Miraj,

What is the difference between the denial of the Holocaust law as posted on this forum, and American laws against libel.

Habesor

That'd be a good 'sound bite' - got anything to support it?

Incidentally, just so everyon knows:  Israel is hardly the only nation to have 'Holocaust denial' laws.  The US does not - but Canada and Australia do, along with half the European nations.  And, for the record, the Jewish community of Oz represents .3% (=.003) of the Australian population - so it's clearly not 'Jewish pressure' which has prompted such laws being passed.

I'm not seeing any correlation between 'theocratic' nations and such laws.

The difference I DO see, is that the Holocaust legislation refers to actual events which have been very well documented, and stated and deliberate policies of one political group.

The Turkish and other laws are necessarily more vague and subject to enormously greater amounts of interpretation.  For one example, Kemal Ataturk's wife wrote in her autobiography about the pain his infidelities caused her - and she was judged to have broken the Turkish law!

I suppose anyone who mentions the genocide of Armenian people is 'insulting Turkishness'???  It seems like a poorly-designed law to me because it supports denying events which did occur. 

Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:35AM, habesor wrote:

Miraj,

What is the difference between the denial of the Holocaust law as posted on this forum, and American laws against libel.

Habesor

Libel law is not my area of practice, but I'll offer a basic explanation.  US libel laws vary greatly from state to state and between state and federal jurisdictions, but, in general, libel in the US is a civil matter between private parties where the burden of proof of personal injury is on the plaintiff, not the accused, and penalities are monetary or rehabilitative.  In contrast, Israel's Holocaust law criminalizes speech and makes the state a party to the grievance where the burden of proof is on the accused.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 12:10PM, habesor wrote:

Miraj,

I think that I would agree with what you wrote about libel laws in the USA. There are other laws that limit other forms of speech in the USA but the general tendency of American courts is to allow as much free speech as possible. Here is what I found in Wikipedia:

"In the United States, hate speech is legal (except for obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).^[52] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.^{[53][54][55][56]}

The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."^[57] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.^[58] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.^[59]

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.^[60][61]"  

The point I am emphasizing by citing the above quote is that in the USA the government does become involved as a party in certain instances where freedom of speech is limited by law. 

That is a rarity, actually, and is often politically motivated.  For example, the liberal Obama administration may try more civil rights cases than a conservative administration.  When the feds become involved in a libel case to the point of prosecution, it makes news because it doesn't happen often.

In the case of the Israeli law quoted on this forum, there is a difference drawn between Holocaust denial and the questioning inquiry into the historical events of the Holocaust. This may not pass an examination by the USA Supreme Court but it would certainly fall within the limitations on free speech found in most other Western Democracies. In this case Holocaust denial would be considered a form of racism or hate speech, while Holocaust inquiry and differences of opinion and interpretation, and there are many such differences in Israel, would be considered legitimate and therefore fall within the bounds of freedom of speech.

Miraj, I don't know whether or not you would agree with the Israeli position on this but it is consistent with most of the rest of the democratic world.

I'm no fan of the criminalization of speech, much of which derives from an exaggerated White Guilt symdrome.

One final point, when discussing what is permissible as free speech and what is not, very much depends on the culture of the society in question. I spent a couple of weeks in Holland and found that the "F" word was much more acceptable in conversation than was "G-d d-mn". This was because most Dutch people saw the former as referencing a natural act while the latter was blasphemous. 

Culture and politics make a difference.  When you referred to the US federal government becoming involved with enforcement of libel laws, the degree of enforcement is based on political priorities; the funding and staffing of the offices, the selection of the directors all reflect the philosophy and priorities of the governing bodies on both the state and federal levels.  Having a law on the books is not indicative of the officials ability or willingness to enforce it.

By the way, a number of years ago an Israeli right-wing extremist was arrested in Hebron by the Israeli security forces for handing out fliers with a picture of the Muslim prophet in the form of a pig, or something along those lines. She wasn't arrested for blasphemy but for being a threat to the public order. I don't know how the USA Supreme Court would have dealt with her but in the Israeli court she was convicted of a crime; though I don't remember what punishment she received.

In the US, she would have most likely have been ignored unless her acts had incited violence or been designed to purposely incite violence under the "fighting words" prohibition of speech.  One of the most notorious illustrations of this is the proposed Neo-Nazi march in Skokie, Ill. in 1977.  It raised a national debate over the protection of abhorant speech and the right to peacefully assemble.  The US Supreme Court heard the case, and remanded (returned) it back the the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed its prior decision to prevent the march, finding that no "fighting words" prohibition was raised by their use of the swastika symbol.