Outlawing Genocide Denial
The Dilemmas of Official Historical Truth
Ratings1
Average rating5
15
The Dilemmas of Official Historical Truth
Ratings1
Average rating5
"Holocaust denial can be viewed as another form of hatred against Jews and restricting it can be understood as a way of preventing hate speech. Germany has made it a crime punishable by law. Other European countries have adopted similar laws. While the rationales for criminalizing speech seems reasonable, Lewy asks readers to look again and to consider carefully the dangers of doing so. His discussion neither dismisses the ramifications of genocide denial nor justifies it; he instead looks closely at the possible risks of government-enforced interpretations of history. By outlawing genocide denial, governments set a precedent for dictating historical 'truth' and how events should be interpreted. Such government restrictions can be counterproductive in a democratic society that values freedom of speech. Lewy examines these and related ideas through the analysis of historical and current examples."--Publisher's Web site.
Reviews with the most likes.
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R348YNPMK4SM9Q?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
Outlawing Genocide Denial by Guenter Lewy
I purchased this book expecting a discussion of the arguments in favor of and against laws criminalizing or penalizing Holocaust denial. I am a strong First Amendment libertarian, but I am willing to acknowledge that Holocaust-denial in some cases, in Germany, for example, might be justifiable on narrow, powerful historical grounds.
This book did not provide that discussion until the conclusion. The first ten chapters were an encyclopedic examination of every legal regime defining Holocaust-denial or issues similar to Holocaust-denial, such as denial of the crimes of Communism or denial of the Armenian genocide, as subject to legal penalties. In addition, the author, Guenter Lewy, examines most, if not all, cases brought under these laws.
This approach had two effects. First, it was tedious. There were a lot of details and facts that I am never going to use. Second, it was horrifying. As a red-blooded American, I found it shocking that people should be told not only what to say but what to think. I think that Holocaust-deniers are obnoxious loons, but there are a lot of obnoxious loons of all persuasions. As much as I would relish stuffing a sock down the throat of a flat-earther, I would never think of actually sending a person to jail for such lunacy.
I can see a point for Germany to take action against Holocaust-denial. After the Nazis, Germany was a pariah nation that could only suffer further isolation if it was seen to be soft on the crimes of the Nazis, but even then, one wonders if the cure is not worse than the disease, as Lewy points out in his conclusion.
Holocaust-denial legislation has had a tendency to morph into other prohibitions on speech according to political popularity. Thus, France outlaws denial of the Armenian Genocide, which does not have the same undisputed historical status according to Lewy as the Holocaust, and Poland outlaws the denial of the crimes of Communism. Presumably, the next step will be laws outlawing racism.
Lewy's review points out the anomalous fact that Holocaust-denial laws are easy to evade, particularly in the age of the internet. Likewise, Holocaust-denial litigation draws attention to Holocaust deniers and gives them some status as having something to say that the state is afraid of.
In his conclusion, Lewy accumulates the arguments for and against such laws. He ends up on the against side.
I think the strongest point in favor of Holocaust denial is that National Socialism is such a noxious ideology that it cannot be allowed to return. Holocaust denial legislation precludes a return of National Socialism because it prevents Nazi apologists from arguing that “the Nazis just weren't that bad.”
On the other hand, turning over the defense of truth to litigation and law is remarkably unpredictable. So long as due process obtains, the issues in a case may be reduced to a matter of hearsay rulings. Also, such legislation can bring paradoxical attention and credibility to Holocaust deniers who can argue that their legal plight is due to “the Jews” who are obviously in control.
Most importantly, democracies are based on faith in the rationality of the citizens. This may occasionally be misplaced but the alternative is to ask that politicians define truth, and their record is not better than that of the citizens themselves.
For my part, I think that Lewy's study highlights the danger that one kind of speech prohibition has on all speech. The modern age seems to be hostile to speech that it deems offensive. All kinds of speech are coming under the heading of “hate speech,” some of such speech being nothing more than political speech and on occasions being undeniably true, but offensive for being true.
Where did the modern impulse to speech control come from? I would guess that the example of Holocaust-denial legislation has been very important. In fact, there have been efforts to silence the debate on Global Warming on the basis that those who question Global Warming are “deniers” and should be treated like “Holocaust Deniers.”
