BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Governments should not allow forums for hate speech to flourish

Denial of the Holocaust is fundamentally hate speech. It is the duty of the government to deny these offensive beliefs a platform of any kind.[1] By blocking these sites, the government denies a certain freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the market place of ideas. Many people, often Jews, but also members of other discriminated against minorities like Roma, suffer directly from the speech, feeling not only offended, but physically threatened by such denials. Holocaust denial however goes beyond hate speech because it is not only offensive but factually wrong. The attempt to rewrite history and to sow lies causes a threat to the truth and an ability to co-opt the participation of gullible individuals to their cause that mere insults and demagoguery could not. It represents a threat to education by undermining the value of facts and evidence. For this reason, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring the sites denying the Holocaust. [1] Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993.
Holocaust denial sites are an attack on group identities

The internet is the center of discourse and public life in the 21st century. With the advent of social networks, people around the world live more and more online. Unlike any other kind of hateful speech that might flourish on the internet, Holocaust denial stands apart. This is due firstly to the particular mark that the Holocaust has made on the collective consciousness of western civilization as the ultimate act of human evil and depravity. The Holocaust is now a defining part of Jewish identity, denying it attacks all those who suffered and their decedents. Allowing Holocaust denial websites is allowing the rejection of groups’ very identity. Thus its apologists do far more harm than any troll, misogynist, or even apologist of other atrocities. For this reason, the government can justifiably censor sites promoting these absolutely offensive beliefs while not falling down any sort of slippery slope. The second reason Holocaust denial stands apart from other sorts of internet abuse is that these sites are often flashpoints for violence materializing in the real world. More than just talk, neo-Nazis seek dangerous action, and thus the state should be doubly ready to remove this threat from the internet.[1] Accepting that Holocaust deniers have a point that should be articulated across the internet would be helping these neo-nazi groups gain a foothold. The particularly grievous nature of the Holocaust demands the protection of history to the utmost. [1] BBC. “Germany’s Neo-Nazi Underground”. BBC News. 7 December 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16056399
The freedom of Holocaust deniers to use to the internet legitimizes their organization and message in eyes of consumers

When the internet places no moral judgments on content, and the gatekeepers let all information through on equal footing, it lends an air of legitimacy that these beliefs have a voice, and that they are held by reasonable people. This legitimacy is enhanced by the anonymity of the internet where deniers can pose as experts and downplay their opponents’ credentials. While the internet is a wonderful tool for spreading knowledge, it can also be subverted to disseminate misinformation. Holocaust deniers have been able to use the internet to a remarkable extent in promoting pseudoscience and pseudo-history that have the surface appearance of credibility.[1] Compounding this further, the administrators of these sites are able to choke of things like dissenting commenters, giving the illusion that their view is difficult, or even impossible to reasonably challenge. They thus create an echo chamber for their ideas that allows them to spread and to affect people, particularly young people susceptible to such manipulation. By denying these people a platform on the internet, the government is able to not only make a moral stance that is unequivocal, but also to choke off access to new members who can be saved by never seeing the negative messages. [1] Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993.
A ban would stop Holocaust deniers from engaging in effective real world actions

The greatest fear with hate groups is not just their hateful rhetoric online, but also their ability to take harmful action in the real world. When Holocaust deniers are able to set up standard websites, they have the ability to mobilize action on the ground. This means coordinating rallies, as well as acts of hooliganism and violence. One need only look at the sort of organization the Golden Dawn, a neo-fascist Greek party, has been able to develop in part through active use of social media and websites.[1] By capitalizing on the tools of the 21st century these thugs have succeeded in bringing sympathizers to their cause, often geographically diffuse, into a tight-knit community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens, but particularly the minority groups they are presently fixated upon. By utilizing social media and websites Holocaust deniers have gained a new lease on life. The government can significantly hamper these organizations from taking meaningful actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their favored and most effective platform. [1] Savaricas, Nathalie, “Greece’s neo-fascists are on the rise... and now they’re going into schools: How Golden Dawn is nurturing the next generation”, The Independent, 2 February 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greeces-neofascists-are-on-the-rise-and-now-theyre-going-into-schools-how-golden-dawn-is-nurturing-the-next-generation-8477997.html
Everyone has a right to freedom of expression

