Can you go to jail for denying the holohoax in your cunt?

Can you go to jail for denying the holohoax in your cunt?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
desustorage.org/his/thread/509405
imgur.com/a/PlYpi
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Whenever I want to rant about holohoax I take a short trip to Slovakia

>the holocaust didn't happen
Why do neonazis say this?
Like they were kicked out of tons of countries beforehand and you have a hard time believing someone wanted to gas them?
You look up to someone who is only known for the holocaust but don't even think it happened?

But that map is wrong

It's illegal here as well

>Kto verejne popiera, spochybňuje, schvaľuje, alebo sa snaží ospravedlniť holokaust, zločiny režimu založeného na fašistickej ideológii, zločiny režimu založeného na komunistickej ideológii alebo zločiny iného podobného hnutia, ktoré násilím, hrozbou násilia alebo hrozbou inej ťažkej ujmy smeruje k potlačeniu základných práv a slobôd osôb, potrestá sa odňatím slobody na šesť mesiacov až tri roky

And it's been illegal since 2001

João Correia should've done a more thorough reasearch before making that map

That's weird then. Not even the wiki article about this mentions Slovakia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Well, I guess no one bothered to add it to the English wikipedia, it's on the Slovak one though

§ 422d 300/2005 Z.z.

As your picture clearly shows, no you can not.

...

POLAND YES

Nice free speech eurotards.

Modern wannabe nazis change their mind constantly depending on circumstances they don't have any actual beliefs nor do they actually understand what national socialism was about.

Is not really enforced here.

>a roach

Nice free speech eurotards.

What the fuck, guys. You live in totalitarian countries if it's illegal to utter one's belief or opinions.

Pic unrelated.

>a greek

>deny the holocaust in spite of mountains of proof and living witnesses
>implying there's a need for a law against this
You're just a dumbass if you do.

no but I think it should be, but I prefer it not to be

Holocaust denial is litterally a Sup Forums tier meme but holy shit people should have the fundamental right to say wathever the fuck they want

You think freedom of speech in UK should be limited, yet you prefer it not to?

I think that for the most part, what's considered holocaust denial is more than just saying whatever the fuck you want. It's doing it in a more elaborate manner, trying to convince others it's a hoax for example.

Yea, I think
I prefer freedom of speech to be preserved, although I think it would make sense if it was illegal here

No, because FREEDOM.

Why?

We're not as directly linked to the holocaust as maybe others on the continent, but given our role and connection to that period of history, I don't think it would be crazy if it was illegal, especially since it is across most of Europe.
But I do think freedom of speech is important as long as it's not hate speech. It's a difficult balance.

>you go to jail for denying axis war crimes
>you don't go to jail for denying allied war crimes
Just goes to show that war crimes are memes and only applied to those who lose.
In which case the only crime any country can commit during war times is losing.

are you relativizing the holocaust bud?

dont do that

No, we have freedom of speech

I think hate speech should be completely legal. I think only threats should be illegal, like if you say you'll kill someone or if you say you want someone dead (and maybe some other particular examples which I can't think of right now)

Labeling something as hate speech can be used to silence basically any voice that disagrees with you, so that's pretty complicated too.

I read about an American judge giving the example of "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" as a misuse of Free Speech. But he was using that excuse to send to jail a bunch of people who protested the United States' involvement in the First world war.

Interesting. What makes the holohoax so special?

Kek, ofc not, there's freedom of speech after all

at no other point in human history did a nation state attempt to exterminate an entire ethnic group on an industrial scale.

>mountains of proof

You mean like confessions gained under torture, witness testimonies that conflict with other testimonies, photos of starving corpses and easily forged documents?

...

Why is it so important that it was allegedly done in an industrial manner?

>Allied prosecutors submitted some 3,000 tons of records at the Nuremberg trial.
>Both the Wannsee Conference Protocol, which documented the cooperation of various German state agencies in the SS-led Holocaust, and the Einsatzgruppen Reports, which documented the progress of the mobile killing units assigned, among other tasks, to kill Jewish civilians during the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, were among the documents central to the Holocaust submitted at Nuremberg.

red = unfree countries

>
>3,000 tons of records
This is a joke.
>Both the Wannsee Conference Protocol, which documented the cooperation of various German state agencies in the SS-led Holocaust, and the Einsatzgruppen Reports, which documented the progress of the mobile killing units assigned, among other tasks, to kill Jewish civilians during the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, were among the documents central to the Holocaust submitted at Nuremberg.

How can you verify these documents when anyone who questions the veracity would be fired or even sent to prison?

Don't bother, dude. It's cool to be mindlessly contrarian when you're an 18 year old NEET who doesn't even have a realistic chance of achieving his biological purpose in the foreseeable future.

I'm not a lawyer in any of those countries but I'd be surprised if it's something you can go to jail for.

Because 6 million

>no i don't like that evidence fuck you
Conspiritards, everyone.

Link me to the 3000 tonnes of documents.

hate speech should be legal, written and spoken threats shouldn't

as in " i hate all the fucking lazy niggers/spics/poles/whatever" should fly, and it does when it's about us anyway, but "i hate all the fucking lazy niggers/spics/poles/whatever and think they should all drop dead" is basis for inquiry

>they should all drop dead
That's an opinion, not a threat. "I'm going to kill/bash them" is a threat. "You should kill/bash them" is inciting violence.

