In fact Holocaust denial is illegal in quite a lot of countries for quite a while now
That seems like an ad populum fallacy.
Too many here mistake progressivism for removing fundamental rights to express (illiberal) ideas they oppose.
Safeguarding fundamental rights unconditionally to deter legal challenges & protect free society is paramount to progressivism.
Testing integrity by trying to provoke society to weaken its legal protections enough to punish offensive exercise of fundamental rights is a classic challenge illiberals pose to lure society to attack free society.
Progressives before would recognize the challenge & not fall for it.
It seems too many “progressives” today are failing these challenges (maybe some weak rationalizations or stupidity).
Imposition of government penalty/force over peaceful (even if detestable/false) expression is difficult to justify.
What does it achieve & why is this type of government penalty/force necessary to achieve it?
Pretty much everyone knows their falsehoods are false.
Legal compulsion can’t convince people of the truth, and it doesn’t deter people from disagreeing or speaking & organizing privately.
It does deter people openly revealing their problematic ideas so we can openly challenge & deradicalize them.
Taking them underground makes them harder to track.
peace and safety
What peace and safety is gained with the law exactly?
every freedom requires boundaries to ensure other freedoms
Direct harm (eg, incitement, defamation) is a firmer, narrow boundary worked out generations ago.
A looser boundary requiring more judgement makes legal protections more vulnerable to poor judgement.
Weakening legal integrity of fundamental rights threatens free society.
When I look at the bigger picture, this looks like a loss of integrity in fundamental principles protecting free society for a cheap “win” (ironically, a loss).
I’m less clear what good was gained here, but I’m absolutely clear what good was lost.
That seems like an ad populum fallacy.
Too many here mistake progressivism for removing fundamental rights to express (illiberal) ideas they oppose. Safeguarding fundamental rights unconditionally to deter legal challenges & protect free society is paramount to progressivism. Testing integrity by trying to provoke society to weaken its legal protections enough to punish offensive exercise of fundamental rights is a classic challenge illiberals pose to lure society to attack free society. Progressives before would recognize the challenge & not fall for it. It seems too many “progressives” today are failing these challenges (maybe some weak rationalizations or stupidity).
Imposition of government penalty/force over peaceful (even if detestable/false) expression is difficult to justify. What does it achieve & why is this type of government penalty/force necessary to achieve it? Pretty much everyone knows their falsehoods are false. Legal compulsion can’t convince people of the truth, and it doesn’t deter people from disagreeing or speaking & organizing privately. It does deter people openly revealing their problematic ideas so we can openly challenge & deradicalize them. Taking them underground makes them harder to track.
What peace and safety is gained with the law exactly?
Direct harm (eg, incitement, defamation) is a firmer, narrow boundary worked out generations ago. A looser boundary requiring more judgement makes legal protections more vulnerable to poor judgement. Weakening legal integrity of fundamental rights threatens free society.
When I look at the bigger picture, this looks like a loss of integrity in fundamental principles protecting free society for a cheap “win” (ironically, a loss). I’m less clear what good was gained here, but I’m absolutely clear what good was lost.