No matter how unpalatable their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them. The very core of a free society is the right to express one’s mind freely, without hindrance from the state. When the state presumes to judge good speech from bad, and to shut off the channel by which the designated bad speech may flow, it abrogates its duty to its citizens. The government does this by presuming to make value judgments on kinds of speech, and thus empowering itself, and not the people, to be the final arbiter of acceptable speech. Such a state of affairs is anathema to the continuation of a free society.[1] With free speech the all sides will get to voice their views and those whose opinions have most evidence will win out so there is no need for censorship as the marketplace of ideas will prevent ideas without sufficient evidence from having an impact. Furthermore, the particular speech in question is extremely fringe, and is for that reason a very unusual one to be seeking to silence. Speech can be legally curtailed only when there is a very real and manifest harm. But that is not the case here, where the participants are few and scattered, and those who would take exception to what the Holocaust deniers have to say can easily opt out online. [1] Chomsky, Noam. “His Right to Say it”. The Nation. 28 February 1981, http://www.chomsky.info/articles /19810228.htm
The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality

The internet is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted to the whole of the online community and then put to criticism and judgment. In the same way irrational beliefs like Creationism first found purchase on the internet only to be undermined and discredited by the efforts of online activists, so too have Holocaust deniers been forced by their presence on the web to justify their beliefs and submit evidence for scrutiny. In so doing the online community has systematically discredited the deniers and undermined their efforts at recruitment. By taking on a stance of net neutrality in the provision of internet and the blocking of sites, governments allow this process to play out and for the free exchange of ideas on which liberal democratic society is built upon to show its strength.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the state, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided. [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html
Denial of access adds mystique to their beliefs

By denying people the ability to access sites set up by Holocaust deniers the government serves only to increase their mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the state opposes something so vociferously that it is willing to set aside the normal freedoms people have come to expect as granted, many people begin to take greater notice. There are always groups of individuals that wish to set themselves up as oppositional to the norms of society, to be transgressive in behavior and thus challenge the entrenched system.[1] When something like Holocaust denial is given that rare mystique of extreme transgression, it serves to encourage people, particularly young, rebellious people to seek out the group and even join it. This has been the case for neo-Nazism in Germany. In Germany Holocaust denial is illegal, yet it has one of the liveliest communities of neo-Nazis in Europe.[2] Their aggressive attacks have only served to boost the movement’s mystique and many have flocked to its banner. By allowing free expression and debate, many people would be saved from joining the barbaric organizations that promote the lies of Holocaust denial. [1] Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001. [2] BBC. “Germany’s Neo-Nazi Underground”. BBC News. 7 December 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16056399
The organizers will go underground

A major risk with any extremist organization is that its members, when put under significant legal pressure, will go underground. For example The Pirate Bay, a major bittorrent file sharing website, simply moved to cloud hosting providers around the world to prevent it being shut down.[1] The power of the state to actually stop the development of neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier networks is extremely limited, as they will be able still to organize in secret, or even semi-publicly, via social networks and hidden websites. While their visible profile would be diminished, it would not guarantee any positive gains in terms of stamping down on their numbers. Indeed, when they no longer use public channels it will be ever harder for the government to keep track of their doings and of their leaders. The result of this censorship is a more emboldened, harder to detect group that now has a sense of legitimate grievance and victimhood against the state, which it can use to encourage more extreme acts from its members and can spin to its advantage during recruitment efforts. By leaving them in the open they feel more comfortable acting within the confines of the law and are thus far less dangerous, even if they are more visible. [1] BBC, “The Pirate Bay moves to the cloud to avoid shutdown”, BBC News, 17 October 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19982440
Governments should not allow forums for hate speech to flourish

Denying Holocaust-denier their right to speak is a threat to everyone’s freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that people be able to express their views without fear of reprisal. As Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. As the facts are against the Holocaust deniers their opponents should have no fear of engaging them in open discussion as they will be able to demonstrate how erroneous their opponents are.
Holocaust denial sites are an attack on group identities

The internet is a flourishing place for discourse because it is absolutely free to all, and everyone accepts and experiences the fruit of that freedom. When the government abandons its stance of neutrality and begins censoring materials, even if it begins only with the nastiest examples, it compromises the copper-fastened liberties that the internet was created to furnish. Many people will abuse that tool, but thankfully people can evade the hate sites easily and never have to experience them without compromising their own freedoms by censoring their opponents.
The freedom of Holocaust deniers to use to the internet legitimizes their organization and message in eyes of consumers

