Not a member? Sign up:
Create an account  

The Mountain in the Distance

#1
We're entering the era of 'transparency' now. 

I'm so excited.

I've thought long and hard about it, and it stinks to high heaven.

It's impossible to beat the Cabal with force, and it creates monsters out of decent men,reinforcing yet another cycle of manipulation, deception and outright lies. That's the promise violence holds. 

Therefore , violence can NEVER be the option.

Exposing the official narrative going back, from before any of us were born, remains the only viable strategy. 

There are people throughout history that sounded the alarm, their legacies forever muddied by TPTB who tell you what to think and how to frame it. 

They also silence people with legal threats, those who dare to be sceptic about certain historical events. 

You can pretty much say what you want about white people, black people, Chinese amongst other asian nations, you can make jokes about the Vietnamese and deny the slaughter that took place by American soldiers. Hell, you can openly hate all Arabs and judge them as in "more than a billion Muslims against a tiny nation, women and children in Gaza are also terrorists and deserved to be wiped out...

... then there's this one anomaly. 

Picture a people that have been kicked out of most countries they inserted themselves in. 

Picture a world where to criticize them is the one no-no politicians that are polar opposites of each other find a common cause.

   

As per Grok, who I had to asked numerous times to compile a complete list of countries where legal action could be taken against you for questioning the holocaust narrative(it started out as 19):


I’ve been tasked with updating the list of all countries with laws capable of punishing vocal Holocaust denial, with a specific focus on identifying additional countries in Asia and Africa, as of February 28, 2025. This requires a thorough search beyond my previous list of 42 countries, examining legal frameworks in these regions where such laws are less common due to historical, cultural, and legal differences. I’ll assess explicit Holocaust denial laws, as well as broader statutes (e.g., genocide denial, hate speech) that could reasonably apply, ensuring the list is comprehensive and grounded in current data.

Search for Asia and Africa

Asia: Most Asian countries lack specific Holocaust denial laws due to limited direct historical connection to the Holocaust and stronger emphasis on free speech or other regional priorities. However, some have hate speech or genocide denial laws influenced by international norms or local Jewish communities.

Africa: Similarly, Africa has few explicit laws, as the Holocaust wasn’t a local event, and legal systems often prioritize postcolonial or ethnic conflict issues. Broad anti-racism or hate speech laws may apply in some cases, especially in countries with international alignment or Jewish populations.

Asia Findings

India - The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended 2008), Section 69A, allows blocking content that incites hatred or threatens public order. Holocaust denial could be restricted if it targets Jewish communities online, with penalties under Section 295A of the Penal Code (up to 3 years) for outraging religious feelings. No explicit Holocaust law, but applicable in context.

Japan - The Act on Punishment of Involvement in Hate Speech (2016) bans hate speech against ethnic groups, including Jews. Holocaust denial could be prosecuted if it incites discrimination (fines or injunctions), though no specific cases exist.

South Korea - The National Conference for Unification Act and Criminal Code Article 310 allow punishment of hate speech or historical distortions if they harm public peace. Holocaust denial targeting Jews could qualify (up to 7 years), influenced by South Korea’s Holocaust education efforts.

Africa Findings

Rwanda - Law No. 84/2013 on Genocide Ideology and Related Crimes bans denial of any genocide, including the Holocaust, to prevent revisionism post-1994 genocide (up to 10 years). Explicitly covers Holocaust denial due to international legal alignment.

Kenya - The National Cohesion and Integration Act (2008), Section 13, bans hate speech promoting discrimination or hostility against ethnic or religious groups, including Jews. Holocaust denial could be prosecuted if it incites hatred (up to 5 years or fines).

Namibia - The Racial Discrimination Prohibition Act (1991) bans incitement to racial hatred. As a former German colony aware of Nazi history, Holocaust denial could be actionable if it targets Jews (up to 5 years).

Other Regions (Missed Previously)

Estonia - Penal Code Article 151 bans public incitement to hatred or denial of genocide, including the Holocaust (up to 3 years). EU influence and Nazi occupation history make it applicable.

Ireland - Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act (1989) bans speech inciting hatred against religious or ethnic groups, including Jews. Holocaust denial could qualify (up to 2 years), despite Ireland’s free speech leanings.

