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.
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.
Well, it combats the most obvious ones, but I don’t think it’s the main goal of such a law to work wonders against fascism (after all they could’ve also banned the original logo (the fasces), however that one is rarely used (except in some really bad places). It’s more of a clear statement and moral boost to democracy, probably. Given it’s so highly specific about symbolism that defined western history in a negative way the dangers of it being abused as some kind of excuse to ban even more are really, really low. Given the rise of extremism all over the place a law like this can do wonder for the sense of safety and participation of endangered social groups (in this case most obviously jews, but also LGBT and anyone else hated by western fascists). I mean, that’s pretty much how it ended up here.
I’d also like to point out that the argument you’re using can also be somewhat of a slippery slope. Some people went way too far down that road and ended up somewhere where they feel suppressed because they can’t use the N-word or other slurs anymore due to anti-discrimination laws, and start screaming about their “freedom of speech”. What I want to say with this is that we absolutely should not stop to use our democratic institutions so society can regulate itself. We managed to wander towards a cliff due to a false understanding of freedom, liberty and tolerance as absolutes, while it’s actually a social contract. Without those rules (or with bad rules set up one-sided, i.e. corruption and lobbyism) extremism will take hold.
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.
You mean Fox News?
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.
Well, it combats the most obvious ones, but I don’t think it’s the main goal of such a law to work wonders against fascism (after all they could’ve also banned the original logo (the fasces), however that one is rarely used (except in some really bad places). It’s more of a clear statement and moral boost to democracy, probably. Given it’s so highly specific about symbolism that defined western history in a negative way the dangers of it being abused as some kind of excuse to ban even more are really, really low. Given the rise of extremism all over the place a law like this can do wonder for the sense of safety and participation of endangered social groups (in this case most obviously jews, but also LGBT and anyone else hated by western fascists). I mean, that’s pretty much how it ended up here.
I’d also like to point out that the argument you’re using can also be somewhat of a slippery slope. Some people went way too far down that road and ended up somewhere where they feel suppressed because they can’t use the N-word or other slurs anymore due to anti-discrimination laws, and start screaming about their “freedom of speech”. What I want to say with this is that we absolutely should not stop to use our democratic institutions so society can regulate itself. We managed to wander towards a cliff due to a false understanding of freedom, liberty and tolerance as absolutes, while it’s actually a social contract. Without those rules (or with bad rules set up one-sided, i.e. corruption and lobbyism) extremism will take hold.
I do like your vigilance though.