Holocaust Denial and Similar Acts Should Be Illegal

First let me thank TheBear for accepting the challenge. My apologies-I forgot to give "similar acts" a definition. I did not refer to anti-Semitism in general, nor denial of facts. Rather, the denial of historic tragedies that were similar to the Holocaust, like the Armenian Genocide. Also it should have been "views" not "acts." I too value justice. Although Pro's definitions of justice equalling fulfilling humanitarian values could be expanded on a bit, I think we're on the same page with them. 1) I am well aware of the fact that "not all types of speech are protected by the freedom of speech." Pro brings up the old canard of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Being that I am a paralegal and very interested in civil liberties law I know the case in which this metaphor was first used well: http://en.wikipedia.org.... In it, a man named Charles Schenck was arrested and charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing anti-war pamphlets asking citizens to petition for a repeal of the draft law and if they were called up to consciously object. He was convicted of "obstructing the recruitment and enlistment service of the United States" and his conviction was upheld by the US Supreme Court as these actions were a "clear and present danger," using the "shouting fire" idea. Critics at the time noted the obvious-their metaphor was ridiculous. Change this example to a person distributing material that denied the Holocaust and the metaphor would be "arguing that there was *no* fire," not shouting disruptively in a crowded theatre but stating the contention. Should a person be punished for that? Many would consider opposing the draft or war while it is going on as "fighting words." Is a person arguing that a war (or all wars) going to be jailed if the facts they used are demonstrably wrong, because it is offensive? 2) I agree that it is disrespectful, and repugnant. However, I do not support a right to not be offended. Everything offends someone. To some, my say "God does not exist" is unbelievably offensive, no matter how demonstrably in error they feel I am. Again, fighting words and offensiveness are completely subjective. How are we to proceed? 3) Denial of facts also troubles me. As I've said however, I do not believe that historical truth can be dictated by force. I feel that facts can best flourish through allowing people to look into the evidence for themselves, in which case there is little doubt they will conclude the Holocaust actually happened. Facts will not be maintained through laws stating that someone maintaining otherwise has committed a crime. I believe freedom of speech (even for those we wish would shut up) is the best way to achieve humanitarian values and justice. Neg 1) "My opponent's first contention was that actions rather than speech should be illegal. However, he does not give any reasons as to why or even how this claim even proves his case." ----> I stated words, spoken and non, that incite violence directly were punishable. Otherwise I don't think so. How is that silly? Neg 2) ---->Burglary is a physical, violent action. Holocaust denial is a statement of opinion. They are hardly the same. I did not claim that Holocaust deniers became so *because* of the laws. Some may, I do not know. However, by jailing people who deny the Holocaust, it allows them and their supporters to paint themselves as martyrs of free speech, punished for shedding light on "the truth." Neg 3) ---->Suppressing dissent usually has an opposite effect. One, it makes other people angry, more likely to feel the same way. Two, it gives the impression there is something to the dissent, otherwise why suppress it (irrational, but so are we). Three, the idea of Darwin "posting it on his blog" brings up a good point: if there had been Internet when The Origin of Species was published (1859) the idea would have spread even faster. The Internet makes it much harder to suppress dissents of any kind. Neg overall) ---->I was not aware the value of free speech had to be proven, but allow me to define it. Free speech: 1.the right to express an opinion in public without being restrained or censored. I'll just go by your own definition of justice in this. Is freedom of speech not a "humanitarian value"? Does it not "value human life, discovery, and respect for humanity in general?" Part of it means recognizing that some who exercise the right will not have those values, at least not in the same degree or manner. This is the price we pay. Shall we remove the right to free speech for people who express values we find offensive? Does that best express our values? I agree we cannot be overly tolerant for intolerance. However the condemnation of intolerant views does not mean legally punishing them by definition. http://en.wiktionary.org... I negate the resolution "Holocaust Denial and Similar Acts Should Be Illegal."