Everyone knows historical negationism laws like the Marxist Gayssot Laws are authoritarian and anti-speech. This certain fact is a ‘sky is blue’ kind of thing which is self-evidently not open to debate.
But here’s a more challenging question:
Do such laws make it MORE difficult, rather than LESS difficult, to make the rational case for the mainstream historical narrative on (say) the Holocaust convincing to a greater number of people?
Does the existence of historical negationism laws discredit the well-established historical facts in the eyes of many people, insofar as some people start wondering ‘what have they got to hide?’
So to what degree are anti-speech laws like this not only authoritarian in character, but also very useful to Holocaust denialists, who can then claim victimhood and attribute bad faith to those who acknowledge the well-established historical facts?
