The ban on Holocaust denial is crap

[Strike For The South]

If we are to ban the stupid and irrelevant, the least you could do is add VUK to the list.

Banning discussion is how Hitler got started

Just wanted to log my complaint.

Thank you

[johnhughthom]

Not impressed with that myself. While I find the idea idiotic and distasteful, people who express such views should be beaten down with logic and reason, not censorship.

[Andres]

It's a cirminal offense in my country.

In my country, websites can be shut down for allowing holocaust denail and the owners can be prosecuted (and usually, they are, or they at least face threats). Racism and spreading hate is also a criminal offense and you can be prosecuted for posting it or for allowing it and/or accomodate somebody to express that sort of opnions.

Allthough the .Org doesn't fall under Belgian legislation, I do fall under it. By allowing it in my capacity as forum admin, I may risk prosecution.

My personal opinion on the matter: I dislike the Belgian law that makes denial of the holocaust a criminal offense. Not because I myself deny it, but because I think freedom of speech should be absolute. If someone wants to express such thoughts, then it should be possible. That's the whole idea of freedom of speech after all. In fact, I think such laws, no matter how well intentioned and no matter how noble the motives of those who made it, are dangerous precedents and may even motivate some people to believe that that what's being forbidden, must be true.

That said, there's a centre in Belgium, the CGKR (Centre for equal chances and fighting racism; roughly translated) and they look at every complaint and do take action. I frequent other fora and I know from one (a Belgian one) that got into trouble because they refused to delete a few blatant racist posts by some of their members. Luckily for them, deleting the stuff and explicitly stating in their TOS that from now on violating the applicable Belgian legislation on the matter is not allowed, was enough to stay in the air. But it shows how far this legislation, how intrusive it is and that it is being enforced with regards to Belgian citizens. And I'm going to be very honest: I'm no hero who's going to risk prosecution by "fighting the good fight for freedom of speech in Belgium".

I also must admit that I don't know all the details of this particular law and if it would be possible to get into trouble by simply being an Admin on a non-Belgian hosted site, but I'm sure it's understandable to all that I'm not going to take any risks.

[Tellos Athenaios]

My opinion: (a) carping on about a certain patron gets wearisome, it is not cool or impressive in any way even if the patron is spectacularly misinformed at times; (b) freedom of speech is not absolute; and (c) to deny the holocaust is to delude yourself.

[Montmorency]

(b) freedom of speech is not absolute

True, though Andres apparently wishes for it to be.

(c) to deny the holocaust is to delude yourself.

If deluding oneself were a breach of ToS...

All in all, bringing down truth was necessary if only because he was coming to dominate the Backroom. If truth had become as widespread as he threatened, the stability of the Backroom would have been compromised. Plainly speaking, Backroom patrons had become overly exposed to truth, and this exposure came to affect their judgement. Were truth to reign...your point (a) would be equivalent to non-participation.

[Monk]

[SoFarSoGood]

ALL opinions should be free on the web. I may disagree with your opinion but I would die for your right to express it.

[Whacker]

Andres, I have a very hard time believing that you could be prosecuted for being a moderator on a forum that allows discussion about the holocaust. I would think the two main issues are 1. where is the forum hosted from, and 2. who actually owns the forums? What you are implying is that any nation could apply their own individual laws at whim to a forum that's publicly available to the entire world. I find that essentially impossible to believe.

[johnhughthom]

Andres, I have a very hard time believing that you could be prosecuted for being a moderator on a forum that allows discussion about the holocaust. I would think the two main issues are 1. where is the forum hosted from, and 2. who actually owns the forums? What you are implying is that any nation could apply their own individual laws at whim to a forum that's publicly available to the entire world. I find that essentially impossible to believe.

To be fair, that's an easy opinion to have when it's not your ass on the line.

I may disagree with your opinion but I would die for your right to express it.

I'd love to see someone challenged to follow through on that assertion.

[Andres]

Andres, I have a very hard time believing that you could be prosecuted for being a moderator on a forum that allows discussion about the holocaust. I would think the two main issues are 1. where is the forum hosted from, and 2. who actually owns the forums? What you are implying is that any nation could apply their own individual laws at whim to a forum that's publicly available to the entire world. I find that essentially impossible to believe.

You mustn't forget that I hail from the country that deemed itself competent to file in lawsuits against presidents of befriended nations based on Belgian national law...

It's a bit of a stretch and it would be utterly ridiculous, but one could argue that a Belgian accomodating for holocaust denial on the internet violates the Belgian law against holocaust denial; this site is indeed publicly available all over the world; that includes Belgium. I don't think those arguments would hold stake in a court of law, but I'm sure you understand I can miss the trouble. And even if not convicted, I may get a label which might ruin my entire career. You know how present days societies work: simply being accused puts a label on you, even if you're completely innocent.

I hate that law, but it's applicable and I'm not in a position to change it. Nor am I willing to stick out my neck.

[Fragony]

Server isn't situated in Belgium so it won't get you into trouble, it's denied on sites like Stormfront all the time also by people from Belgium

[Andres]

Server isn't situated in Belgium so it won't get you into trouble, it's denied on sites like Stormfront all the time also by people from Belgium

I prefer my own opinion on that matter over the opinion of the visitors of Stormfront who may be taking their wishes for granted.