Isn't inciting violence an offense, no matter the ethnic background between parties, as well? I'm not well-versed in law.

But then it's not about the industrial aspect but just numbers, and like everyone knows you can find genocides with higher scores if you want to.

Still waiting for a reply to my question

desustorage.org/his/thread/509405

It makes it unique. In other cases of genocide, there were limited groups involved, such as parts of an army. In this case, the entire country was involved and it was done in a highly organized manner, with "death factories". That's what makes it so chilling. And that's why it's so important to never ever forget.

Imagine if it had been Swedish death factories and a Swedish attempt to exterminate Finns from the face of the earth. You would want to make sure that the world never forgets what the Swedes did. And you'd want every last one who participated to receive justice.

>Swedish attempt to exterminate Finns
You mean like we did by using Finns to fight our wars?

desu what you're saying is nice and all, but it still doesn't change the fact that germany feels like a scapegoat after all this. chinese great leap, ukrainian holodomor, nkvd killing and targeting specifically polish officers artists and scientists... these are all things that happened around same time and were just as terrifying but it's only germany who gets shat on and if anyone besides jews tries to work for reparations they're reminded of the 6 million

>You would want to make sure that the world never forgets what the Swedes did
What would be the point in holding a grudge like that? I don't get leftists sometimes.

You're not supposed to take pride in your country and your ancestors' achievements, but you should be Held accountable as a people for past atrocities?

Although it might not seem like it, we have something called "freedom of speech". It means that people can say things and voice opinions even if other people don't like them or are offended by them. Crazy right?

So it was worse than all other genocides because it is allegedly a special case do to the alleged industrial aspect. So the normative aspect comes from the application of modern technology and managerial practices.

Does this mean that the old fashioned way of committing genocide which involved randomly pillaging through the countryside raping, killing and burning crops and villages is more acceptable?

Holocaust denial shouldn't be illegal in any country. Being stupid/deluded shouldn't be against the law.

Back off this is our conversation.

>What would be the point in holding a grudge like that? I don't get leftists sometimes.
Why would holding a grudge be something exclusive to leftists?

The point is to make sure the world doesn't forget, so that it doesn't happen again.

It doesn't, but in this case it took the cooperation of a great many people, a great many companies, offices, military sections, government agencies, etc. It's not to say it's okay to genocide if it's on a smaller scale. That's missing the point completely.

I thought Poland was based

>The point is to make sure the world doesn't forget, so that it doesn't happen again.
And how well did that work out? We still had Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Kurds and Rwanda and the west did fuck all to help even though we supposedly support the "never again" mantra. That's ~8 million people killed through genocides post-1945. Guess it's only for white Europeans?

Except it's not because then we had the Bosnian genocide. Right here in Europe. In the fucking 90s.

But it's better now right? Well not really since we have a genocide going on right now by ISIS.

Literally nobody talks about holocaust though
who cares about jews anyway, let alone what happened to them 70 years ago

You can go to prison for disrupting public order, maybe if you rile some jews up with your denial you could.

Don't relativize genocides.

Don't make grand statements that are just hot air.

I already explained what makes the holocaust so significant. Keep being a retard though, see if it helps you.

>Isn't inciting violence an offense, no matter the ethnic background between parties, as well?
in theory, yes. in practice ? hahahaha

It's not illegal here per se. Only if you do it as part of hate speech.

>tfw the EU will become Oceania from 1984

Opinions and facts are always up to discussion. But if you do it as part of your anti-Jews campaign you get in trouble.

We wouldn't care, but in death camps Poles were dying in most, not jews.

Your interpretation of its significance is not important, although I agree with it in part. What matters is that you made an assertion which turned out to be a bunch of hogwash. Remembering the holocaust hasn't stopped other genocides from occurring nor will it stop futures ones.

Furthermore, calling me a retard is not only immature but a tacit admission that you have nothing to counter what I just said. I appreciate the sentiment, but the real world results of it are just not in line with your expectations. At that point your "argument" turns into an appeal to emotion and nothing more.

>I'm a dumbass
Okay.

>someone disagrees with me therefore they're dumb

>my dumbass opinion is valuable guys!
Haha, that's nice.

Let me ask you all this: should spreading / believing 100% disproved misinformation be considered free speech?

>I can't come up with a counter argument but if I keep repeating that they're stupid maybe they won't notice

Well, I guess religious factions would get mad if their bullshit was banned.

Why are swedes only allowed into this discussion?

I say, we should remember in order to prevent history repeating itself, even if we're doing a bad job not reapeating it (as you've correctly pointed out), don't you agree? If we forget about history, then we are even more certain to go into the same pattern again.

>implying I need to have a counterargument against dumb shit
My sides!!

Yes, as long as it's not for their own personal gain.

If it's that dumb a counterargument should be no problem

>don't you agree?
Sure. I just hate people that make these grand statements believing themselves to be super virtuous when reality is the complete opposite. I don't believe it should be illegal to question, but it should be on the curriculum in all schools for sure.

We are in an agreement, Sven.

imgur.com/a/PlYpi