I read an article a few days ago that brought to mind a long-standing objection I have had for years about Europe’s Holocaust denier laws that essentially make it illegal to express or possess anything that is either pro-Nazi or that denies the Holocaust. As an American citizen, these laws smack of censorship… a sort of reverse book-burning as practiced by the Nazis back in the day.

The reason it bothers me so much is that I once knew a Nazi-sympathizer who, in a very matter-of-fact fashion, explained to me why the Nazis were correct in their actions. At the time (I was very young), I was not very well informed as to the historical fact, so I hit the books, and lo-and-behold! I realized that this older gentleman was very much mistaken. So when I later learned that in Europe they banned all sorts of literature on Nazism, it disturbed me for two reasons. The first reason is that I truly believe that we must learn from history: about how a population could be kept in the dark about atrocities committed by the government on such a massive scale, about how demagogues use their oratorical power to hypnotize the “masses,” and about how we can avoid this type of thing in the future. To erase from our memory the motivations behind such genocidal and insane behavior would actually help the next genocidal dictator come to power, since no one would know what signs to look for. The second reason is the fact that the illegality of speech, even hate speech, is a violation of a basic human right to free expression. To lose an inch of our rights is a precursor to the complete loss of our rights.

Well, the article in question was a clear example of how compromising our right to free speech can be a slippery slope. In Russia, the government is considering what is called the law “Against the Rehabilitation of Nazism” that essentially makes illegal any sort of criticism of the Soviet Union’s actions during the Second World War. It makes it illegal to deny that the Soviets were the ones who won the war. It makes it illegal to criticize the tactics used during the war. It makes it illegal to say that the Soviets did not liberate Eastern Europe, which it did not… the Soviets simply replaced the Nazi occupiers with Soviet puppet-dictators. The sad part is that they point to European laws against Nazism to justify their move.

While the immense sacrifice of the Soviet Union during WWII cannot be denied, to criminalize the analysis of their history is to doom them to repeat the same mistakes. The first mistake was that the Joseph Stalin, then dictator of the USSR, carved up Poland with the insane Adolph Hitler… but under this law, that cannot be talked about. Another sad point during the war was the ruthlessness of the Soviet commanders who sent wave after wave of soldiers against the German without much consideration for their lives… but under this law, that cannot be talked about. At the end of the war, one dictatorship was replaced by another one that was paranoid of the west and possibly had designs for their own empire… but under this law, that cannot be talked about. Modern-day Russia will be forced to accept the highly dubious and skewed accounts of Soviet performance during the war and if anyone disagrees they may be sent to prison for three to five years.

Particularly, this law is intended to prevent the destruction of Soviet-era monuments to the war found in newly independent Eastern European states and will prevent their politicians from traveling in Russia if they have made comments denying Soviet victory over the Nazis. Practically, it is yet another blow against free speech in the world and Europe’s own laws played a part in justifying this law. The laws themselves are easy to pass because the world already knows about the gruesome and despicable acts carried out by the Nazi regime on people simply because of race. So when the average voter is asked whether we they should make Nazism illegal, a great majority will follow their gut instinct and vote to make speech illegal… I understand the urge to want to punish the Nazis of the past, present, and future with the only weapon that we have: our vote… I feel the same way about punishing Communism… but in our rush to get “revenge” we end up compromising our own freedom.

The greatest weapon that free people have against hate and tyranny is information. While the acts of the Nazi regime are amongst the most evil in history, no nation should criminalize the free speech of its people. In the United States, where there is no such prohibition, there are various pro-Nazi organizations and the mainstream has rejected them outright. As long as they abide by law and not endanger others, they should have the right to express their historical, political, racial, or any other views that they may have. If Europe is so intent on making hate speech illegal, then they should make the display of Che Guevara and communist insignia illegal as well. Communism has killed many, many millions and around the world they are unrepentant. Of course, they have done no such thing, and, even today, those that revere mass murderers like Che Guevara and Stalin get a free pass. Poland recently proposed banning images related to communism, but the “enlightened” Europeans have yet to catch on.

I do not wish to take away the right of an ignoramus or a radical leftist to wear Che Guevara shirts. Neither do I wish to take away the right of a neo-Nazi to wear a Hitler shirt. I disagree with both of their ideologies and their methods… but interestingly enough the communists and the national socialists have one thing in common: they would both take away everyone’s right to free speech. In tolerating them, I reject them.

It is kind of tongue-in-cheek, being that I exercise my right to free speech on this site, but to cite a famous quote: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

-AG