Tweet
Los Angeles Times, CA
March 10 2012
Debating genocide denial
Should denying the Armenian genocide, or the Holocaust, be illegal?
The Times says no.
March 10, 2012
In a March 5 editorial, The Times opposed a bill in the French
parliament that would have made it a crime to deny the Armenian
genocide. The bill was proposed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, then
struck down byFrance's Constitutional Council. Now Sarkozy says he
wants to revive it.
Reader Berj Proodian wrote suggesting that The Times may have been
hypocritical on the subject:
"In the past year, the L.A. Times has printed [several] editorials
condemning France's law against denying the Armenian genocide. Many
Western European democracies (including France) have had laws against
denying the Holocaust for a couple of decades now. If it is
unconstitutional to punish those who deny the Armenian genocide, then
how can democracies justify denial of the Holocaust to be a criminal
offense? I don't remember the L.A. Times ever speaking up against
that."
Times Editorial Page Editor Nicholas Goldberg responds:
We have editorialized consistently in recent years against laws that
ban Holocaust denial and otherwise stifle free expression. As far back
as October 2006, for instance, we wrote the following about another
law that would have made it an offense to deny the Armenian genocide:
"This matches similar laws across the EU criminalizing Holocaust
denial. Both notions exhibit an unseemly lack of confidence in the
free competition of ideas and leave European governments open to
charges of hypocrisy."
In 2009, we criticizedGermany'slaw banning Holocaust denial along with
another one making it illegal to publish "Mein Kampf,"Adolf
Hitler'sautobiographical manifesto. We wrote: "Those rules were put in
place with the best of intentions.... But liberal democracy cannot
tolerate such bans on free expression indefinitely."
The Holocaust and the Armenian genocide are historical facts. The
editorial board has no doubt that they occurred and has often said
that they were monstrous crimes that the world should not forget. But
we do not believe that banning speech is the most effective way to get
that message across.
Dictatorships often rely on censorship, making it illegal to express
unpopular or unacceptable points of view. But democracies like France,
Germany and the United States should have robust freedom of speech
laws that include protections even for outrageous, hurtful and
ahistorical opinions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-0310-postscript-genocidelaws-20120310,0,1240501.story
March 10 2012
Debating genocide denial
Should denying the Armenian genocide, or the Holocaust, be illegal?
The Times says no.
March 10, 2012
In a March 5 editorial, The Times opposed a bill in the French
parliament that would have made it a crime to deny the Armenian
genocide. The bill was proposed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, then
struck down byFrance's Constitutional Council. Now Sarkozy says he
wants to revive it.
Reader Berj Proodian wrote suggesting that The Times may have been
hypocritical on the subject:
"In the past year, the L.A. Times has printed [several] editorials
condemning France's law against denying the Armenian genocide. Many
Western European democracies (including France) have had laws against
denying the Holocaust for a couple of decades now. If it is
unconstitutional to punish those who deny the Armenian genocide, then
how can democracies justify denial of the Holocaust to be a criminal
offense? I don't remember the L.A. Times ever speaking up against
that."
Times Editorial Page Editor Nicholas Goldberg responds:
We have editorialized consistently in recent years against laws that
ban Holocaust denial and otherwise stifle free expression. As far back
as October 2006, for instance, we wrote the following about another
law that would have made it an offense to deny the Armenian genocide:
"This matches similar laws across the EU criminalizing Holocaust
denial. Both notions exhibit an unseemly lack of confidence in the
free competition of ideas and leave European governments open to
charges of hypocrisy."
In 2009, we criticizedGermany'slaw banning Holocaust denial along with
another one making it illegal to publish "Mein Kampf,"Adolf
Hitler'sautobiographical manifesto. We wrote: "Those rules were put in
place with the best of intentions.... But liberal democracy cannot
tolerate such bans on free expression indefinitely."
The Holocaust and the Armenian genocide are historical facts. The
editorial board has no doubt that they occurred and has often said
that they were monstrous crimes that the world should not forget. But
we do not believe that banning speech is the most effective way to get
that message across.
Dictatorships often rely on censorship, making it illegal to express
unpopular or unacceptable points of view. But democracies like France,
Germany and the United States should have robust freedom of speech
laws that include protections even for outrageous, hurtful and
ahistorical opinions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-0310-postscript-genocidelaws-20120310,0,1240501.story