a historical crime

Certain events attach more emotions to themselves than others. For many Native Americans more emotion attaches to Wounded Knee than, say, to the Apache wars even though there were numerous massacres (and I use that word deliberately) of larger numbers of Apaches than the victims at Wounded Knee. For the U.S. more emotional attachment is expended on the Civil War and Vietnam than arguably all the other wars put together. Oh, sure, we crow long and loud about the good we did in WWII, but for sheer emotion just start a conversation on Vietnam or the Civil War. Suddenly you have invested a part of people's souls in the conversation as all the racial matters, political matters, etc. attach to it. People often look at those wars through very distorted glasses.
The Holocaust is such a thing. The emotion attached to it distorts decisions made surrounding the information surrounding it. Adolph Eichmann was kidnapped in ways that broke Brazilian law, Israeli law, and international law, yet nobody cared because, after all, he was a Nazi mastermind. His level of evil justified any means necessary to achieve the desired ends. Okay, so be it. Live with it on your conscience that to have a public trial of 1 man assuages the guilt thousands of people had for participating in their own murder.
Be that as it may, loking at history is often a matter of subjective views and controversial claims. I have spoken before of how Robert Remini goes so far as to say Andrew Jackson was a good friend of the Cherokees...that is the same Jackson who forswore his Constitutional oath to uphold the laws of the land and not just allowed but somewhat forced the Trail of Tears, one of the most shameful episodes in this country. I disagree with almost everything Remini holds true about Jackson...but I believe he has the right to say it, teach it, publish it...
That is not true the world over. Let me say without much fear of contradiction that David Irving is at best so polemicized he cannot or will not see truth and at worst an idiot. I really have no time for people who say things such as he does...but seriously, is THIS necessary?
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/16121a2c-a24a-11da-9096-0000779e2340.html
Sure, the Holocaust is an emotional issue in Europe and particularly in countries that are part of the Germanic bubble. Are we so sensitive that we might have overblown the importance of something that we cannot allow dissent?
And where are the laws against denying the Armenian massacres in World War I? Does nobody care about that? After all, it is one of the motivations and covers for the Holocaust. Hitler is reputed to have said, "They forgot the Armenians, they will forget about this."
People who spout stupidity often have small but devoted followings. Stearn has a HUGE audience and it is hard to argue he adds much alue to any debate. (See also O'Reilly, King, okay, MOST of the talking heads). The answer to that is not to outlaw their pointless drivel but to educate people to see holes in the theories.
Sometimes emotion is good. It SHOULD be heartwrenching when you think about people being killed because they belong to a particular group...I will always despise Chivington and his "Nits make lice" attitude (in his case towards Native Americans) and the slavers who would lose huge percentages of their "cargo" on voyages across the Atlantic, trafficing in human misery, and everyone who participated in or stood by while millions of people were murdered in Germany before and during WWII...as well as Russia from World War I through the near side of WWII.
But simply slapping someone in jail because they say something did not happen...that is a crime too.