Andrew Altman Denial
Andrew Altman’s article Freedom of Expression and Human Rights Law: The Case of Holocaust Denial, highlights key aspects of the international discourse on Holocaust denial, and how many concessions can be made under the Human Right to Freedom of Speech. Overall, I found Altman’s arguments to be quite convincing, as there is considerable limitations to the current legal precedence pertaining to Holocaust denial cases. However, Altman’s use of the Brandenburg Doctrine as a foundation for his arguments is not without flaws. Through his comparative analysis of the Brandenburg Doctrine, and the international and European legal systems, Altman places too much emphasis upon American legal conventions, without fully examining the situational context
…show more content…
I do not feel as if Altman, went into enough detail when writing about the creation of Israel and its laws pertaining to Holocaust denial. Altman does not explicitly mention certain Holocaust denial laws and simplifies the creation of Israel, by suggesting that is was created so that the Holocaust could not be repeated. While this is partly true, there was already support from the United Kingdom to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as declared in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Additionally, there was considerable amount of diplomacy, immigration, and land purchases, on the part of the Zionist movement that occurred before WWII, that suggests the creation of Israel was already manifesting itself, WWII and the Holocaust served as a catalyst to expedite the process. However, what confuses me most is that at the end of his article, Altman states that free expression has a “moral force… [that] sometimes makes a demand reasonable when otherwise it would be unreasonable. And sometimes such force helps to sway humans to do what is demanded”. I genuinely do not understand what he is saying in this phrase, and would be interested in having it explained. My best guess would be that Altman is trying to state the freedom of expression is a more important value to enforce, than trying to censor and ban one particular
I do not feel as if Altman, went into enough detail when writing about the creation of Israel and its laws pertaining to Holocaust denial. Altman does not explicitly mention certain Holocaust denial laws and simplifies the creation of Israel, by suggesting that is was created so that the Holocaust could not be repeated. While this is partly true, there was already support from the United Kingdom to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as declared in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Additionally, there was considerable amount of diplomacy, immigration, and land purchases, on the part of the Zionist movement that occurred before WWII, that suggests the creation of Israel was already manifesting itself, WWII and the Holocaust served as a catalyst to expedite the process. However, what confuses me most is that at the end of his article, Altman states that free expression has a “moral force… [that] sometimes makes a demand reasonable when otherwise it would be unreasonable. And sometimes such force helps to sway humans to do what is demanded”. I genuinely do not understand what he is saying in this phrase, and would be interested in having it explained. My best guess would be that Altman is trying to state the freedom of expression is a more important value to enforce, than trying to censor and ban one particular