People who aren't antisemites usually don't deny the holocaust when they update the death count based on historical facts. This is called revisionism, not denial. However, it's without much risk of being branded a holocaust denier or revisionist by claiming that the actual number of people having been exterminated is off my say a couple of hundred thousands, wether because of double counting across borders or something along these lines. Since there's existing evidence already proving that at least x amount of Jews was killed throughout WW2 by Germany or it's allies, it's difficult to come up with a number that's way below the official numbers. As long as you're not outright claiming that Jews weren't exterminated or that the number is so low that Nazi ideology shouldn't be judged based on the death count of the holocaust alone, you're free to so without ending up as a persona non grata.

tl;dr: this is a law designed to protect Jewish survivors from having to endure "public debate" about the actual numbers of their ancestors being killed off by a regime. It's not meant to make it impossible to update the numbers based on newly surfaced facts.

Wolfenstein not being allowed to show Swastikas was indeed pretty stupid but that's what you can when you have a conservative majority in the Bundestag. If someone with a gun who also sometimes played ego shooters kills some people because of insanity, you don't want to be the politician who embraced video games and lifted stupid restrictions for them.

Victim's feelings are not an excuse for censorship. Just simple as that.

Free speech will ironically protect victims because it allows us to uncover more accurate truth. Falsehoods like fake news, especially holocaust denials can't win against truth, but with censorship it can.

Things aren't "rosy" but it's a stretch to call these thought crimes - they're not on the same metaphysical level as thought, because speech is not thought. There's no restriction on thinking about Holocaust denial, for instance. All attempts to date in academic philosophy to try and collapse freedom of speech into freedom of thought have failed to convince almost all philosophers or speech law scholars.

Speech is an action, just like any other. Like other actions, it is expressive, context-dependent, subject to interpretation, it is a physical phenomenon, that has physical effects on its listeners. It was also shown by Brison[0], Schauer[1] and others that the consequences of speech, in particular ones of harm, can be remarkably similar metaphysically and in gravity.

Whether or not the German government's regulations are good ones, the conclusion that a government should have no right to regulate speech (just as it regulates other actions) seems to be on shaky ground.

[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-theory/article...

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2381631?seq=1#metadata_info_tab...

I upvoted you because I agree that thought and speech are clearly different things.

However, regulating people's speech leads to contradictions that can only be solved by picking a side- the side that the government decides is the right one, ie the more powerful side. If you're on this side, it's clear that you think it's the true one.

How do you balance the "harm" (hurt feelings, something that all but the most isolated delicacies learn to deal with by the age of 15) against the harm of restricting someone's speech? Certainly there's a similar psychological harm in not being allowed to express one's thoughts? (Not to mention the lost opportunity to engage in productive development of one's understanding..)

While I agree with you, it'a a bit more nuanced. In most European contries that were on the Axis side there's a ban on swastikas and Holocaust denial. This is probably why it's heavily enforced in Germany:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/nazi-memorabilia-...

I've also seen an underground limited edition Italian wine depicting Adolf H. on it's labels. Probably illegal in Italy and most of the EU as well.