criminal-law
criminalise Moon landing deniers
<p>Can people go to prison for denying a historical event?!</p>

<p>like people who deny moon landing, or people who deny jesus?</p>

<p>I am taking the example of denying holocaust in WWII.</p>

<p>it is a historical event that people wrote about and there are different stories about it.</p>

<p>similar to Moon landing, it is a historical event that people witnessed on TV and we have astronaut who died for that and other astronauts who did walk on moon.</p>

<p>why it is illigal to deny holocaust in many countries while it is ok to deny moon landing in these countries?!!! </p>

<p>Countries define free speech protections differently, so it’s difficult to give a generalized answer. Nonetheless: the main razor used when limiting speech is harm. Most countries that have made denying the Holocaust illegal have done so out of a claim that such denial harms minority communities, as well as the national community. </p>

<p>Denying that the moon landing happened, however, is unlikely to harm anyone. While it is rather silly, it is not sufficient to take away somebody’s right to free speech.</p>

<p>Countries that criminalise things like denying the Holocaust do so because such arguments are used to bolster movements (in this case Neo Nazism) that then go on to harm innocent people (in this case the Jewish community). As such the law is there to protect the basic rights of a group of people.</p>

<p>Outlawing moon landing denial wouldn't have a protective effect, because it doesn't bolster a movement wishing to do harm to a group of people, so outlawing it would be unnecessary censorship.</p>

<p>In the US one cannot be punished for any statement that is historically inaccurate however it is crazy or wrong or disrespectful. The First Amendment provides that "<strong>Congress shall make no law</strong> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or <strong>abridging the freedom of speech</strong>...". There are some limitations to that free speech clause, but publishing historically inaccurate statements is not one of them. </p>

<p>This is US Constitution and it was applied to states, too. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) (dicta) and Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).</p>
