Agreed. People imagine the best case scenario for these kinds of bans, like calls to criminalize “misinformation” but what happens when the government is headed by Donald “Fake News” Trump and suddenly what you know to be fact is labelled “misinformation”? People were getting cancelled for speaking out against the invasion of Iraq, now imagine if it became a crime to deny that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Your argument only works if you assume that this sets some precedence for fascists to use. It doesn’t, fascists like Trump will implement fake news laws anyway.
In fact Holocaust denial is illegal in quite a lot of countries for quite a while now, most of them democracies (in number, not necessarily km²). Obviously you have to be reeeeally careful with any legislation that somehow restricts any freedom (like freedom of speech), but since every freedom requires boundaries to ensure other freedoms (like the freedom to live in peace and safety) and this is a historical, culture-defining fact and not some political agenda, we are absolutely fine.
I agree that fascists will try to force through what they can, but there is a wide range on the political spectrum outside of fascism, and they wouldn’t force through fake news laws like fascists, but they will take advantage of legal tools provided to them. A domestic mass surveillance program, the likes of which a fascist would want, was instituted by Bush and then continued and expanded by Obama. The justification was to combat terrorism, which would seem like a worthwhile goal, but I’d argue the negatives far outweigh any supposed positives.
Additionally, having these tools laying around only makes the job of fascists easier. Fascists still have to work within the legal framework set up before them, at least initially. Sure, they can try to ignore and force through measures, but the courts have legal backing to challenge them. A blanket misinformation law would make it so much easier for fascists to label something as misinformation and the courts can’t do anything about it.
In this case, it’s specifically about outlawing Holocaust denial, so I can’t imagine it being abused, but at the same time, I can’t imagine it doing much to stop fascism. It’s such a highly specific law, it even causes some to think “why only outlaw Holocaust denial and not the denial of other atrocities?” and that’s where the opportunity for a more general law comes in, which increases the potential for abuse.
Agreed. People imagine the best case scenario for these kinds of bans, like calls to criminalize “misinformation” but what happens when the government is headed by Donald “Fake News” Trump and suddenly what you know to be fact is labelled “misinformation”? People were getting cancelled for speaking out against the invasion of Iraq, now imagine if it became a crime to deny that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Your argument only works if you assume that this sets some precedence for fascists to use. It doesn’t, fascists like Trump will implement fake news laws anyway. In fact Holocaust denial is illegal in quite a lot of countries for quite a while now, most of them democracies (in number, not necessarily km²). Obviously you have to be reeeeally careful with any legislation that somehow restricts any freedom (like freedom of speech), but since every freedom requires boundaries to ensure other freedoms (like the freedom to live in peace and safety) and this is a historical, culture-defining fact and not some political agenda, we are absolutely fine.
I agree that fascists will try to force through what they can, but there is a wide range on the political spectrum outside of fascism, and they wouldn’t force through fake news laws like fascists, but they will take advantage of legal tools provided to them. A domestic mass surveillance program, the likes of which a fascist would want, was instituted by Bush and then continued and expanded by Obama. The justification was to combat terrorism, which would seem like a worthwhile goal, but I’d argue the negatives far outweigh any supposed positives.
Additionally, having these tools laying around only makes the job of fascists easier. Fascists still have to work within the legal framework set up before them, at least initially. Sure, they can try to ignore and force through measures, but the courts have legal backing to challenge them. A blanket misinformation law would make it so much easier for fascists to label something as misinformation and the courts can’t do anything about it.
In this case, it’s specifically about outlawing Holocaust denial, so I can’t imagine it being abused, but at the same time, I can’t imagine it doing much to stop fascism. It’s such a highly specific law, it even causes some to think “why only outlaw Holocaust denial and not the denial of other atrocities?” and that’s where the opportunity for a more general law comes in, which increases the potential for abuse.