Why is it a crime to deny the existence of the German Holocaust?

Question:I thought this was America!? do we not have the right of speech?
Is it because it "offends" Jews?
Certain people claim different numbers of Jews that died there.

Whats your opinion on this?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I thought this was America!? do we not have the right of speech?
Is it because it "offends" Jews?
Certain people claim different numbers of Jews that died there.

Whats your opinion on this?

just to make it clear i think the holocaust did happen and it was the worst thing we humans have probably ever come up with.

i believe that it should not be a crime to posit any historical theory, no matter how offensive it can be. as long as you do not incite hatred, then you should be able to say what you like, when you like, to whoever you like, that is real freedom.

It's obvious that the holocaust happened because of all the photographic and film evidence as well as the Germans' immaculate record keeping and the testimonies of people who were there.
It can only be assumed that the people who deny that it existed are just out to cause trouble and annoy people, yet it is vital that everyone is aware of what happened, so the memory must be protected at all costs. For these people, a law was made.

It should be illegal!

The Germans were great record keepers.... so the basically told the world all that happened during the Nazi control following WWII. So the government feels that its important to keep this kind of information out there so we can try and prevent another holocaust (not saying that's working because there is still genocide). The Germans said it happened, the Jews said it happened so why can't eveyone accept it happened. I mean if i was a nation and knew that this would ruin our reputation i would not send out information on it unless i knew that we owed it to the world.

In America it isn't a crime. It is a crime in Germany.
Even though it isn't a crime to deny the holocaust in America, it is extremely ignorant and stupid. It not only offends Jews, it offends everybody. Some Jews were gassed, some were starved, some were shot, some were used as medical guinea pigs in horrific experiments. If you have come across different numbers, then it may be that one number is Jews killed in the entire war and another is Jews killed in concentration camps. Civilian casualties in war are always hard to pin an exact number on so there are usually different estimates. This is the case in every war that has ever been fought, not just WWII

The right to free speech is not all inclusive . It does not give you the right to lie or to slander some one . The holocaust is accepted as fact . Ask any of the German citizens the US army forced to bury all the bodies left over from the holocaust . While I'm not sure if saying it didn't happen is against the law . I am sure it's not the truth .

It was a crime, Hitler hated the Jews, and he wanted them all dead or removed from his Arian Pure society. Over 6 million Jews were murdered by the SS. There is no denying that the Holocaust happened, because there is much proof of the fact!

It is not a crime in America. As far as I know it's only in Germany that it's actually a crime to deny the holocaust. Spreading hate literature however is a crime, and most holocaust denials are attached to anti semetic propoganda.

And just to clarify, the starved, emaciated corpses were not that way because of the gas, but because of the starvation and hard labor before they were gassed. The Holocaust happened. The reason people say different numbers of deaths is because of the chaos of the time. It was a world war. Records were lost, people disappeared and their remains never found. So if you're estimating how many people died, you have some variables to consider. Some estimates go by how many Jews were around before and after the war and simply say that the difference represents the death toll. Others actually try to find prove positive that the people in question were actually at a camp. But the first method is too subjective and the second method is unreliable because of the incomplete records. So you have a range, and the truth is probably in between.

Actually, there are a number of words and subjects that are off-limits simply because they are too offensive. Free speech does not include the right to scream, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, nor does it include the right to bring back hurtful memories of genocide, by denying the holocast, or of slavery and racial discrimination by, for example, using the n-word. Note the article below on this latter.

New York bans ‘N-word’
SARA KUGLER AND ANAHAD O’CONNOR IN NEW YORK

NEW York City has declared the word “******” off-limits to whites and blacks alike in a symbolic resolution prompted by its increasingly casual use.

The measure urges New Yorkers to voluntarily stop using the word, sometimes referred to as “the N-word” because of its sensitivity and painful history intertwined with slavery.

“People are using it out of context,” said Leroy Comrie, a black city councillor who sponsored the measure that was unanimously approved. “People are also denigrating themselves by using the word, and disrespecting their history.”

New York’s resolution is not binding, but leaders of the largest city in the United States hope to set an example.

Rudis Mata, 21, of New York, said it was pointless to ban the word if the city had no plans to enforce it, adding that he thought it a violation of free speech.

“I don’t necessarily think people should ban the word, but it’s a derogatory term and it shouldn’t be used,” he said. “It’s different from other curse words. It has a history.”

Other municipalities in the United States have passed similar measures since a debate over the slur rose to a fever pitch late last year after the Seinfeld actor, Michael Richards, spewed the word repeatedly at a comedy club in Los Angeles.

Later, Mr Comrie seethed as he listened to some black teenagers on a street in Queens, New York. “They were saying ‘*****’ or ‘******’ every other word,” said Mr Comrie. “I could tell they didn’t get it. They don’t realise how their self-image is debilitated when they use this awful word in public.”

At New York’s City Hall, supporters cheered passage of the resolution, with many of them wearing pins featuring a single white “N” with a slash through it.

Kurtis Blow Walker, a pioneer of hip-hop music, said that blacks needed to stop using the word so “we can elevate our minds to a better future”.

