The above definition is clearly too loose and too wide. The last sentence implies that Holocaust denial is hate speech because it is a “form of expression regarded as offensive to [Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli and Gypsy] groups.” By the same token, those Danish cartoons are equally hate speech because they are a “form of expression regarded as offensive to [Muslim] groups.” In fact, the definition allows one very easily to construe almost any meaningful expression as “hate speech” by mere virtue of the fact that it’s typically not hard to find a discrete (minority) group of people who will take offence based on any one or more of “race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.” (To be sure, the first sentence of the above definition appears in fact to exclude Holocaust denial because it is absurd to maintain that Holocaust denial “carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group,” in this case Jews and Gypsies.)
Ergo, such a definition is essentially useless for want of unambiguous decision/separation criteria.
All of the above is quite beside the glaring logical fallacy of conflating Holocaust denial with (anti-Semitic) hate speech, as has been amply and ably demonstrated by others. The fact that the two are usually associated doesn’t mean they are universally and necessarily associated. Moreover, instead of prompting Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic sentiments could could arise as a consequence of the widespread fanatical condemnation of even just sincere questioning of some aspects of the Holocaust.
'Luthon64
