There is nothing more threatening to democracy than what they have done. Holocaust denial is horrible for a myriad of reasons, but what they did is actually worse than even that for democracy.
Lies that could lead to more murder are horrible. Imagine somebody lying to each of your parents separately. The lies take hold and in a fit of rage your dad murders your mom and goes to prison. Kids put in the foster system, abused. No idea is horrible? Please.
Who decides what is and what isn't a lie? Where is the line between insanity and righteous fury?
Lennon was allegedly assassinated because of a book. Should we ban all books because fiction is a lie that has caused more murder, and thus books are horrible? Or, should we assume the man claiming a century-old book told him to kill someone today was insane?
I will agree that some ideas are horrible, but it's ridiculous to argue that opinions on historic events should be oppressed because it can lead to horrible ideas in the present. It's like banning sugar because it could eventually lead to a meth addiction. Yes, it's technically possible to go from point A to point B, but it's fallacious to assume that most (or even enough) people will turn out the same way to justify such a ban. The more likely answer is that the person that went from A to B had more problems than just access to sugar to get to that meth addiction, and maybe one should target something else to fix it.
They are projecting, as usual.
There is nothing more threatening to democracy than what they have done. Holocaust denial is horrible for a myriad of reasons, but what they did is actually worse than even that for democracy.
It's not, no idea is horrible. Counter it with facts and proof if it's so wrong. Tyrants man.
Lies that could lead to more murder are horrible. Imagine somebody lying to each of your parents separately. The lies take hold and in a fit of rage your dad murders your mom and goes to prison. Kids put in the foster system, abused. No idea is horrible? Please.
Who decides what is and what isn't a lie? Where is the line between insanity and righteous fury?
Lennon was allegedly assassinated because of a book. Should we ban all books because fiction is a lie that has caused more murder, and thus books are horrible? Or, should we assume the man claiming a century-old book told him to kill someone today was insane?
I will agree that some ideas are horrible, but it's ridiculous to argue that opinions on historic events should be oppressed because it can lead to horrible ideas in the present. It's like banning sugar because it could eventually lead to a meth addiction. Yes, it's technically possible to go from point A to point B, but it's fallacious to assume that most (or even enough) people will turn out the same way to justify such a ban. The more likely answer is that the person that went from A to B had more problems than just access to sugar to get to that meth addiction, and maybe one should target something else to fix it.