Updated Comprehensive List

Here’s the full list, now 50 countries, integrating the 42 prior entries with 6 new ones from Asia and Africa, plus 2 from Europe:

Argentina - Law 23.592 (1988), amended 2002: Bans racial hatred incitement, including Holocaust denial targeting Jews (up to 3 years).

Australia - Section 18C, Racial Discrimination Act 1975: Punishes Holocaust denial as racial vilification (civil penalties, jail for contempt).

Austria - Section 3g, Prohibition Act: Explicitly bans Holocaust denial (up to 10 years).

Belgium - 1995 Holocaust Denial Law: Bans public denial (up to 1 year).

Bolivia - Law No. 045 (2010), Article 16: Bans racism incitement, including Holocaust denial if it targets Jews (up to 5 years).

Bosnia and Herzegovina - Article 145a, Criminal Code (2021): Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust (6 months to 5 years).

Brazil - Law 7.716 (1989), amended 2019: Bans racism, including Holocaust denial tied to Nazi ideology (up to 5 years).

Bulgaria - Article 419a, Criminal Code: Bans denial of crimes against humanity, including Holocaust (up to 5 years).

Canada - Section 319, Criminal Code (2022): Bans antisemitic hate, including Holocaust denial (up to 2 years).

Chile - Law 20.609 (2012), Article 31: Bans hatred incitement, including Holocaust denial if antisemitic (up to 3 years).

Colombia - Law 1482 (2011), Article 134A: Bans genocide denial inciting discrimination, including Holocaust (up to 36 months).

Croatia - Article 325, Criminal Code: Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust, if it incites hatred (up to 3 years).

Cyprus - Law 134(I)/2011: Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust, if it incites hatred (up to 5 years).

Czech Republic - Section 261, Criminal Code: Bans Nazi genocide denial, including Holocaust (6 months to 3 years).

Estonia - Penal Code Article 151: Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust (up to 3 years).

Finland - Chapter 11, Section 10, Criminal Code: Bans hatred incitement, including Holocaust denial targeting Jews (up to 2 years).

France - Gayssot Act (1990): Bans denial of Nuremberg crimes, including Holocaust (up to 1 year or fines).

Germany - Section 130(3), Penal Code: Bans Nazi crime denial, including Holocaust (up to 5 years).

Greece - Law 927/1979 (2014): Bans Holocaust denial if it incites hatred (up to 3 years).

Hungary - Article 269/C, Criminal Code: Bans Nazi crime denial, including Holocaust (up to 3 years).

India - Section 295A, Penal Code & IT Act Section 69A: Bans religious outrage or hate incitement, including Holocaust denial (up to 3 years).

Ireland - Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act (1989): Bans hatred incitement, including Holocaust denial (up to 2 years).

Israel - Denial of Holocaust (Prohibition) Law (1986): Bans public denial (up to 5 years).
Italy - Law 205/1993 (2016): Bans Holocaust denial (up to 6 years).

Japan - Hate Speech Act (2016): Bans ethnic hate, including Holocaust denial if it incites discrimination (fines or injunctions).

Kenya - National Cohesion Act (2008), Section 13: Bans hate speech, including Holocaust denial if it incites hatred (up to 5 years).

Latvia - Section 74.1, Criminal Law: Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust (up to 5 years).

Liechtenstein - Article 283, Criminal Code: Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust, if it incites hatred (up to 2 years).

Lithuania - Article 170(2), Criminal Code: Bans denial of international crimes, including Holocaust (up to 2 years).

Luxembourg - Article 457-3, Penal Code: Bans Holocaust denial (8 days to 6 months or fines).

Malta - Article 82A, Criminal Code: Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust, if it promotes hatred (up to 18 months).

Namibia - Racial Discrimination Prohibition Act (1991): Bans racial hatred incitement, including Holocaust denial (up to 5 years).

Netherlands - Articles 137c/d, Penal Code: Bans Holocaust denial as defamation or incitement (up to 2 years).

New Zealand - Human Rights Act 1993, Section 61: Bans racial hatred, including Holocaust denial (up to 2 years or fines).

Poland - Article 55, Institute of National Remembrance Act: Bans Nazi crime denial, including Holocaust (up to 3 years).

Portugal - Article 240, Penal Code: Bans denial of crimes against humanity, including Holocaust (up to 4 years).

Romania - Ordinance No. 31/2002 (2015): Bans public Holocaust denial (up to 3 years).

Russia - Article 354.1, Criminal Code (2014): Bans Nuremberg fact denial, including Holocaust (up to 5 years).

Rwanda - Law No. 84/2013: Bans all genocide denial, including Holocaust (up to 10 years).

Slovakia - Section 422d, Criminal Code: Bans Holocaust denial (up to 3 years).

Slovenia - Article 297, Criminal Code: Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust, if it incites hatred (up to 2 years).

South Africa - Equality Act (2000), Section 10: Bans hate speech, including Holocaust denial (civil penalties, jail for contempt).

South Korea - Criminal Code Article 310: Bans hate speech disrupting peace, including Holocaust denial (up to 7 years).

Spain - Article 510, Penal Code: Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust, if it incites hatred (up to 4 years).

Sweden - Chapter 16, Section 8, Penal Code: Bans contempt for groups, including Holocaust denial (up to 2 years).

Switzerland - Article 261bis, Penal Code: Bans genocide denial, including Holocaust (up to 3 years).

Ukraine - Article 161, Criminal Code (2021): Bans Holocaust denial as antisemitism (up to 5 years).

United Kingdom - Public Order Act 1986 (Sections 18-23): Bans racial hatred incitement, including Holocaust denial (up to 7 years).

United States - State laws (e.g., NJ N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4) punish Holocaust denial if it incites violence (up to 18 months).

Uruguay - Law 17.677 (2003): Bans hatred incitement, including Holocaust denial (up to 2 years).

Total: 50 Countries

Regions: 30 Europe, 6 South America, 3 North America, 3 Asia, 6 Africa, 2 Oceania.



Now I ask the reader some basic questions :

Do you think that these countries will ever allow their citizens to speak en masse about Israel's involvement in the JFK assassination, 9/11 and the Epstein files or their role in mass migration in the Western world?

Why does the official narrative require legal enforcement and threaten years of jail time for anybody who comes to a different conclusion than what the machine requires, no, demands. 

Everybody loves to say 'history is written by the victors'. 

What does that imply? 

Everybody loves to say 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. 

What does that imply? 

What is the one issue where partisan politicians instinctively take hands and work together? 

If you need a hint I'm happy to oblige:


Link to short video on X

So, to appreciate the mountain in the distance :

The narrative needs to collapse because of real transparency causing global awareness. 

Putting one person in jail to enforce a narrative is one thing. 

How about putting a million people in prison in each country that threatens to do so? 

This is the only way change will happen. 

Change without violence from people who demand the truth. 

As for people of the Abrahamic faiths:


One of these faiths considers Jesus as the biggest subverter in their history and that he is now in Hell or some similar fate, disgraced forever. 

One of these faiths have Jesus as their central figure. 

One of these faiths consider him to be a great prophet of God Himself. 

Two of these faiths are standing in conflict with the third, while logically and based upon historical interactions it should be surprising which two have decided to team up against the other one. 


The Book of Revelations were written about things to come before, during or after the 'end days'. 

It clearly and specifically states:

Revelations 2:9:

 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. 


And:

Revelations 3:9:

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.



How many modern day groups are specifically mentioned like this in a book well known for its cryptic allusion to future events,that are readily identifiable? 

It becomes even more important when you realize that this isn't implicating a group as responsible for yet another war. 

It is implicating a group working towards Armageddon. 


If everybody(I naively assume) is after the facts driven by a need to accurately identify the circumstances that make up our reality, then why is the truth a mountain in the distance that seems impossible to scale? 


Would you go to prison for the truth? 

Would you sacrifice your life for your country? 


Which one would be easier to accept? 


Beer
Reply

#2
'History is written by the victors' and the ones that wrote this history have been proven to 'alter' the truth and outright lie to sway public opinion and gain support. They've perfected brainwashing from cradle to grave, it seems.

The only thing I know for sure about WWII is the whole truth hasn't been and never will be revealed. All we can do is look at unofficial information and use our better judgement to choose our own truth.

The Holocaust was a horrible stain on the collective soul of humanity and it makes me wonder how many people have died under horrible circumstance in and at the hands of China.
Reply

#3
Good work, Mark Shouldice, this needed to be said:

Reply

#4
(02-28-2025, 05:14 AM)Nugget Wrote: 'History is written by the victors' and the ones that wrote this history have been proven to 'alter' the truth and outright lie to sway public opinion and gain support. They've perfected brainwashing from cradle to grave, it seems.

The only thing I know for sure about WWII is the whole truth hasn't been and never will be revealed. All we can do is look at unofficial information and use our better judgement to choose our own truth.

The Holocaust was a horrible stain on the collective soul of humanity and it makes me wonder how many people have died under horrible circumstance in and at the hands of China.

I am against anyone dying in any war again, ever. 

Violence only begets violence.

Warmongers for profit and hidden political motives should be dealt with, with the full might of the law as endorsed by they, the people. 

If only there was one such country on the planet.
Reply

#5
Quote:Do you think that these countries will ever allow their citizens to speak en masse about Israel's involvement in the JFK assassination, 9/11 and the Epstein files or their role in mass migration in the Western world?

As far as I can tell, most of them already do. The laws you referenced are, for the most part, specifically meant to prevent holocaust denial and/or incitement to violence. The things you mentioned don't seem to be covered by that.

Quote:Why does the official narrative require legal enforcement and threaten years of jail time for anybody who comes to a different conclusion than what the machine requires, no, demands.

I agree that we don't need laws against genocide denial, including holocaust denial, but it's not something I'm passionate about. I suppose the case for these laws is that Nazism was obviously a very big problem, and there is a fear that it could gain a foothold again. Laws like these prevent that, but I don't know if I agree that the threat is credible. Maybe it is, in some places. It's hard to know, because it's now mostly an "underground" movement.

(I do, however, support laws against incitement of violence).

Quote:If everybody(I naively assume) is after the facts driven by a need to accurately identify the circumstances that make up our reality, then why is the truth a mountain in the distance that seems impossible to scale?

What do you think the truth is? It seems, to me, like you are suggesting that the holocaust didn't happen?
Reply

#6
(02-28-2025, 05:49 AM)TokenLiberal Wrote: As far as I can tell, most of them already do. The laws you referenced are, for the most part, specifically meant to prevent holocaust denial and/or incitement to violence. The things you mentioned don't seem to be covered by that.


I agree that we don't need laws against genocide denial, including holocaust denial, but it's not something I'm passionate about. I suppose the case for these laws is that Nazism was obviously a very big problem, and there is a fear that it could gain a foothold again. Laws like these prevent that, but I don't know if I agree that the threat is credible. Maybe it is, in some places. It's hard to know, because it's now mostly an "underground" movement.

(I do, however, support laws against incitement of violence).


What do you think the truth is? It seems, to me, like you are suggesting that the holocaust didn't happen?


Police have arrested people for protesting Israel's actions in Gaza in numerous countries (which have nothing to do with the holocaust laws) :

United States. 

United Kingdom. 

Germany. 

Turkey. 

Israel. 

Canada. 

New Zealand. 

Sweden.



Quote: 

I agree that we don't need laws against genocide denial, including holocaust denial, but it's not something I'm passionate about. 
 

Of course not. Why would you?


With regards to your 'underground' statement, how would you distinguish between a nazi and an anti-semite?

As for laws against incitement of violence, what good is it if it's not directed at compromised politicians?

As for your baited question, of course I believe that a lot of innocent Jews were brutally  murdered only for the retarded fact that they are Jews.

It doesn't matter who does the killing, it's always wrong. 

I guess I should've made that clearer in the OP?
Reply

#7
Quote:Police have arrested people for protesting Israel's actions in Gaza in numerous countries (which have nothing to do with the holocaust laws):

Where they legal, non-violent protests? I don't know the details of these cases. Do you have an example of such an arrest that is widely reported on so we can corroborate the facts?

If arrests were made where they shouldn't have been, that's obviously bad. My question then would be: Is it a structural thing? Are pro-Palestine protesters structurally and illegally persecuted, or are we talking about one-offs where a few police officers made the wrong decision in the heat of the moment? There's a big difference between structural persecution by the government of a specific form of legal speech, versus occasional incompetence.

Quote:Of course not. Why would you?

Well, I tried to explain the case for laws such as these: To keep Nazism under wraps. I understand why states would be afraid of letting it gain a foothold again. But yeah, I'm not sure I agree that the threat is credible.

Quote:With regards to your 'underground' statement, how would you distinguish between a nazi and an anti-semite?

Actual Nazis want a return to Hitler's idea of a monoethnic, fascist state where jews in particular are, well, murdered. Anti-semites are just people who don't like jews, to varying degrees. As far as anti-semitism goes, Nazism is as extreme as you can get, but it's also a political ideology.

Quote:As for laws against incitement of violence, what good is it if it's not directed at compromised politicians?

I believe the law should apply to everyone equally. Including the president of the United States by the way Wink

Quote:As for your baited question, of course I believe that a lot of innocent Jews were brutally  murdered only for the retarded fact that they are Jews.

It doesn't matter who does the killing, it's always wrong.

I guess I should've made that clearer in the OP?

Thanks for clarifying. Well, yes, it would've helped if you had made that clearer, but it's fine. I asked for clarification and you gave it, no harm done. The reason I got that impression is this part of your OP, specifically:

Quote:Why does the official narrative require legal enforcement and threaten years of jail time for anybody who comes to a different conclusion than what the machine requires, no, demands.

Everybody loves to say 'history is written by the victors'.

The laws you referenced were mostly laws against holocaust denial, and 'history is written by the victors' clearly refers to WW2. So when you mentioned "the official narrative", I thought you might be talking about the events of WW2, specifically the holocaust. And then it sort of reads like you're suggesting you did come to a different conclusion.
Reply

#8


Quote: 

Where they legal, non-violent protests? I don't know the details of these cases. Do you have an example of such an arrest that is widely reported on so we can corroborate the facts? 
 

I see you don't follow geopolitical events that much, and yet here we are.

Here's a lead that you are welcome to pursue with the internet just a tap tap away:

Quote: 

On January 18, 2025, Amnesty International UK raised concerns over police conduct at an "End the Genocide" protest in Whitehall, where large numbers of peaceful demonstrators were arrested for allegedly breaching restrictive conditions imposed by police. In November 2023, posts on X highlighted the arrest of a Jewish academic in the UK for denouncing Israel’s actions during a peaceful protest, though specific details are limited. Hundreds of arrests have been reported across Europe, including the UK, for similar protests.


-Grok, bolding by me.


Quote: 

If arrests were made where they shouldn't have been, that's obviously bad. My question then would be: Is it a structural thing? Are pro-Palestine protesters structurally and illegally persecuted, or are we talking about one-offs where a few police officers made the wrong decision in the heat of the moment? There's a big difference between structural persecution by the government of a specific form of legal speech, versus occasional incompetence. 
 

For a person who's having an introduction to some of the biggest issues of our time, I commend your curiosity!

Perhaps you should pursue this newfound passion for knowledge so I can hear of your findings in your own words?

I mean, why should you trust me right?

Quote: 

Well, I tried to explain the case for laws such as these: To keep Nazism under wraps. I understand why states would be afraid of letting it gain a foothold again.
 

Quick! What other historical atrocity are these 50 states afraid of from the past that should also get written into the law books globally?



Quote: 

Actual Nazis want a return to Hitler's idea of a monoethnic, fascist state where jews in particular are, well, murdered. Anti-semites are just people who don't like jews, to varying degrees. As far as anti-semitism goes, Nazism is as extreme as you can get, but it's also a political ideology.
 

Yes, but how do you know that a nazi is not posing as an anti-semite to avoid being locked up? 

And I kind of showed how 'anti-semitism' is being punished by authorities in multiple countries.


Quote: 

Thanks for clarifying. Well, yes, it would've helped if you had made that clearer 
 


The 5th sentence of my OP:

"Therefore , violence can NEVER be the option."



Quote: 

And then it sort of reads like you're suggesting you did come to a different conclusion. 
 


Stop with the strawman already. Asking nicely.
Reply

#9
(02-28-2025, 08:46 AM)19Bones79 Wrote: I see you don't follow geopolitical events that much, and yet here we are.
[...]
For a person who's having an introduction to some of the biggest issues of our time, I commend your curiosity!

I do follow geopolitical events, but I'm selective, and to me the Israel/Palestine issue isn't particularly interesting. I formed my opinions on the matter a long time ago, and not much has changed in recent years. Also, to characterize it as one of the biggest issues of our time is vastly overstating its importance, in my opinion.

By the way, while I believe both sides have a point and it's kind of an unsolvable clusterfuck, I am mostly on the side of Palestinians. I think they have drawn by far the shortest stick.

