Ah yes, Europe being that pristine example of freedom and democracy (much better than police state USA). Just make sure you don't say anything racist or xenophobic, or you might wind up in prison --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
The link you give is not an example of what you say though: you can be a holocaust denier without being a racist or a xenophobe and (more commonly) you can be a racist and a xenophobe (outspoken, too) and not be a holocaust denier.
And not that I defend these laws (they're mostly pointless and useless) but being racist or xenophobe usually isn't sufficient to qualify for hate speech, by the way. Hell, xenophobia is positively thriving these days, just start talking about Romani to continental europeans, there's a good chance you'll see an explosion of xenophobia.
Laws against denying the holocaust are not equivalent to laws against xenophobia or racism. You might be thinking of laws against hate speech.
Next, you’ll have to do a little more than just rant to convince me that laws restricting hateful speech are somehow antithetical to “freedom and democracy.”
Xenophobia and racism are pretty much as anti-democratic as you can get: If you don’t want blacks, jews, romany, homosexuals, or indians in your homeland, you’re hardly advocating the idea of freedom and democracy, are you?
> Next, you’ll have to do a little more than just rant to convince me that laws restricting hateful speech are somehow antithetical to “freedom and democracy.”
They're restrictions on freedom of speech, so they're restrictions on freedom (I have a harder time with the "restriction on democracy" part, that one does not make sense).
> Xenophobia and racism are pretty much as anti-democratic as you can get
Sure, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.
You have to think globally, not locally. For example, laws against murder and pillage are laws against the freedom for market forces to govern individual behaviour. However, the imposition of a police state restricting these behaviours makes individuals more free because they can act with little fear of murder and pillage.
Likewise, any law restricting speech is a restriction of freedom in the small. Some (myself included) argue that it increases freedom in the large. You may not agree, but I hope you appreciate my argument that there is an argument to be made and that it is not “obvious” that enacting hate speech laws are antithetical to freedom in the large.
As for the not relevant to the discussion bit, I was responding to that specific comment, which brought them up.
> For example, laws against murder and pillage are laws against the freedom for market forces to govern individual behaviour.
These laws exist to avoid citizen A encroaching upon (and unfairly limiting) citizen B's freedom. Citizen A being a xenophobic assbag does not, in and of itself, restrict citizen B's freedom. If citizen A acts on his xenophobia, there will likely be laws allowing citizen B to get redress (and if there are not there should be), but making xenophobia itself illegal is thoughtcrime, and it is a restriction on freedom of speech with little to no justification (and value) outside of emotional appeal (one of the worst basis I know for lawmaking).
Hey, I accept that there are people who don’t agree with me, and that’s why there is this country called the USA where they can happily co-exist with each other while I write this in Toronto.
But I hope you can accept that there are people who do agree with me, and therefore understand my statement that one must do more than simply quote holocaust denial laws or hate crime laws to label a country or group of countries as somehow being un-free or un-democratic.
I don’t agree with your position that hate crime laws are thoughtcrime, or that there is no value to them, or no justification for them, but I also don’t just dismiss your views, I understand that there are many people like you and that the question obviously is subject to debate and discussion, and that different people will come to different conclusions.
Compare and contrast this to the question of Heliocentricity. Heliocentricity is one of those things where there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. I think hate crime laws are not in the same class, they are strategies for achieving an end, and we have extremely imperfect information about the utility of these strategies.
For example, there is no way to do a true study. We can’t conjure up two countries that are identical in every respect except for there being a hate crime law in one and no such law in the other. Canada and the US are similar, but we Canadians have hate crime laws and gun control and socialized medicine and cheaper education and a bunch of other stuff.
What if Canada is a nicer place to live for visible minorities but it’s all the other stuff and not the hate crime laws? How could I know for sure? OTOH, what if the things you like about the US have everything to do with it being a wealthy country based on its resources and the size of its internal market and not to do with its freedom of speech?
So... I suggest we agree to disagree and further I hope that you can simultaneously hold your own views, disagree with my views, but understand why I might challenge someone to do more than simply cite a holocaust denial law as evidence a country is un-free or un-democratic.
A relevant link would have been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
And not that I defend these laws (they're mostly pointless and useless) but being racist or xenophobe usually isn't sufficient to qualify for hate speech, by the way. Hell, xenophobia is positively thriving these days, just start talking about Romani to continental europeans, there's a good chance you'll see an explosion of xenophobia.