Daniel Mayer wrote:
Apart from this being utter nonsense (see e.g. http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar11.html for a discussion of these arguments), this most probably violates German Law (Paragraph 130(3) of our penal code, denial of genocide performed by the nazis).
JeLuF
As a red blooded American I think that law is well intentioned but just ranks with anti-free speech totalitarian newspeak and probably does more to encourage Neo-Nazis and their ilk than to discourage them (punishing people just because they have certain views tends to make other people with similar views get the "us vs. them" mentality; which just strengthens their resolve and encourages ideas about "conspiracies" to "get them" that "must be stopped" = the law inadvertently creates a class of people actively opposed to the government when there were only various unrelated people with similar ideas before). We should therefore /not/ even begin to consider banning anyone just because they are breaking such a law.
BTW, people should be able to say whatever they want in everyday life or their personal websites but if any of that is to be in a neutral and fact-based encyclopedia then it must be backed-up with evidence or highly qualified ("such and such says this, but others say that and yet others say the first two are wrong because...").
Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...
That German law is just plain silly. The Holocaust as an event is a question of fact not of law, and no amount of legislation is going to change the truth (or untruth) of its events. People should be entitled to their illusions and delusions. When the massive power of the state is applied against these folk, they are granted a credibility greater than they could ever have imagined. Germany's law in this regard is probably mild compared to those countries that would ban any kind of outside influences available through the Internet. Obviously, if Helga lives in Germany, she proceeds at her own risk. No ISP should need to worry about a bewildering array of foreign laws; it's quite enough for him to be mindful of the laws of his own country.
The United States is perhaps the worst offender when it comes to the extraterritorial application of its laws, and refusing to conform with international conventions. Witness the situation of the Russian who had developed a device to crack copy protection. He did none of his work in the US but was still arrested when he visited.
Eclecticology