Chamber of Debate

FREE SPEECH - "Holocaust denial" - David Irving

Holocaust denial - free speech - David Irving

Vote: Should Holocaust denial be an imprisonable offence?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)

Yes 7%

No 93%

Yes

OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)

Yes 0%

No 100%

Yes

AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments


JackOfBlades	13-May-2009 17:30
It isn't an offence to claim Genghis Khan was really a parakeet and it shouldn't be an offence to say the Holocaust never happened. You can't imprison someone for saying something which is wrong just because you happen to find it distasteful. Currently, even if deniers had a point they would be in such a bizzare situation in court that any attempt to provide evidence that they were correct would just be ANOTHER count of Holocaust denial. Granted, the evidence in this particular case is very, very weak but it sets a ridiculous and dangerous precedent.

MarkT	12-Feb-2008 23:19
i have a petition up and running to repeal the anti Holocaust denial laws in Germany. If anyone would like to sign, it is here http://www.petitiononline.com/hammer72/petition.html

patridas	3-Jan-2008 10:46
Banning on topics of conversation and exchange of thoughts is a characteristic of dictatorships. See all totalitarian states and what rules they have on subjects that go against their beliefs and the measures they take to impose them.. Do we really want that?

Anselm	22-Dec-2007 19:45
Free speech means that one must be able to give their own opinion. If someone wants to deny that the Holocaust happened, they are using their rights.

timgbull	20-Nov-2007 19:14
This is another free speech issue - and freedom of thought, for that matter. Any attempt at opinion control is inherently wrong.

Herb	12-Nov-2007 17:11
Which is the more dangerous - to deny that the Holocaust ever happened or to deliver sermons that encourage your congregation to believe that Infidels, and Jews especially, ought to be killed? Yet the first is certain to get you into serious trouble, while the second is discreetly ignored. Is not something very seriously wrong?

pearmtn	31-Oct-2007 19:38
I think free speach is too precious to surrender even for such a vile occurence.