By that logic we shouldn't have laws at all; not being allowed to steal cars doesn't stop people from doing so either. Never took you for such an anarchist to be honest!

Just looked it up out of interest, in dutcheeland we have no explicit law against it (surprising, rather thought we did) but it falls under the laws against dicrimination and incitement of hatred or violence of a particular group.

An elegant judicial solution i say.

It's not about materialistic goods, it's about ideas.
Thing is, in today's world, the general populace of the countries where denying the holocaust is illegal know what happened and have very sensible views on it. They also won't be swayed into hateful or antisemitic thoughts by people claimed the holocaust isn't real. Allowing people to deny the holocaust won't have the slightest impact on the way we in general view the events of the second world war. Sure, there are extreme views like neo-nazi groups, but they will hold on to their views whether or not holocaust denial is outlawed. So the net result of banning the denial of the holocaust is pretty much nil.

Also, to me such a ban only feeds the allegations of the holocaust never happening, because, if it did happen, then such a ban wouldn't be necessary, would it?

Not really elegant, because there's no strict definition of what hateful is.

Aye comparing it to car theft was a bit mean, i'll try again:

By that logic we shouldn't have laws against discrimination; not being allowed to discriminate doesn't stop people from doing so either. After all, generally the majority of the Euro population doesn't discriminate and the extremists who still cling to that train of thought will be hard to convince otherwise, so the net result of anti discrimination laws is nil.

Better eh?

Nah, you're being paradoxical now. In your other post you claim how the constitution is elegant because no specifics are mentioned in one article, yet now you sweep a broad generalization like discrimination on the same pile as a very specific thing: denying the holocaust.
The difference is that discrimination is a thing. A real, often tangible thing. It's about equal treatment and equal rights for people, no matter what personal background. Today, (in societies where it matters) denying the holocaust is such an absurd stance on history that society in general won't take you seriously if you spew that idea. So since the idea of the holocaust being a real and serious thing is so deeply ingrained in our society, I think a law to enforce that is no longer necessary.

As for the subject of hate mongering: denying the holocaust in itself doesn't promote hatred towards any group of people. It's only when used as an argument to support your (antisemitic) hateful ideologies. Same as denying man landed on the Moon (Hi Geoff!) It makes you look like a harmless fool, unless you use that as an argument to kill all of them lying sonofabitch astronauts.

Speaking of jokes, France's "free speech" double-standard:



http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/13/fra ... -offender/

I would compare it to creationism if there'd be actual written or photographed proof of Darwin's theory.

Anyway, the law is there in it's form to prevent people who deny from ever becoming a ruling party. And for that reason it is legit and "good to have", in my opinion.

As a born german citizen speaking for jurisdiction in Germany I think the law against denial of the holocaust is absolutely legit.
There is enough evidence (written documents by the Wehrmacht, films done by the Allies, etc.) to proof the KZs did exist and they were installed to systematically erase the Reich of it's non-wanted citizens/inhabitants.
I would compare it to creationism if there'd be actual written or photographed proof of Darwin's theory.

Anyway, the law is there in it's form to prevent people who deny from ever becoming a ruling party. And for that reason it is legit and "good to have", in my opinion.

the fuck..? so you'd ban creationism if someone took a picture of evolution?

You believe in the concept of freedom, yet have never experienced it, and are probably the most gullible nation on earth when it comes to lapping up fascist ideologies.

hardly. Europe has been awash with autocratic regimes of one kind or another for most of its history, with a few exceptions, while America has never experience fascism (unless you're using the word 'fascism' in the flabby, expansive sense employed by Tumblr bloggers and Alex Jones devotees, meaning "stuff I don't like")

also, your comment about the experience vs the concept of freedom: what you're saying is exactly true of Europe, including this country (but a pretty questionable claim as far as the US is concerned). freedom is so conceptualised in this part of the world that most people - it seems to me - are unable to understand it outside of a legal context. this explains why someone like Shami Chakrabati is seen as a heroine of liberty among metropolitan liberal types (she really isn't)

case in point: 'hate speech' laws - a blatant violation of free speech - are unthinkable in the US (because they would be unconstitutional), but are considered the norm in Europe, and are defended even by people who claim to love free speech

I'm glad you brought up constitutional mandate. America's main religion is "freedom". In stark opposition to countries with a religious constitution that act secular, America is the only country in the western world with a constitution that ironically "grants" freedom, and not one single one of its inhabitants actually has any.

In other words, constitutions mean nothing...

Nothing wrong with banning hate speech. Political correctness is an attempt at creating one language we can all enjoy. I support that. I'm extremely happy that you aren't allowed to call my daughter a Kike.

Whoa I didn't know your daughter is a kike