85
submitted 6 days ago by remington@beehaw.org to c/news@beehaw.org
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Will they criminalise denial of the Gaza genocide, you know, the one that is currently underway?

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 5 days ago

Not yet. The ICJ is still examining the mountain of evidence. It will probably take a few more years.

I dont think we coined the term Holocaust until after the Germans lost the war. I imagine it'll be the same with Gaza. History needs to happen and be written first.

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 13 points 6 days ago

As a German who lives in Finland: bravissimo!

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 6 days ago

you'll have to work on your finnish a bit more

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 5 days ago
[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago

Criminalise the gaza genocide denial, too.

[-] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago

Which Holocaust? All of them, or just the one from 80 years ago?

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 5 days ago

Probably not all of them. We dont know of every one. Some were prehistory.

I'm not a Finn, but I dont think they were involved in many Holocausts except one?

[-] TehPers@beehaw.org 6 points 6 days ago

On one hand, this feels very "thoughtcrime"-y. On the other, certain people should probably just not have a platform to spew their nonsense on. I'm curious to see how this plays out.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 12 points 6 days ago

Popper's paradox

The only way for tolerance to exist, is to not tolerate intolerance.

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The paradox of tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral or legal standard, but as a social contract:

If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it.

In other words: the intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.

Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 5 days ago

That reminds me of the south park episode with Mr Slave

[-] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 6 days ago

I feel like banning their speech will only make them look like martyrs

[-] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 8 points 6 days ago

I feel like as long as the banned speech is extremely specifically defined, I don’t care if they look like martyrs. “The holocaust never happened” is easily defined as holocaust denial, and it’s easy to enforce.

The problems arrive when a law is passed with an ambiguous, poorly defined meaning like “hate speech”. Hate speech can really mean anything someone else doesn’t like.

[-] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Laws restricting speech are a disgrace. Unbelievable that they actually seem to be passing it.

[-] Didros@beehaw.org 7 points 5 days ago

The classic "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" denier.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 5 days ago

Everyone knows you can only yell "fire" in an empty theatre. You generally get trespassed immediately thereafter.

this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
85 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22372 readers
7 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


For US News, see the US News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS