria on November 11 for a 16-year-old violation of that country's "Holocaust denial" statute. He has now been formally charged, and if found guilty could face years in prison.
His case is by no means unique. In Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland and several other European countries, as well as in Israel, it is a crime publicly to dispute the official version of Holocaust history.
The list of those who have been fined, imprisoned, or forced into exile for "denying the Holocaust" includes Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Juergen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland, and Guenter Deckert, Hans Schmidt and Fredrick Toben in Germany.
On November 8, the trial in Germany of "Holocaust denier" Ernst Zundel began with a dramatic clash between his attorneys and the presiding judge. And a few days later Germar Rudolf, a German citizen, was deported from Chicago to his homeland, where he likewise faces years of imprisonment for "denying the Holocaust."
So Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on those who" do it -- but he says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions." I'd love to know the "conditions" under which the government-enforced banning of conspiracy theories or the imposition of taxes on those who advocate them will "have a place." That would require, at a bare minumum, a repeal of the First Amendment. Anyone who believes this should, for that reason alone, be barred from any meaningful government position.
Originally posted by roboe
Possible/Probable?
No, not really. Any thought to the contrary is trying to inflate the truth movement with importance it simply doesn't have.
"[t]here's no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a program"
Originally posted by acrux
Originally posted by roboe
Possible/Probable?
No, not really. Any thought to the contrary is trying to inflate the truth movement with importance it simply doesn't have.
Couldn't the same be said in the situation of holocaust denial.
I mean if the holocaust is so definate as they tell us, why do they need make it illegal to say othyerwise.
No I not denying the holocaust as a fact, I am just using this instance to portray the point I'm trying to get cross.edit on 28-11-2010 by acrux because: (no reason given)
The Israeli firm ICTS International (not to be confused with ICTS Europe, which is a different company), and two of its subsidiaries are at the crux of an international investigation in recent days, as experts try to pinpoint the reasons for the security failure that enabled Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board Northwest flight 253 and attempt to set alight explosives hidden in his underwear.
A Haaretz investigation has learned that the security officers and their supervisor should have suspected the passenger, even without having early intelligence available to them.
Originally posted by Nightchild
I believe it all depends very much on exactly HOW it is "denied". If it is just questioning the official story or not fully agreeing with it, then NO, I do not believe in any laws like that.
If the questioning, however, involves the"truther" being downright disrespectful towards the people that- for instance- had phone contact with their loved ones onboard the planes and had their last heartbreaking goodbyes and farewells, then yes, I could see such theoretical laws being set in place. Not to hide, but to protect.
Indeed, some "truthers" can be very disrespectful towards the survivors and even hinting that they are liars, and that the people on the ground that had planes fly over their heads(HunkaHunka being one of those), are liars too, which I find extremelydisgusting.