While it is true that Holocaust deniers spread misinformation and seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites debunking their pseudo-history is far greater than that of the actual deniers. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the Holocaust denial position is fringe in the extreme.
A ban would stop Holocaust deniers from engaging in effective real world actions

Holocaust deniers will always find ways to organize, be it in smaller pockets of face-to-face contact, clandestine social networking, or untraceable black sites online that governments cannot shut down because they cannot find them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push their proponents further underground and to make them take less public strategies on board. Ultimately, it is a cosmetic, not substantive solution.
Everyone has a right to freedom of expression

Freedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when there is a real harm manifested from it. Holocaust denial, in its refusal to acknowledge one of the most barbaric acts in human history and attempt to justify terrible crimes, is an incredibly dehumanizing force, one that many people suffer from, even if they do not need to read it themselves. We may have the freedom to express ourselves but that does not mean we have the freedom to make up our own facts. The threat Holocaust deniers represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed.
Bar to truth and reconciliation

The Syrian Civil war is far larger than any of the conflicts where the truth and reconciliation model has been implemented. The divisions in society will not be healable through a system of truth and reconciliation – like other atrocities, such as those in Sierra Leone and the Balkans there will need to be a system of criminal trials. In addition, a South African style truth and reconciliation commission with an amnesty for perpetrators of human rights violations[1] would grant impunity to perpetrators on other sides who have committed some of the gravest atrocities in the 21st century, from cannibalism[2] to the use of chemical weapons. Letting these people remain free would not promote reconciliation it would simply mean Syrians would believe that justice has not been done. [1] Simpson, G., ‘A Brief Evaluation of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Some lessons for societies in transition.’, The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation’, October 1998, http://www.csvr.org.za/index.php/publications/1724-a-brief-evaluation-of-south-africas-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-some-lessons-for-societies-in-transition.html [2] Muir, Jim, ‘Outrage as Syrian rebel shown ‘eating soldier’s heart’’, BBC News, 14 May 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22519770
The ICC is there to prosecute war crimes – there has been evidence of a war crime

The purpose of the ICC is to be the venue for the implementation of international criminal law, a principle that the international community has supported since the creation of the ICTY and ICTR and prior to that.[1] The crimes that the court is to prosecute include genocide – which is probably not occurring but has been alleged,[2] crimes against humanity and War Crimes[3] – which have certainly happened the chemical attacks being just one among many examples. The allegations against the Assad regime are serious – including the use of chemical weapons, which are specifically mentioned as a war crime under article 8/1/b/xviii the Rome Statute. It would set a terrible precedent for such crimes to not be punished under international criminal law. [1] ‘About the Court’, International Criminal Court, http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/Pages/about%20the%20court.aspx [2] Chulov, Martin, and Mahmood, Mona, ‘Syrian Sunnis fear Assad regime wants to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Alawite heartland’, The Guardian, 22 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/22/syria-sunnis-fear-alawite-ethnic-cleansing [3] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, International Criminal Court, 1998, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/ADD16852-AEE9-4757-ABE7-9CDC7CF02886/283503/RomeStatutEng1.pdf
The threat of investigation could deter future war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons

The ICC has a high level of soft power in this case. It has the resources to investigate and prosecute, backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community. The ICC is part of a growing international norm against war and crimes against humanity. The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they can’t get away with such crimes. Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone will not be enough but when combined with similar measures elsewhere and the arrests of other leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo show that even leaders are no longer out of reach of international law.[1] The ICC could act as an effective deterrent to the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by threatening to prosecute individuals who commit them. [1] Grono, Nick, ‘The deterrent effect of ICC on the commission of international crimes by government leaders’, International Crisis Group, 5 October 2012, http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/speeches/2012/grono-the-deterrent-effect-of-the-icc.aspx
The ICC would prevent show trials

The use of the ICC could work better than domestic show trials in the aftermath of a civil war. Instead of domestic courts, prone to all their biases, an international, unbiased, criminal system could replace the prospect of a Ceausescu-style non-trial followed by summary execution, or some other form of unfair trial which could sow the seeds for problems down the line. Even the trial of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein done while the United States had a lot of influence over the country as a result of its occupation was condemned as having “serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects”.[1] Instead, an ICC trial would allow the full details to be probed, investigated and independently prosecuted without being subject to domestic post-war recriminations. [1] ‘Judging Dujail The First Trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal’, Human Rights Watch, 20 November 2006, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/11/19/judging-dujail
An ICC referral may be the only UNSC option.

