
EU court rules Holocaust denial not protected speech under civil rights law - anigbrowl
https://www.courthousenews.com/eu-court-rules-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-rights-law/
======
antientropic
The headline is wrong: the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU court.
There is also no such thing as a "European Union Convention on Human Rights".
You'd expect a website that specializes in legal news to get this right.

~~~
jaclaz
I am not sure to understand what you are finding "wrong":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)

>The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international
convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted
in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered
into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party
to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the
earliest opportunity.

The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

~~~
tom_mellior
The article says "European _Union_ Convention", not "European Convention". And
as your quote also shows, it's a Council of Europe thing rather than a
European Communit(y|ies)/European Union thing.

~~~
jaclaz
I see, thanks, I read EU in the headline as short for Europe, not short for
European Union.

The OP comment was about the headline being wrong, not the contents of the
article, and I couldn't see where that was wrong.

~~~
sergioj97
EU stands for European Union.

------
blue_devil
There's a difference between a public figure, such as a politician making such
statements vs. an ordinary person expressing an opinion.

Politicians have lots of privileges and visibility in society, and with those
comes the responsibility of being accountable for what they say.

>>A seven-judge panel found that far-right German politician Udo Pastörs had
“intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution
that they had suffered during the Second World War.”

~~~
tom_mellior
> There's a difference between a public figure, such as a politician making
> such statements vs. an ordinary person expressing an opinion.

Not sure why you say that, but AFAIK in all places where Holocaust denial is
illegal, that applies to everybody equally. Yes, an ordinary person expressing
the "opinion" that the Holocaust did not take place would be sentenced just
like this local politician was.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial),
I can't see any special cases for politicians or other public figures there.

~~~
tom_mellior
Huh. Could a downvoter explain whether it's because they think my post is
factually incorrect, or because they don't like the facts as presented?

~~~
throwwwwwwwaway
Alright. In France or in Germany, if you walked up to a police officer and
started saying in a bright clear voice "The Holocaust didn't happen" (in
French or German of course), what do you think would be the more likely
response:

1) "You're under arrest"

2) "Fuck off, nerd"

~~~
tom_mellior
I can't say for France or Germany since I didn't invest the 30 seconds in a
web search, but here is a statistic for Austria:
[https://kurier.at/politik/inland/335-rechtsextreme-taten-
im-...](https://kurier.at/politik/inland/335-rechtsextreme-taten-im-ersten-
halbjahr-2018/400108634) (in German)

798 prosecutions for Nazi activities in 2017, 409 in the first half of 2018.
These are _not_ all politicians, nor all the occasional public figure like
David Irving. They are average Joes, posting or saying something in public or
drawing swastikas on things.

The article doesn't say what activities were prosecuted in detail; the law
prohibits much more than just Holocaust denial:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbotsgesetz_1947](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbotsgesetz_1947),
but all of them are of the form "you are not allowed to say certain things".

You might meet a right-wing policeman who doesn't mind, or you might have to
put something in writing or be caught on camera, but overall these are not
things that the justice system takes lightly.

~~~
throwwwwwwwaway
No you don't understand. When people get prosecuted for Nazi activities it's
usually much more than merely saying "The Holocaust didn't happen." Americans
in general really overestimate the extent to which these kinds of laws are
enforced. This generally stems from a divide between the 'spirit of the law'
(it's mainly meant to prohibit political figures from being openly Nazi) and
the 'letter of the law' (thinking a policeman will literally handcuff you if
you say 'The Holocaust didn't happen' to their face). Americans generally feel
the need to spell out every little thing for fear of the law being gamed or
selective enforcement (this is why EULAs and License agreements have obnoxious
20-page unreadable legalese crap), whereas continental Europe has a more
relaxed approach to the spirit of the law and favors clarity through brevity.
A similar misunderstanding arose when GDPR enforcement was looming.

~~~
tom_mellior
I quoted figures. What do you have to support your claims?

------
tibbydudeza
Awesome ruling.

In the age of Trumpism stupid idiots who continue to deny such facts in the
face of reality needs to be called out on their nonsense.

They should add the efficacy of vaccines and a few others to the list as well.