There's a nuance: the .Org as a website cannot be taken out of the air (allthough there have been instances of foreign websites being convicted by Belgian courts, but still staying in the air, because the country that hosted them didn't want to execute the Belgian judgement; given the US stance on freedom of speech, US officials won't be taken out the .Org because of a Belgian judgement saying it violates Belgian law), but Andres, the Belgian administrator of the site, may face an annoying lawsuit or may receive threatening letters from the CGKR.

Granted, the risk is minimal, but I'm not taking it.

It's not like holocaust denial and spreading of hate is our core business anyway

[Fragony]

It's a stupid law. I don't want holocaust deniers on the org but I expect them to be mauled by the orgers very soon. Freedom of speech goes very far on the org, making a point out of it not being allowed kinda taints it's awesomness. Did we ever had any holocaust-deniers in the first place I have never seen one

[PanzerJaeger]

Did I miss something? Where can I read more about this ban?

I have had some very frank discussions over the years here on the .org where I have denied (based on actual facts, of course) largely held ideas about the Holocaust. Is this simply a ban on denying the event took place at all, or are we expected to tow the line as dictated by the holocaust industry?

I understand Andres situation and have no problem with a ban, I just want to know where the "line" is.

[Andres]

Did I miss something? Where can I read more about this ban?

I have had some very frank discussions over the years here on the .org where I have denied (based on actual facts, of course) largely held ideas about the Holocaust. Is this simply a ban on denying the event took place at all, or are we expected to tow the line as dictated by the holocaust industry?

I understand Andres situation and have no problem with a ban, I just want to know where the "line" is.

There's a whole world of difference between having an educated opinion and being able to cite several reliable sources on the one hand and saying something that comes down to "it are all lies and it never happened" spiced up with some spreading of hate against the Jewish people on the other hand.

If you have e.g. a decent source from an academic study X that shows that the numbers of victims mentioned in study Y is grossly exaggerated, then by all means, discuss numbers and have fun.

[Fragony]

There's a whole world of difference between having an educated opinion and being able to cite several reliable sources on the one hand and saying something that comes down to "it are all lies and it never happened" spiced up with some spreading of hate against the Jewish people on the other hand.

If you have e.g. a decent source from an academic study X that shows that the numbers of victims mentioned in study Y is grossly exaggerated, then by all means, discuss numbers and have fun.

That would still be holocaust denial by your country's (silly) laws Andres. I personally feel it should just be allowed here, who's going to do it anyway I never saw one here. Making a point out of it not being allowed doesn't really feel quite right, I think the staff should reconsider being so specific about this. Not to invite it, but certainly not to keep it out of here at all costs. There is enough concensus here on acceptable behaviour, if someone crosses the line you have the means to remove anyone tresspassing there. I am completily with Strike for filing this complaint.

[Lemur]

I personally feel it should just be allowed here, who's going to do it anyway I never saw one here.

Your fellow leftists-are-to-blame-for-everything Euro-rightist, @truth1337, posted a long, rambling denial of the Holocaust.

It was deleted, but if you were trawling the Backroom at the right time, you would have seen it.

I think the Belgian law is self-evidently stupid; the cure for hate speech is more speech. Let the idiots be idiotic, and let them get decimated in public. But if @Andres feels that it isn't worth the risk, I'm okay with that. It's not as though we have a long history of thoughtful Holocaust-denial threads that we need to preserve for future generations.

[Fragony]

We don't disagree all that much

[Beskar]

He actually posted 2 or 3 posts worth of Holocaust denial ranting. I deleted the others after Andres took care of the main one thus dicating Org policy on the matter. I closed the topic it was in with this post beforehand due to breaches of current rules.

Ended up quoting the main body of that post from a different website as it pretty much summed it up better than I felt I could, but Holocaust Denial isn't about facts or figures, it is effectively about Jews and Minimising the Tragedy. If you go to Yad Vashem it will tell you all the figures including how many they have successfully identified, all the main sites. They say about the approximation in the figures and what they are based upon. I know this because I have actually been to the musuem itself.

So even if we take the question of how the law in various countries affects patrons out of the equation, the main incitement associated with Holocaust Denial offends other Org policies, to quote from this thread:

Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Org, is discouraged. The Org expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs, or insults -- addressed to either an individual or a group -- is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.

And in the backroom rules thread:

Nation and Religion Bashing

This occupation, a variant of trolling behaviour, deserves special mention. It is perfectly acceptable to take issue with a government or religious grouping, but we frown upon generalised insults.
Acceptable: "I can't stand the Lilliputian government's excessive use of hemp rope against innocents"
Unacceptable: " Lilliputians are small-minded pygmies"

So the "Ban" was in place informally anyway. Just that recent events have formalised it.

[PanzerJaeger]

If you go to Yad Vashem it will tell you all the figures including how many they have successfully identified, all the main sites. They say about the approximation in the figures and what they are based upon. I know this because I have actually been to the musuem itself.

Oh look, they've added some new items to the online store.

