Quote:
Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream
It's all very well for people to debate the validity of certain historical accounts and sources, but the Holocaust is treated as established fact due to the overwhelming evidence that these events took place. I'm no expert on either of the specific examples you named- I'm sure historians will come to their own conclusion. However, as a principal, if a person chooses to deny established facts as a way to minimise genocide or defend the actions of a murderous dictator, I see this as being no different to, for example, supporting a terrorist organisation.
|
As a society wouldn't it be better to refute what these people say by going over the "overwhelming" evidence which would make them look deluded rather than take away their freedom? Truth doesn't need the law to protect it. All it needs is a platform where it can compete freely with alternative (false) ideas and it will win all the time. Lies, on the contrary, need government protection.