The UN Security Council has so far been undecided over any future action in Syria. China has so far been unconvinced over any action. Russia has supported Assad, selling the Assad regime arms. Russia and China, being permanent members of the UNSC means that they can block any action on this issue that the other permanent members (USA, UK and France) may wish to bring for any form of sanction towards the Assad regime.   While it may not be possible to get Russia to support a military intervention, which is something that they are opposed to[1], it may be possible to swing Russia round to a position where they abstain on a reference to the ICC[2]. Russia has had a flexible (or, more cynically, hypocritical, view on the ICC before, opposing a Syria reference in February 2013[3] but supporting one in to the actions of NATO in the Syrian conflict[4]) position on the ICC, having voted in favour of references to it before. Because the involvement of the ICC would mean investigating both sides it would not be entirely impossible for a diplomatic solution to be reached for Russia to abstain on a reference. [1] Al Jazeera and agencies, ‘Russia and Iran warn against attack on Syria’, Al Jazeera, 27 August 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/08/20138278414963267.html [2] Kaye, David, ‘Responsibility to Object’, Foreign Policy, 10 January 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/10/responsibility_to_object?page=0,1 [3] Baczynska, Gabriela, ‘Russia opposes referring Syrians to ICC now: official’, Reuters, 19 February 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/19/us-syria-crisis-russia-icc-idUSBRE91I0HJ20130219 [4] ‘Russia wants ICC to examine NATO bombings’, United Press International, 18 May 2012, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/05/18/Russia-wants-ICC-to-examine-NATO-bombings/UPI-57171337338753/
ICC referal would fuel the conflict further

The Syrian Civil War has already claimed over 100,000 lives, but it could get worse. The Assad regime is infamous for its stockpiling of chemical weapons – it is one of few states to not sign the Chemical Weapons convention, and is known to have stocks of mustard gas, VX and other weapons of mass destruction. Assad still has chemical weapons to use. An ICC referral could cause the regime to regard itself as in a position with nothing to lose so making it more willing to make use of these weapons against its own people. If there is no hope of a swift decisive victory by either side then by far the best solution to the conflict would be to have a negotiated settlement – the ICC seeking to prosecute senior figures on either side would make this much harder to arrive at. In South Africa – in a less volatile situation – former President Thabo Mbeki has stated “Had there been a threat of a Nuremberg-style trial over members of the apartheid security establishment we would have never undergone peaceful change.” [1] [1] Ku, Julian, and Nzelibe, Jide, ‘Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities?;, Washington University Law Review, Vol.84, No.4, 2006, pp.777-833, http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/84-4/KuNzelibe777.pdf p.819
Waste of time – won’t capture Assad or rebel war criminals.

Even if the situation were to be referred (which would require abstention or support from both Russia and China on the UN Security Council, which itself is unlikely), it would be necessary to capture Assad and other suspects before trying them. This has proven very difficult, for example none of the suspects in the investigation in to the Lords Resistance Army activity in Uganda have been captured[1] – it is equally likely that they would be killed during any capture attempt as occurred in Libya when Gaddafi was captured and then shot on the spot by the insurgents[2]; one cannot put a corpse on trial. [1] Dicker, Richard, and Ebenson, Elizabeth, ‘ICC Suspects Can Hide – and That Is the Problem’, Jurist, 24 January 2013, http://jurist.org/hotline/2013/01/dicker-evenson-icc-suspects.php [2] Kofman, Jeffrey, and Dolak, Keven ‘Moammar Gadhafi Dead: How Rebels Killed the Dictator’, ABC News, 21 October 2011, http://abcnews.go.com/International/moammar-gadhafi-dead-rebels-killed-dictator/story?id=14784776 n.b. the video in this article is rather graphic
Bar to truth and reconciliation

After the conclusion of the war in Syria, there will have to be a period of nation building – either Assad will have destroyed his enemies and have an alienated nation to deal with, or the Syrian National Congress will have to take effective control over the country. Syria will need a process of truth and reconciliation[1] - a collective understanding of events that happened on the past, such as that which occurred after the end of Apartheid in South Africa - in order to move forward: this may be hampered by reopening old wounds by prosecuting large numbers of people for offences in the civil war. [1] For more information see the Debatabase debate ‘This House supports the use of truth and reconciliation commissions’