[gambiting]

Yes, we can. For instance one of the things that are also in effect in Poland and which I wholeheartedly agree with is that denying holocaust is an active crime. As someone who has lost family in the concentration camps - good, the crime was too great to be denying it.

[int_19h]

Did it help with keeping fascists out of power in Poland?

If not, then what was the actual purpose of the law?

[gambiting]

That's like asking "if there are still racists in the US, what's the point of the constitution - after all it clearly states all men are equal!".

Yes, there are still facists in Poland - does that mean the law was pointless? Of course not.

And of course I don't think I have to point out that you can be a fascist and not deny holocaust, so this law wouldn't do anything in that case.

[int_19h]

I didn't ask if there are fascists in Poland, because that is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is that proto-fascists are in power in Poland. And they are actively denying the involvement of many Polish nationals in Anti-Semitic pogroms that were a part of the Holocaust.

But ignoring that, you appear to be saying that it's significantly worse to deny the Holocaust, than to be a fascist, seeing how the law doesn't apply to fascists who "moved on with the times"?

[gambiting]

No, that's not what I am saying.

[fastball]

You might think that's a good thing, but that's not free speech.

[TeMPOraL]

There is no absolute free speech in any country on this planet. There is always a line, and the question to which different nations give different answers is where to draw it.

[vbezhenar]

Where's comparable line in US?

[TeMPOraL]

Metaphorical "yelling fire in a crowded theatre"?

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic....

[ta17711771]

Bad example, has been ruled legal.

[gambiting]

So if you shout "Fire!" in the crowded theater, people start running out and someone is trampled to death....you still wouldn't be charged with a crime?

[gambiting]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...

Well, US has a problem with obscenities for instance, which are erased from court records, even if everyone in attendance is an adult and should be able to handle some cuss words. I know US really buys into the "land of the free" meme, but like the parent post said - the line exists in every country, the question is - are the people free to move the line? People of Poland have decided that the atrocities of the holocaust were so great that denying them should be a crime - but the key word here is decided, as in - were free to do so. People of America have decided that the line lies elsewhere - but let's not kid ourselves, the line absolutely exists. You might not go to prison for voicing opinions, but there will be backlash for certain ones which would be absolutely fine in other countries. The fact that US ranks 45th in the list of countries ranked by the freedom of press should say something.

[wl]

> Well, US has a problem with obscenities for instance, which are erased from court records, even if everyone in attendance is an adult and should be able to handle some cuss words.

This is not a universal practice. In fact, I'm inclined to say it's rather rare.

A case that immediately comes to mind is Cohen v. California. It concluded that governments can't ban the use of the word "fuck" in public. The word is not censored in the opinion.

http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep403/usrep403015/usr...