Is lying about historical events criminal?

[condor]

Is wilfully lying about something in public newspapers, books etc or whilst representing an official organisation properly covered by free speech law? I can think of hundreds of examples by historians with axes to grind who blatantly make up, shorten quotations or rely on clearly dodgy sources.

Yet the are merely called disreputable rather than criminal, as if they were merely lying about a personal event. Also, historians do not deal in opinions but arguments. How is something being opinion any sort of defence? I think Holocaust denial laws need to be extended across the board.

It's all very well to attack certain racial groups in general, but to make up facts about particular people is deceitful and unscrupulous. Misrepresenting history should be a crime like any other misdemeanour.

Basically freedom of speech with freedom to lie is meaningless. The latter utterly degrades the former. That includes Mel Gibson. Passion of the Christ wasn't a piece of art, it was yellow propaganda that should land him in jail. And any other piece of "art" that clearly intends to skew history should earn their creators a stay in goal as well.

 

[PirateKing]

Are we talking about Texas textbooks again?

The true history is out there for us to pursue but the problem is that people accept what they read or see in the mainstream and public schools. I guess these days you have to take everything with a grain of salt. A lot of the teachers at my high school led me to believe that Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”. Turns out he did not say that so those bastards lied to me.

Why would they do that?

 

[LukeEl]

Only to those that cannot read, and children they don't know anything!

 

[Ulysses31]

Is wilfully lying about something in public newspapers, books etc or whilst representing an official organisation properly covered by free speech law? I can think of hundreds of examples by historians with axes to grind who blatantly make up, shorten quotations or rely on clearly dodgy sources.

Yet the are merely called disreputable rather than criminal, as if they were merely lying about a personal event. Also, historians do not deal in opinions but arguments. How is something being opinion any sort of defence? I think Holocaust denial laws need to be extended across the board.

It's all very well to attack certain racial groups in general, but to make up facts about particular people is deceitful and unscrupulous. Misrepresenting history should be a crime like any other misdemeanour.

Basically freedom of speech with freedom to lie is meaningless. The latter utterly degrades the former. That includes Mel Gibson. Passion of the Christ wasn't a piece of art, it was yellow propaganda that should land him in jail. And any other piece of "art" that clearly intends to skew history should earn their creators a stay in goal as well.

Older History is often debateable as we have little evidence to show us what actually happened and even then those sources can't be verified. In terms of the Passion Of The Christ you're assuming the whole thing went down as the Bible said, for all we know there may not have been a crucifiction or even a Jesus so you can't accuse Gibson of manipulating the truth when no one knows what actually happened. Things like the Holocaust can be proved and conclusive evidence provided but older events are often from second hand accounts and can't always be taken as fact.

 

[Neutron66]

I can think of hundreds of examples

Hundreds? Really? As in a minimum of 200 examples?

 

[PirateKing]

Hundreds? Really? As in a minimum of 200 examples?

The minimum is actually 101. Stop putting an extra burden on the poor guy. :nono:

 

[lurkingdirk]

There are instances when lying about history has pretty severe repercussions - think of an academic setting in which some wanker Ph.D. student fabricates historical evidence for his/her dissertation. That shit gets you kicked out and branded for life as a cheater.

However, in general, people say whatever they want about history and are held to no standard. It is infuriating.

 

[Ace Bandage]

However, in general, people say whatever they want about history and are held to no standard. It is infuriating.

Adolf Hitler invented the wheel whilst eating Dipping Dots in a Siberian rainforest surrounded by camels.

Check in, brah.

 

[Facetious]

Re: Is lying about historical events criminal?

Hell no it's not illegal, grubby collectivist - revisionist - apparatchik teachers do it hundreds of thousands of times a day, coast to coast, border to border.

Also, watch for the things teachers don't teach your kids (omission).

 

[lurkingdirk]

Adolf Hitler invented the wheel whilst eating Dipping Dots in a Siberian rainforest surrounded by camels.

Check in, brah.

You forgot that Hitler also wore a manzere and shaved his entire body except for his moustache.

If you're going to bring him up, get all the details right, bastard.

 

[Rane1071]

History is written by the winners as they say ... and as Obi-wan said the truth depends on our own point of view,

 

[bustybbwlover]

considering the world, and therefor world history, only started 5,700 to 10,000 years ago and humans coexisted with dinosaurs most of 'history' is a lie

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Older History is often debateable as we have little evidence to show us what actually happened and even then those sources can't be verified. In terms of the Passion Of The Christ you're assuming the whole thing went down as the Bible said, for all we know there may not have been a crucifiction or even a Jesus so you can't accuse Gibson of manipulating the truth when no one knows what actually happened. Things like the Holocaust can be proved and conclusive evidence provided but older events are often from second hand accounts and can't always be taken as fact.

A problem with that is there are inconsistencies in what the different gospels say about the passion.

 

[meesterperfect]

It shouldn't be criminal.What are you gonna do lock me in jail for telling the story about the time bozo the clown assassinated lincoln?

but it should be exposed or at least analyzed or at the very least thought about.

 

[Neutron66]

The minimum is actually 101. Stop putting an extra burden on the poor guy. :nono:

Whether it's 200 or 101, I think the dude exaggerated big time. Or in other words...he willfully lied in order to make a point.

Therefore making him no different than those he seeks to condemn.

 

[Zolf J. Kimbly]

history is so overrun with bullshit its hard to seperate the facts from everything else

its just a mess

 

[squallumz]

only when you write to penthouse forums.

 

[STDiva]

Whether it's 200 or 101, I think the dude exaggerated big time. Or in other words...he willfully lied in order to make a point.

Therefore making him no different than those he seeks to condemn.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit. You just ownd that fool.

 

[Atar554]

I wouldn't just blame historians about the past and its' interpretations.

Just ask a Persian about how Greeks like the Spartans are portrayed in history and media. People on a national scale can choose to reject a history or set of ideas even if they are true or not.

Holocaust deniers are another example.

 

[meesterperfect]

I wouldn't just blame historians about the past and its' interpretations.

Just ask a Persian about how Greeks like the Spartans are portrayed in history and media. People on a national scale can choose to reject a history or set of ideas even if they are true or not.

Holocaust deniers are another example.

Another example of what?