Is wilfully lying about something in public newspapers, books etc or whilst representing an official organisation properly covered by free speech law? I can think of hundreds of examples by historians with axes to grind who blatantly make up, shorten quotations or rely on clearly dodgy sources.
Yet the are merely called disreputable rather than criminal, as if they were merely lying about a personal event. Also, historians do not deal in opinions but arguments. How is something being opinion any sort of defence? I think Holocaust denial laws need to be extended across the board.
It's all very well to ****** certain racial groups in general, but to make up facts about particular people is deceitful and unscrupulous. Misrepresenting history should be a crime like any other misdemeanour.
Basically freedom of speech with freedom to lie is meaningless. The latter utterly degrades the former. That includes Mel Gibson. Passion of the Christ wasn't a piece of art, it was yellow propaganda that should land him in jail. And any other piece of "art" that clearly intends to skew history should earn their creators a stay in goal as well.
Yet the are merely called disreputable rather than criminal, as if they were merely lying about a personal event. Also, historians do not deal in opinions but arguments. How is something being opinion any sort of defence? I think Holocaust denial laws need to be extended across the board.
It's all very well to ****** certain racial groups in general, but to make up facts about particular people is deceitful and unscrupulous. Misrepresenting history should be a crime like any other misdemeanour.
Basically freedom of speech with freedom to lie is meaningless. The latter utterly degrades the former. That includes Mel Gibson. Passion of the Christ wasn't a piece of art, it was yellow propaganda that should land him in jail. And any other piece of "art" that clearly intends to skew history should earn their creators a stay in goal as well.