Others argued that use of the word by blacks was empowering, that reclaiming a slur and giving it a new meaning took away its punch. Jamie Foxx, the Oscar-winning actor, has said that he will not stop using the word and that he does not see anything inappropriate about blacks using it within their own circles.

John Ridley, a black author and film-maker, said efforts to abolish it were insulting because they suggested black Americans would allow themselves to be cowed “by six letters and two syllables”.

Unlike the politicians trying to quash the word, Ridley added, those who embraced it were showing backbone by declaring “we’re owning it”.

“With everything that’s going on in America, the idea of trying to ban a word to solve a problem is just ridiculous,” he said. “And for people of colour - with us possibly on the cusp of having a black man become president, for us to be worried about this word is ridiculous.”

Many rap artists use the slang pronunciation, with an “a” or “az” instead of an “er,” in lyrics, such as Snoop Dogg’s For All My ****** & Bitches or 50 Cent’s Realest *****, as a statement of pride. But black leaders including the Rev Jesse Jackson said it is impossible to paper over the epithet’s ugly history .

“I forgive those young people who do not know their history, and I blame myself and my generation for not preparing you,” New York City councillor Albert Vann said.

The word ******, in all its variations, stems from “niger”, Latin for black. One of the earliest recorded instances of its use in North America was in 1619, when a Jamestown colonist, John Rolfe, noted in his diary the arrival of a Dutch man-of-war with 20 African captives, or “negars”, according to Jabari Asim, author of a new book, The N Word: Who Can Say It, Who Shouldn’t, and Why.

There is some debate among scholars as to whether Rolfe intended the word as a pejorative or not; Asim said he believes it was an insult because otherwise Rolfe would probably have chosen the more neutral “*****”, which had been in use as far back as 1555.

By the early 1800s, the word had become common as a slur meaning subhuman and inferior, Asim said. Two centuries later, in 1988, the rap group N.W.A. used the word four dozen times on a best-selling album, Straight Outta Compton, igniting a debate over whether the racist connotation is removed when the word is culturally claimed by blacks themselves.

This must mean that there is no rap music being recorded in New York City. Nor any disc jockeys playing same.

Nor any public readings of Huckleberry Finn, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Autobiography Of Malcome X (as told to Alex Haley) and a thousand other books.

The word ******, in all its variations, stems from “niger”, Latin for black. One of the earliest recorded instances of its use in North America was in 1619, when a Jamestown colonist, John Rolfe, noted in his diary the arrival of a Dutch man-of-war with 20 African captives, or “negars”, according to Jabari Asim, author of a new book, The N Word: Who Can Say It, Who Shouldn’t, and Why.

What nonsense.

As the Oxford English Dictionary points out, this unfortunate word came into the language via the French and Spanish:

neger. Now north. dial. and Sc. Forms: 6-7 (9) neager, 6 (9) neeger, 7 negar, 7, 9 negre, 9 negur, 7- neger.
[ad. F. nègre, ad. Sp. ***** *****. So Du., G., Da., Sw. neger.]
1. A *****, esp. in disparaging use.
1587 MS. Robert Leng (Brit. Mus.), There were also in her 400 neegers, whome they had taken to make slaves.
1599 Minsheu s.v. Ca?uéla, Vpon Moores or Neagers, and on other malefactors.

Which makes sense, as it was Spain which began the Atlantic slave trade. Followed by the Portugese and then the Dutch.

But it’s probably breaking the law to even mention such things.

In a way, denying the Holocaust is like saying that the Jonas Brothers don't exist. See, this sounds ridiculous- people have been to concerts, they have seen Joe+Nick+Kevin, there are pictures and video, the concerts have been documented.

In terms of the Holocaust, people have see the concentration camps, they have seen both the dead and survivors, there are pictures, there is video footage (taken by the Allied troops), and the Germans meticulously documented numerous aspects of the camps and prisoners. So because there is so much evidence of what happened, denying the Holocaust has very little basis.

But yes, you have the right to deny the Holocaust if you just have to do that, despite the strong inclination of evidence against this viewpoint.

Also, as you mentioned, it likely does "offend" many Jews, though from the perspective of relatives and survivors, the prisoners were robbed of so much, mentally, physically, spiritually. Deny, laugh, whatever: I can't stop you. I have to say though, I would be deeply offended if I was wrongfully imprisoned and starved only to have people tell me I was just being a sissy who wanted attention.

Are you African American? Compare it to slavery and Jim Crow laws and the KKK.

Are you Japanese? Compare it to the Japanese internment camps.

Are you Chinese? Compare it to the current-day Chinese government's murders of opposition.

Eastern European? The Bolsheviks and USSR regime.

Darurian? The current genocide.

Rwandan? The late genocide.

Palestinian? The usurping of land for the creation fo Israel.

Iraqi? Sadaam and the Americans killing civilians.

Protestant? Atheist? Muslim? The Spanish Inquisition.

A child? The militants of Uganda, abducting children for use as child soldiers. Child-trafickers across the globe, sweatshop and factory owners.

There are countless examples of wrongfully persecuted peoples. So why do the Jews get so much of the sympathy? Probably because oft he mass extent of the Holocaust. But there are too many more examples of persected people who have recieved far less help than any Jew. Now that's something to be angry about.