Support NeoGAF

[Moral Panic]

Pretty much.

So many oppositions here claiming that this law goes to far and restricts freedom of speech. This literally is a hypocritical stance because you get punished for inciting violence in America.

They say "of course it's illegal because of the danger it puts people in"

The only difference here is that we apply it to literally one of the worst atrocities that EVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE.

If you honestly think it's ok to try to deny it, you just show disrespect to the MILLIONS that suffered and died. I have bloody family members alive that risked their lives hiding people during the holocaust and you think it's ok that some people just claim it didn't happen?

This isn't about free speech, this is about remembering what happened! This is about making sure we never forget what WE LET HAPPEN and dos to our own man!

The word genocide was literally invented because of what happened!

It's not hypocritical to disagree with certain limits put on speech. Is it now hypocritical for a french person to complain about censorship in China?

It 100% is about free speech and appeals to emotion do not change that fact.

 

[Mael]

The government sets the laws and the judiciary applies them. A judge can't decide to not fine someone because he doesn't like the laws the politicians set, separation of powers or not. A judge is not the one who decided that denying the holocaust is a crime.

1) the government propose the laws, they are actually defined by the legislative branch
2) holocaust denial isn't a crime but a misdemeanor.
3) the laws are part of the framework of the constitution which means :

1. the Constitutional Council makes sure before a law is signed by the executive branch that it isn't in contradiction with the Constitution
2. In case something went past the Council, you can still ask for the Council to evaluate the law which will be struck down if the Council deem them unfit, that procedure can happen any time someone goes to court (it's actually a recent mechanism lifted from the US Supreme Court system)

4) The judge can not follow the advice from the prosecution in these matters if he thinks they're getting ridiculous

The law in this case was voted by National Assembly in 1990, the government has changed radically at least 4 times (and I mean from 1 party to another, it actually changed more than 10 times already).
The current government is no way decided what is hate speech or not.
If you want to know how negationism is defined in the law you have to look at the Nuremberg trials where it was defined.
In short the Nuremberg trial actually defined the type of crime you can't minimize in speech, not the government.
So actually it was a judge that defined the limitation in the 1rst place in this case.
I believe there has been multiple attempts to show that this law doesn't fit the Constitutional framework, it has so far not succeeded.