[tomp]

> Genocide denial is extremely insulting to the victims and the survivors.

So? So is calling people "rapists" (without proof or conviction), but we don't outlaw it.

> We've had enough.

I don't care. I've had enough of people who believe in God. So? Why should the state criminalize it just because I've had enough?

> In essence, it's a matter of accountability that we must uphold vigorously.

I'm all for upholding the truth. I just think we should do it by logical arguments, not by government fiat.

[Mithaldu]

> So? So is calling people "rapists" (without proof or conviction), but we don't outlaw it.

Yet we do: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...

[tomp]

Hm... either I'm reading this incorrectly, or this only applies to

> a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins

Can you clarify why insulting someone with "rapist" is outlawed?

[isolate]

If you publish it, it's libel. There's a difference between "so-and-so is an asshole" (not a fact, haha), and "so-and-so committed a crime" (a fact). Whether it's a civil or criminal matter depends on the jurisdiction. The UN is against criminalizing defamation because it limits freedom of expression.

[Mithaldu]

> Can you clarify why insulting someone with "rapist" is outlawed?

In case the second link did not lead you to the correct section:

    Section 186
    Defamation
    
    Whosoever asserts or disseminates a fact related to another person
    which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him,
    shall, unless this fact can be proven to be true, be liable to
    imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the offence
    was committed publicly or through the dissemination of written
    materials (section 11(3)), to imprisonment not exceeding two years
    or a fine.

[tomp]

OK, thanks. So free speech is limited even more than I thought :) But at least you're consistent, I'll give you that.

[dragonwriter]

> So? So is calling people "rapists" (without proof or conviction), but we don't outlaw it.

Falsely calling someone a rapist is unlawful and subjects the person doing it to legal consequences many places (including most jurisdictions in the US); where the burden of proof is on demonstrating the truth or falsity of the statement, whether and in what circumstances a good-faith mistake of fact will excuse the offense, etc., vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it is certainly not a matter on which it is some widely accepted principal that people are free to make false claims without consequence.

[tomp]

Hm... plenty of men have been publicly accused of rape by women (Duke lacrosse case, the Mattress Girl, Rolling Stone "Rape on Campus", to list a few). I don't recall any legal repercussions for those women. I'm guessing that's because it's really hard to prove they're lying (even though in many cases there is very obvious evidence that they were), but this fact doesn't really support your claim that calling someone a rapist ever results in legal consequences (let alone criminal consequences).

[dragonwriter]

For one rather well-known case of non-criminal legal consequences: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegati...

Discussion of criminal recourse (and considerations involved in pursuing it, from prosecutors' perspective) is here (starting on p. 8): http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf