Quote originally posted by Luck:
Personally, I think it's even more wrong that a person can go to jail for denying the Holocaust in many parts of Europe.
View original post
I've never heard of that. If I'm not mistaken we just sort of treated it just like any other silly conspiracy theory here in America. Sounds like it could violate the limitations of freedom of speech if that belief was pushed on others though, mostly because of how sensitive a subject it is.
Off to google to search for articles...
On a slightly more on topic note, I'd like to provide this link to a website that should answer a few questions about the limitations to "freedom of speech" in America, and possibly the kinds of limitations other parts of the worlds may apply.
Clear and Present Danger
Speech is not protected if it presents a clear and present danger. The most common example is that the First Amendment would not protect someone who falsely shouted “Fire!” into a crowded theater.
This is speech that has a “tendency” to lead to illegal action and thus is not protected.
Speech that is intended to incite or actually produce immediate lawlessness is also not protected.
A statement that damages another person’s reputation is considered defamatory and unprotected. The Supreme Court has made certain allowances for statements that could be considered defamatory but are either made in reference to a public person or can be shown to be true.
Similar to speech that is considered to have a "tendency" to incite illegal action, fighting words are unprotected. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942, fighting words were defined as those having "a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, the remark is addressed."
Seditious speech is that which advocates violently overthrowing the government or resisting lawful authority. This type of speech is unprotected and can be restricted because it endangers national security.