Who judges what's disinformation? In the case of holocaust denial, you have historians who can easily disprove the deniers. What the hell is Google's claim to credentials?
In terms of harm measurement, it's not as straightforward as you would like. Are we judging feelings or violence that results or...?
Next, end goal. You want to squash every individual who denies the Holocaust occurred or downplays it? Good luck, you'll have your hands full in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I don't want to be a jerk, but if you want to play devil's advocate, you can do the research yourself. I am comfortable believing the old "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" adage without having a peer reviewed study on it.
I don’t take it as being a jerk, I’m just trying to question my assumptions in being intellectually rigorous. I’m failing to see how denying an event leads to repeating it, or the inverse, how accepting a historical event shields you from repeating it.
Genocide existed before hitler, and I’m assuming hitler knew about some of it, so why didn’t it work there?
But the Turkish government and its supporters are allowed to deny and downplay the Armenian genocide to their hearts content. The European Court of Human Rights even decided (Perinçek v. Switzerland) that people have a free speech right to deny the Armenian genocide, yet it has also held that people don't have a free speech right to deny the Holocaust (Pastörs v. Germany).
Both genocides happened, both genocides were awful, but it seems like different rules apply to denying different genocides, and that those rules are based on political calculations rather than defensible principle.
Yes, the laws in Turkey, Switzerland, and Germany are not going to be identical. And as I said elsewhere in this thread:
"My original comment was about laws against misinformation in Germany. That doesn't mean I endorse or need to defend all free speech laws in all of Europe."
Germany passes laws to ban Holocaust denial. The European Court of Human Rights upholds them as compatible with human rights.
Switzerland passes laws to ban both Holocaust denial and Armenian Genocide denial. The European Court of Human Rights rules the second aspect of the law is a human rights violation.
My complaint isn't about either the laws of Germany or of Switzerland, it is about the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, who have jurisdiction across almost all of Europe. The ECHR believes one has a free speech right to deny some genocides but not others.
The European Court of Human Rights doesn't rule on abstract ideas. It rules on particular cases. They didn't say denying the Armenian Genocide is okay while denying the Holocaust isn't. They ruled on two individual cases that seem to be contradictory when summarized in a single sentence. That doesn't mean they truly are contradictory once examined in depth.
You haven't explained how they aren't contradictory. You've just claimed that, if one examines them in depth, they will be found not to be contradictory. Have you examined them in depth yourself?
I'm not sure why the burden is on me, but here is the first Google result when plugging in both case names[1]:
>The Court began by noting the decisions in its previous cases concerning the denial of the Holocaust and other statements relating to Nazi crimes. Previous statements have been held to be inadmissible, either as being ill-founded under Article 10(2) when read with Article 17 (citing Williamson v. Germany ECtHR [2019] 64496/17), or otherwise as having incompatible subject matter jurisdiction under Article 17 (Perinçek v. Switzerland ECtHR [2015] 27510/08). The Court reiterated that Article 17 is reserved for extreme cases and on exceptional bases, and should only be used in Article 10 cases if it is “immediately clear” that the statements in issue seek to employ the right to freedom of expression “for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention” (para 37) – such as inciting hatred or violence or aiming to destroy the rights and freedoms listed in the Convention. Any case concerning Holocaust denial must be taken on a case-by-case basis and depends on all the circumstances of that particular case, when it comes to the Court’s decision to either apply Article 17 directly to the applicant’s Article 10 application and declare it incompatible with the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court, or instead to apply the general law principles under Article 10 and invoke Article 17 at a later stage as an interpretive aid when examining the necessity of any alleged interference by the domestic courts.
So, quoting a court's justification of its decision, proves the court made the right decision?
Of course the ECHR is going to claim "this case is unique and isn't inconsistent with our rulings in other cases". Just because they claim that doesn't make it true.
>Do you agree there is a reasonable possibility the claim is true?
