Since World War II, several countries have criminalised Holocaust denial—the assertion that the genocide was fabricated or has been exaggerated. Currently, 18 European countries, along with Canada and Israel, have laws in place that cover Holocaust denial as a punishable offence. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalise genocide denial as a whole, including that of the Holocaust. Among the countries that have banned Holocaust denial, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Russia have also banned Nazi symbols. Additionally, any expression of genocide justification is also a criminal offence in several countries, as is any attempt to portray Nazism in a positive light.
Legislation against Holocaust denial has been proposed in many countries that do not have it in place, including the United Kingdom and the United States. However, the proposal and implementation of these laws has been criticised and met with opposition, including from a variety of civil/human rights activists, who contend that the outlawing of these acts would violate people's established rights for freedom of speech. Organisations representing the groups that were victimised during the Holocaust have generally been split in their opinions about anti-Nazi legislation, including that which deals with the legality of Holocaust denial.
Some courts in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States have taken judicial notice that the Holocaust occurred during World War II.
Criticism and commentary Scholars have pointed out that countries that specifically ban Holocaust denial generally have legal systems that limit speech in other ways, such as banning hate speech. According to D. D. Guttenplan, this is a split between the "common law countries of the United States, Ireland and many British Commonwealth countries from the civil law countries of continental Europe and Scotland. In civil law countries the law is generally more proscriptive. Also, under the civil law regime, the judge acts more as an inquisitor, gathering and presenting evidence as well as interpreting it".D D Guttenplan, Should Freedom of Speech Stop at Holocaust Denial? , Index of Free Expression, 2005. Michael Whine argues that Holocaust denial can inspire violence against Jews; he states, "Jews' experience in the post-World War II era suggests that their rights are best protected in open and tolerant democracies that actively prosecute all forms of racial and religious hatred".
János KisJános Kis: Szólássabadság és náci beszéd, Népszabadság, 30 March 1996. and in particular András SchifferFogadatlan prókátorok – A gárdaítélet félreértelmezéseiről , Magyar Narancs, 23 July 2009 feel the work of Holocaust deniers should be protected by a universal right to free speech. An identical argument was used by the Hungarian Constitutional Court (Alkotmánybíróság) led by László Sólyom when it struck down a law against Holocaust denial in 1992. The argument that laws punishing Holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (the European Commission of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Historians who oppose such laws include Raul Hilberg, Richard J. Evans, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, and Timothy Garton Ash. Other prominent opponents include Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer, and Noam Chomsky who wrote:
It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.Chomsky, Noam. "His Right to Say It". Noam Chomsky website. Retrieved 16 February 2015.
An uproar resulted when Serge Thion used one of Chomsky's essays without explicit permission as a foreword to a book of Holocaust denial essays (see Faurisson affair).
In January 2019, in an interview in The New Yorker in connection with the publication of her book, Antisemitism: Here and Now, Holocaust historian Deborah E. Lipstadt expressed her opposition to laws against expressing Holocaust denial:
I still am a firm opponent of laws against Holocaust denial. First of all, I'm a pretty fierce advocate of the First Amendment. Having been sued for libel, and having had that in my life for about six years, I'm more than ever. Even though libel is not covered by the First Amendment, [David Irving] wouldn't have been able to sue me in this country because he was a public figure.But I also don't think that these laws are efficacious. Forget the morality – I don't think they work. I think they turn whatever is being outlawed into forbidden fruit. We saw it in Germany, when Mein Kampf was released from the embargo on it a few years ago. People bought it because suddenly it was something they could get ahold of. I just don't think these laws work. And the third reason I'm opposed to them is I don't want politicians making a decision on what can and cannot be said. That scares me enormously.Chotiner, Isaac (January 24, 2019) "Looking at Anti-Semitism on the Left and the Right: An Interview with Deborah E. Lipstadt" The New Yorker
These laws have also been criticized on the grounds that education is more effective than legislation at combating Holocaust denial and that the laws will make martyrs out of those imprisoned for their violation.
Summary table
Country Legality of Holocaust denial
By country Australia While Australia lacks a specific law against Holocaust denial, Holocaust denial is prosecuted in Australia under various laws against "hate speech" and "racial vilification". Fredrick Töben was found guilty at Australia's Federal Court of contempt in 2009 for not following a court order in 2002 to desist from publishing anti-semitic material on his Adelaide Institute website. The material queried whether the Holocaust happened, as well as the presence of gas chambers at the Auschwitz death camps.
Austria In Austria, the Verbotsgesetz 1947 provided the legal framework for the process of denazification in Austria and suppression of any potential revival of Nazism. In 1992, it was amended to prohibit the denial or gross minimisation of the Holocaust.