[Fragony]

Don't get me wrong I fully trust the team's judgement, you don't have to explain yourself to me

@tiaxie

[Husar]

Three points:

1. Crazy people can be very entertaining.

2. Andres's safety trumps all. However, will all women here will be required to wear a burka while browsing the site because in some Afghan village the taliban might arrest an orgah if he browses a forum where the women don't wear burkas?

3. Belgium must be liberated.

[Beskar]

2. Andres's safety trumps all. However, will all women here will be required to wear a burka while browsing the site because in some Afghan village the taliban might arrest an orgah if he browses a forum where the women don't wear burkas?

Andres as an administrator does take legal responsibility for the website, therefore, can be held accountable for the content on it, even those from other users.

As such in your example, Secura and Froggy don't live in the hypothetical "Afghan village" so they won't be accountable for female posters not wearing burkas. It is up to the individual members whether or not their activities and postings on the forum are legal in their respective countries and only exception is when those legally responsible for the forum can be prosecuted.

Another example is some one posting links to pirated software/warez. All three administrators would be held accountable for allowing that content on the forum if they do not remove it. Is that "against free speech" ?

With the great power of Free Speech comes the great responsibility of being truthful and reasonable.

[Fragony]

I don't think that he takes legal responsibility for the content on a site that is not registered in Belgium, in the case of warez or other illegal content like child pornogrphy probably, but not for holocaust denial of members. Stupid law anyhow, the laws on hate-speech are solid enough as they are. I don't consider holocaust-denial hate-speech though it just makes you an idiot

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Oh look, they've added some new items to the online store.

Those money-grubbing Jews are at it again.

[naut]

Who cares either way, the result is the same, Holocaust denial is a type of insanity that is near infinite in its lunacy.

[Visor]

Go discuss holocaust denial somewhere else if you care about it so much. Andres doesn't need legal troubles from this IMO.

[Secura]

The Holocaust is a much debated period of history and has divided opinions for decades, leading to some fascinating discourse on the subject. I think it's a shame to stifle discussion simply because someone states their opinion that the events didn't happen and so I wish to clarify that there is not an outright ban on the subject itself, we just want people to be more mindful of the sensitivity of both the subject and their fellow Backroom patrons.

As Andres has stated, if you have evidence that supports your statements regarding Holocaust Denial, you should use them; simply voicing your opinion that events were "a conspiracy engineered by international Jewry" is both inappropriate and unwelcomed.

We have always been quite liberal in allowing people to discuss whatever colour of the political spectrum they belong to (and I'm glad to see that the Backroom being public hasn't hampered this), but the line has to be drawn when it comes to racist, sexist or homophobic comments. Holocaust discussion treads this line as it is, but I think we can keep our discussions clean and based in fact.

[thechicken]

Hi I'm a long time lurker (mainly interested in rome 2) and while reading just saw this thread and could not resist posting my opinion here.

Granted, the risk is minimal, but I'm not taking it.

I checked out the domain registration for this site and it looks like it's registered to 'atomic gamer', they appear to be the hosts and are not based in belgium, are you affiliated with them? If not and you are only a volunteer admin on this site then I do not see what you have got to stress about.

Nor am I willing to stick out my neck.

Sorry to be direct and I do not mean this as any insult, but if you think the site needs to be run according to belgian law, just to protect your own interests, then the best thing you can do is let someone else take over as the admin.

As to the ban on holocaust denial, may as well shut down the back room forum if you are going restrict free speech to that extent. I am not seeing the point in a forum for controversial threads if you are going to outlaw anything controversial. Some people have different whacked out ideas to others, there are people who believe there is a man in the sky who's son was nailed to a cross and there are those who believe that is garbage.

For example the perspectives on an event like 9/11 are very different depending on where in the world you come from or were born. Do you also propose a ban on any version of this except the accepted western version?

You are on a slippery slope.

[Beskar]

Hi I'm a long time lurker

Join Date: 13/08/12

As to the ban on holocaust denial, may as well shut down the back room forum if you are going restrict free speech to that extent. I am not seeing the point in a forum for controversial threads if you are going to outlaw anything controversial.

False argument. There is no outlawing of "anything controversial" and Holocaust Denial is pretty much ignoring the volume of evidence from every party involved (Allies, USSR, Nazi themselves) in order persuade the discussion of white-supremacy ideology to be more socially acceptable. It is usually associated with a string of statements that clearly "hate speech" and provides no constructive arguments to any logical debates.

Any arguments or points related to the holocaust are acceptable. Just an expressive viewpoint which is devoid from reality is illegal in a number of countries which end of the day, isn't a loss.

For example the perspectives on an event like 9/11 are very different depending on where in the world you come from or were born. Do you also propose a ban on any version of this except the accepted western version?

Do you believe 9/11 didn't happen?
I don't think there is anyone with a version where it is completely imaginary yet or put forward that point of view. There have been a great deal of various viewpoints on 9/11 from around the world and these have been discussed in the backroom.

Some people have different whacked out ideas to others, there are people who believe there is a man in the sky who's son was nailed to a cross and there are those who believe that is garbage.

Feel free to join the 101 Debates on Religion in the Backroom.