Facebook removing Holocaust Denial content isn't a step towards dystopia lmao. Video game forums in the '00s did this.

yes it is

No it's not

Actually it is, step 1 is define good and evil. Step 2 is enforce your definition.

The missing step is deciding that, in the human world, it is better to make all evil illegal, no matter the level of evil and no matter the cost to good or neutral that might get caught up in it.

Since its inception facebook has not had completely full free speech. It doesn't allow targeted bullying, scamming, or any other way of causing material harm to another person. All this is doing is admitting genocide denial causes material harm to another person, which I'm sure you would agree with.

This usually isnt the best course though. The U.S. for example after invading iraq squashed any anti west/american speech. It lead to members going underground instead of having discussions in an open civilized way. This lead to a further radicalization of Muslims and an even deeper hate for Americans and lead to the eventual terror attacks across the world. Let these ideas get tackled and shunned in the public and be exposed to what they really are.

"destroy free speech"

You will find that Holocaust denying specifically has been banned by law from a number of European countries for a very long time. And free speech is still doing just fine.

This might not be the slippery slope you believe it is.

"Free speech is not allowed in a number of European countries. And free speech is still doing just fine."

Europe banning speech doesn't make it ok. The truth has nothing to hide.

No it's not. Nothing should be undiscussable.

Free speech simply does not exist in a number of (perhaps any?) European countries.

I believe the citizens of those countries might respectfully disagree.

The US is somewhat absolutist relative to the global average on this topic (and even the US isn't complete freedom of speech---pornography law exists, as do various extremely tight constraints on pedophilia imagery).

As a citizen of a European state I can guarantee you that close to everyone here is very aware that we don't live in a legislation that permits free speech. If america decides that they're limiting their speech as well I wouldn't know where to go to discuss. The darknet, presumably, or maybe some shell company on an island nation that rents servers.

That's a good point, and maybe it would be interesting to compare how much Holocaust denial is a problem in these countries and in the US.

Has the criminalization of such hate speech helped at all with solving the problem?

That being said, a lot of countries in Europe do not have the concept of "free speech" as is it defined in the US.

> You will find that Holocaust denying specifically has been banned by law from a number of European countries for a very long time.

European countries were never a bastion of freedom. That's why nazi germany existed in europe, not in america. I love people bringing up europe as some example that we should follow. They most definitely are not.

> And free speech is still doing just fine.

No it's not. That's the point.

Free speech exists to defend offensive/fringe/hateful speech. Popular speech doesn't need free speech protection after all. If free speech exist to protect anything, it is holocaust denial. Think about it. What good is free speech if it can't protect the most offensive speech?

lol do you think the criminalisation of holocaust denial is a new invention that somehow needs to be studied by future historians? Most democratic countries on this earth, except for the US, not only ban holocaust denial on private platforms, which is insidious historical revisionism, but punishes it by law.

I have absolutely no idea how someone can be so childish as to not see that rights have their limitations to be preserved. Yes, to protect truth and the ability to speak freely we need to put limits on the damage someone can do by abusing free speech, in the same way we have highway speed limits, have a police that can do arrests and sometimes can use violence to stop other violence.

The US actually is a successful democracy. Compared to that Germany performs abysmally and state regulated speech doesn't work. It is just isn't enough to cause issues. That is the reality of things.

If our ministry of foreign affairs actually would look at the big picture, maybe they wouldn't have inspired autocratic governments worldwide to extend content controls.

> Most democratic countries on this earth, except for the US, not only ban holocaust denial on private platforms, which is insidious historical revisionism, but punishes it by law.

Pretty much only Germany and bordering countries actually. Democracies outside of Europe pretty uniformly do not ban Holocaust denial. See e.g. India.

India flat out has laws that prohibit hate speech and creation of racial disharmony of all sorts. I'm not sure if an Indian court has ever dealt with holocaust denial in particular, probably because there's barely any Jews in India at this point, but Indian limitations on speech go far beyond the genocide-speech laws that exist in Europe. Same of course is also true for Singapore and most other Asian countries.

You may want to check out the Indian supreme court opinion on the topic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India

Other than one dissenting view in 2014, that page indeed does document decades of enforcement of the Indian penal code, which is very clear, and cited on that page.

"Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

That is without a doubt very explicit and much further reaching than any European legislation. And from the cases actually given in that article also practised as such.

Just to take one example, but there are many more in that very article

In 2007, R.V. Bhasin's Islam - A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims was banned, and house raided, in Maharashtra on grounds that it outrages the feelings of Muslim section of society.[12][13][14] In January 2010, the Bombay High upholds the ban imposed by the Government of Maharashtra.[15]

It wasn't a dissenting view, it was the court opinion. And citing events from before that precedent isn't so relevant to today's laws.

In that case, the wikipedia article also gives examples follwing that opinion

>On 20 September 2016, a blogger named Tarak Biswas was arrested for criticising Islam under Section 295A and 298, besides 66, 67 and 67A of the IT Act after a complaint about hurting religious sentiments was lodged by Sanaullah Khan, a Trinamool Congress leader.[39]

On 25 February 2018, two people were arrested for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath, and Hindu gods. Four people were booked under section 295-A.[40]

Contrary to what you seem to believe a single decision in 2014 has shockingly enough not upended India's entire framework on legislating hate speech, that is not how the law works.

Are India's high court precedents not binding? It's certainly how law works in the United States that when the high court rules that a law violates the constitution, that law is struck.

Almost certainly but it probably will read different from what you seem to think.

History is written by the victors, eh? I guess we'll just have to wait and see (or, rather our descendants will).

History isn't written by the victors. This is a common if pithy misunderstanding. For example, there has been explicit effort among historians over the last 40 years to give voice to previously silent actors throughout history. Examples include women, the poor, and the colonized.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding so much as a tautology. "Giving voice" is something victors decide to do on their own terms, they're still the ones writing history.

History professors come from a variety of backgrounds. Many of them are from groups that are still struggling in the US (ex. trans people). The definition of "victor" must become so amazingly broad that it becomes useless if you want to encompass modern historical narratives.

The Holocaust indirectly lead to (a the abolishment of centuries old anti-semitic laws (from Magna Carta) (b the establishment of the state of Israel. I'm not implying 'they won', but they are in a better place now than they were at the beginning of the century.

> but they are in a better place now than they were at the beginning of the century.

At the cost of the thousands of innocent lives (Palestenians and others) they murdered. Kind of ironic given what they went through.

I know it's not what they're going for, but sometimes I wish HN would follow FB's example.

Another HN commenter who's never wrong and knows everything!

N'ah, there's plenty I don't know. I'm just using my free speech to make my preferences known regarding this service I use and support via my attention.

"Using my free speech to make my preferences known to limit other's free speech". Got it.

Or people should stop thinking private social medias have any duty in respecting "free speech". Make your own platform if you are unhappy.

Plus it's worked in many country: less hate speech, less hate. Everyone saying "people are going to get more angry" are just wrong.