[Asbostos]

I think it's worse than that - it distorts our record of history. In another couple of hundred years, if people want to find out what happened, they'll see how it was banned and realize that most information that we did publish must have been biased. They could reasonably assume that it's largely false since no serious well funded attempts to refute it were allowed. So they could conclude that they have no idea what really happened. They might conclude as you did, that it might not have happened, otherwise information about it wouldn't have been subject to so much suppression.

We should probably make the same conclusion today. Since when have legally enforced official versions of history been trusted over free and open research?

[felipeerias]

So we should be allowing holocaust denial here and now, because otherwise people in the future might turn out holocaust deniers?

Holocaust denial has been refuted again and again. The reason why it keeps surfacing is not because of academics are still arguing about the facts. The facts don't matter: holocaust denial is one of the ways in which a very dangerous ideology searches for an entry point into the mainstream.

[tomp]

> Holocaust denial has been refuted again and again

So has been the "flat Earth" theory. Yet we don't ban it.

I think the reason it keeps resurfacing is precisely the fact it is banned - unbanning it would make it much less interesting.

Also, although you and other commenters keep repeating how "dangerous" it is, noone has been able to actually articulate as to why it's dangerous.

[felipeerias]

Holocaust denial is a form of Nazi apologism. It keeps resurfacing because there are still many neo-fascist groups trying to bring their message to the mainstream. Lifting the ban would only help them reach a wider audience.

(Do you really need an explanation as to why Nazism is incompatible with democracy?)

[tomp]

Evolution denial is a form of Church apologism. It keeps resurfacing because there are still many religious groups trying to bring their message to the mainstream. Lifting the ban would only help them reach a wider audience.

(Do you really need an explanation as to why theocracy is incompatible with democracy?)

[Latty]

Then we fight it by continually showing them to be wrong. We can't ban Nazism without opening the flood gates - any government that comes into power can claim that whatever their rival party supports is 'incompatible with democracy'.

[hussong]

The key difference is that denying the Holocaust is a couple orders of magnitude more hurtful to a lot of people than denying "flat Earth", creation, of evolution.

[tomp]

So? Imagine how hurtful denying rape is (e.g. for someone who's rapist was found guilty in court). But it's still not illegal (AFAIK).

[jonahx]

Your POV reflects your status as an intelligent, educated person capable of, and presumably accustomed to, doing free and open research. It's wildly inaccurate to assume that even a small fraction of the population is in the same boat. Indeed, if you think I'm being unfair or elitist, I recommend a few semesters teaching at a state university in the US -- your doubts will surely be erased after that.

What most people will infer from such laws is the simplest conclusion: that they reflect reality, and that denying the Holocaust is what stupid people do. Most people absorb the majority of their views from what they commonly hear and see as being acceptable. If they see enough people discussing something, no matter how objectively wrong or stupid, they will put it into the category of "subjective things that might be true," and be done with it.

Ironically, many intelligent people are blind to this, because it is so far from how they operate themselves.

[braythwayt]

See also: Fox News.

[tomp]

I don't know why you're downvoted, I think you're making a valid and well-reasoned point.