Belgium In Belgium, Holocaust denial was made illegal in 1995.
Bosnia and Herzegovina In May 2007 Ekrem Ajanovic, a Bosniak MP in the Bosnian Parliament proposed legislation criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust, genocide and crimes against humanity, the first time a lawmaker in Bosnia and Herzegovina had made such a suggestion. Bosnian Serb MPs voted against it, proposing the issue should be resolved within the criminal code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Following this, on 6 May 2009 Bosniak MPs Adem Huskic, Ekrem Ajanovic and Remzija Kadric proposed to parliament a change to the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina where Holocaust, genocide and crimes against humanity denial would be criminalized. Bosnian Serb MPs have repeatedly been opposed to such legislation claiming that the law "would cause disagreement and even animosity" according to SNSD member Lazar Prodanovic.
On 23 July 2021, the High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina Valentin Inzko passed a law using the Bonn Powers given to him banning the denial of genocides, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Brazil
While Holocaust denial is not explicitly prohibited in Brazilian law, precedents tend to lead to conviction. As of 11 February 2022, several bills criminalizing the act were pending in the Brazilian National Congress.
Bulgaria In 2011, the Bulgarian Parliament passed an amendment to the Bulgarian Criminal Code, introducing article 419a.Criminal Code (translation in English)] - published by the Ministry of Labor and Social PoliciesCriminal Code (in Bulgarian) from the Ministry of Justice website
Canada
The legality of Holocaust denial in Canada has come up in several court cases. In R v Zundel, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ernst Zündel, a German-born immigrant, who was a prolific Holocaust denier, could not be convicted for "spreading of false news", as it would be against Canada's Charter guarantee of free expression.
According to The Canadian Press, the federal government announced a bill in 2022 that will change the Criminal Code to outlaw Holocaust denial and similar forms of antisemitic hate speech.
As of 23 June 2022, the willful promotion of antisemitism is illegal in Canada. Persons found guilty of wilfully promoting antisemitism by "condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust", other than in private conversation, may receive a prison sentence not more than 2 years or a summary conviction.
Czech Republic In the Czech Republic, Holocaust denial and denial of communist-perpetrated atrocities is illegal, as well as denial of other genocides.
Finland Chapter 11 of the Criminal Code of Finland prohibits denying a genocide in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred, with a penalty of up to imprisonment for two years. The law came into effect on 26 January 2026.
France In France, the Gayssot Act, voted for on 13 July 1990, makes it illegal to question the existence of crimes that fall in the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945–46. When the act was challenged by Robert Faurisson, the Human Rights Committee upheld it as a necessary means to counter possible antisemitism. Similarly, the applications of Pierre Marais and Roger Garaudy were rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, in 1996 and 2003.ECHR, Marais c. France, n° 31159/96, 25 June 1996; Garaudy v. France, No 65831/01, 24 June 2003.
In 2012, the Constitutional Council of France ruled that to extend the Gayssot Act to the Armenian genocide denial was unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of speech.Libération, La loi contre la négation du génocide arménien est censurée Constitutional Council, Decision no. 2012-647 DC of 28 FEBRUARY 2012 The Gayssot Act itself, however, was found consistent with the Constitution four years later.
Germany § 130 Incitement to hatred In Germany, ('incitement to hatred') is a concept in German criminal law that bans incitement to hatred against segments of the population. It often applies to (though not limited to) trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. In addition, outlaws various symbols of "unconstitutional organisations", such as Nazi symbolism or the ISIL flag.
The definition of section 6 of the Code of Crimes against International Law referenced in the above § 130 is as follows:
Other sections The following sections of the German criminal code are also relevant:
Judicial notice The German Federal Supreme Court has, in at least one case, taken judicial notice that the Holocaust occurred.Pichent, Michelle L. (2003) "A Fertile ground: The Expansion of Holocaust Denial into the Arab World" Boston College Third World Law Review v.23 n.4
Greece In September 2014, with a vote of 54 out of 99 present of the 300-member Hellenic Parliament (the body was in summer session at the time), Greece amended its 1979 law 'On the penalization of actions or activities intending unto racial discrimination' (N.927/1979) to make malicious denial of the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity for the purposes of inciting violence, discrimination or hatred or by way of threat or insult, a criminal offense. In contrast to other European countries, the Greek law is not a blanket ban on expressing the opinion that a genocide did not take place, but rather requires an additional condition of intending to cause violence, incite hatred or threaten or insult a protected group.