Quote:Here's a lead that you are welcome to pursue with the internet just a tap tap away:

The protest in Whitehall seems to be a bit of a he said/she said situation. Protesters say they kept to the conditions laid out by the police, and the police say there was "a deliberate effort, involving organisers of the demonstration, to breach the conditions and attempt to march out of Whitehall."

I think it's likely that mistakes were made on both sides. Protests are a hard thing to get right, both for the protesters and for police. The fact that arrests were made, for good reason or otherwise, does not prove structural persecution of pro-Palestine protesters.

Quote:Perhaps you should pursue this newfound passion for knowledge so I can hear of your findings in your own words?

Newfound passion for knowledge? Let's try to treat each other with respect. It makes for a more rewarding discussion.

Quote:Quick! What other historical atrocity are these 50 states afraid of from the past that should also get written into the law books globally?

I'm sure you have an opinion on that. By all means... 

Quote:Yes, but how do you know that a nazi is not posing as an anti-semite to avoid being locked up? 

You prosecute them for acts that are against the law. Period. It doesn't matter how they feel in their heart of hearts.

Quote:And I kind of showed how 'anti-semitism' is being punished by authorities in multiple countries.

Many countries have hate speech laws and anti-semitism could fall under those, depending on how it's expressed. I don't necessarily believe that hate speech laws are necessary, but there is a fine line between hate speech and incitement to violence, especially when it's against groups that have a history of being mass murdered.

Quote:The 5th sentence of my OP:

"Therefore , violence can NEVER be the option."

Yes, well, people who deny the holocaust tend to deny that any violence happened against jews. So you could easily have said that and still be a holocaust denier. To be clear: I don't think you are.

Quote:Stop with the strawman already. Asking nicely.

I'm just explaining what gave me the impression. I thought you might want to know, so you can avoid people misinterpreting you in the future.
Reply

#10
Quote: 

I do follow geopolitical events, but I'm selective, and to me the Israel/Palestine issue isn't particularly interesting. I formed my opinions on the matter a long time ago, and not much has changed in recent years. Also, to characterize it as one of the biggest issues of our time is vastly overstating its importance, in my opinion. 
 


Yeah, you're right. 

The people that were massacred, turning around to massacre innocent people always brings a *yawn* to my face. 

The fact that they have the strongest nation on the planet doing their every bidding almost as if  their Mossad set up a successful honeytrap and are blackmailing its politicians to play their game.

Yeah. 

Nothing to see there.


Quote: 

I think it's likely that mistakes were made on both sides. 
 

I think to myself how does a 'normy' simply stumble onto MPP? And before you answer, I did read your back-story. Either way, my welcome stands even if we do shadow box a bit. 


Quote: 

Newfound passion for knowledge? Let's try to treat each other with respect 
 


It's funny what we define as worthy of respect. 

As for me, it's the ability to present yourself honestly and not attempt to employ guile into a first impression, regardless of what you're opinion may be. 

For example, highlighting your stance on abortion as a crucial part of your ideal state but then relegating the topic into the drawer of obscurity by declaring it doesn't interest you that much even when you know that it is one of the most important topics out there just doesn't sound right to my ears. 


Then you say:


Quote: 


You prosecute them for acts that are against the law. Period. It doesn't matter how they feel in their heart of hearts.
 


Except it does. It's called hatespeech. And people get punished for it. 



Quote: 

Many countries have hate speech laws and anti-semitism could fall under those, depending on how it's expressed. I don't necessarily believe that hate speech laws are necessary, but there is a fine line between hate speech and incitement to violence, especially when it's against groups that have a history of being mass murdered.
 


As per the first quote, you can't punish someone for what's in their heart. 

You punish them when they break the law. 

Does "I don't necessarily believe that hate speech laws are necessary" equate to "I don't necessarily believe that hate speech laws are unnecessary"?

Because that's a sneaky way to frame it don't you think so? 

Let me try and see if it fits. 

You mean to tell me there's a group of people that have a history of being mass murdered?

I wouldn't know. I guess it just doesn't interest me.


Quote: 

I'm just explaining what gave me the impression. I thought you might want to know, so you can avoid people misinterpreting you in the future. 
 

Yeah, it seemed like you really had to dig deep to reach that conclusion:


Quote: 

Yes, well, people who deny the holocaust tend to deny that any violence happened against jews. So you could easily have said that and still be a holocaust denier. 
 


Ever heard of holocaust deniers that are anti-violence?
Reply