Sure, it is reasonable it is politically motivated. It is also reasonable it isn't. Giving the lack of definitive answer, I chose to give the benefit of the doubt to the ECHR. Either way, I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Well, my point is this – if you try to justify laws against genocide denial, it is easier to justify them if those laws are consistent, and based on principle rather than politics. If there is a real possibility that we have unprincipled inconsistencies in them, that is a problem for their justification.
Why is the justification impacted by the consistency of certain implementations? Speed limits aren't consistent. You can't go above 60 mph anywhere in Hawaii, but some places in Texas you can go 85 mph. That doesn't mean speed limits aren't justifiable.
Laws are always going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sometimes that difference is based on principle. Sometimes it is based on politics. But even if it is tweaked due to politics, it doesn't invalidate the principle behind the entire law.
When laws treat members of different racial/ethnic/national groups differently, that's a form of discrimination. If there was a genocide against group A, and another against group B, and we say that it is illegal to deny the genocide against group A, but legal to deny the genocide against group B, that is treating group A and B differently. It is going to upset many members of group B, and damage social cohesion. Especially so if the different legal treatment is based on politics rather than principle.
I don't think your case of speed limits is really comparable. Nobody's personal identity is based on a speed limit, those laws – however rational or irrational they may be – are not relevant to personal identity. But genocide denial laws are relevant to personal identity – to racial/ethnic/national/etc identity – since different genocides have different victim groups, and there are people alive today who belong to those victim groups and identify with them, and the victims of a genocide (and their descendants) have a special interest in whether it is legal to deny that genocide.
>If there was a genocide against group A, and another against group B, and we say that it is illegal to deny the genocide against group A, but legal to deny the genocide against group B, that is treating group A and B differently.
That was not the ruling of the court. You are projecting that as the result of the court's decisions, but the court expressly said this was not what their ruling meant. Then you are assuming a motive based off that projection.
You are effectively pointing to one court case in which a woman was found innocent of murder and one in which a man was found guilty of murder and concluding that the system is obviously gender biased against men. My argument is not even necessarily that you are wrong, my argument is that you can't draw this conclusion from these two cases.
Well, I am not the only person who draws the conclusion that the ECHR judgement sets up a morally dubious hierarchy of genocides, in which the memory of the Holocaust is viewed as more worthy of protection than the memory of the Armenian genocide, and in which the threat of antisemitism is taken more seriously than that of anti-Armenianism. Here is a law professor making the exact same criticisms (Professor Uladzislau Belavusau at the University of Amsterdam): https://www.echrblog.com/2015/11/guest-commentary-on-grand-c... and also https://verfassungsblog.de/armenian-genocide-v-holocaust-in-...
Similar criticisms have been voiced by Ariana Macaya (law professor at the University of Costa Rica): http://www.qil-qdi.org/focus-sur-perincek-c-suisse-la-questi... (she writes in French, but if you can't read French, Google Translate does a pretty good job of it)
It is odd to accuse me of "projecting" in my criticism of a court decision, when law professors express essentially the same criticism. Are they projecting too?
I can point to legal experts who have a different conclusion.[1] Your linked experts are not inherently more right than mine.
Would you acknowledge that there is something more incendiary about a member of the German Parliament denying the Holocaust in an official Parliamentary speech compared to a foreign national denying the Armenian genocide in Switzerland where the Armenian population is estimated to be 3k-6k? That is the primary conclusion of the ECHR. There is no justification for extrapolating that out to the idea that every instance of denying the Holocaust is worse than any instance of denying the Armenian Genocide which appears to be your conclusion.
> Laws are always going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
GP was talking about rulings from the same jurisdiction.
The crazy amount of mental gymnastics you’re doing to justify denial of a genocide because it’s not your pet genocide wild.
That isn't how the ECHR works. They do not dictate the laws for all of Europe. They evaluate whether the individual governments are violating someone's human rights. Those countries can obviously still have their own laws on free speech that will vary.
>The crazy amount of mental gymnastics you’re doing to justify denial of a genocide because it’s not your pet genocide wild.
Where did I justify the denial of genocide? This is a wild accusation, especially from someone who wanted evidence that denying genocide was bad.
