In Germany it’s illegal to come to the “wrong” conclusion publicly on this topic, and thus it’s not quite right to claim that the German government protects people’s rights to express their understanding of the truth.
I’ve heard this joked about like this: “it’s a fact so true you’re put in prison for denying it”
He's not discussing the historical facts. He's discussing the authoritarianism of not being allowed to argue against those historical facts, even if you are clearly wrong, without the risk of losing your freedom. Part of the morality of freedom of speech is that you should be allowed to express opinions even if they are wrong. With that said, I can of course sympathise with German authorities in wanting to subdue anything that could lead to another tragedy.
The literal provision in German law reads like this:
> Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine
Now, it doesn't mean that disputing or discussing the finer details of what has happened is outright outlawed and a prosecutable crime. If that were the case, historical research, remembrance and reflection wouldn't be possible. One needs to be able to discuss what happened, re-interpret what has happened, be able to dispute what has happened in order to come to new insights.
The key provision is this:
> in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace
The German law very much looks at the intent with which you approach history. If you publicly proclaim revisionist history with the express aim of inciting ethnic, religious or political tensions, then you will very much get prosecuted.
Whether you do it by publishing a pamphlet, a book, starting a non-profit, an online forum, a political party, a protest march,... The format doesn't matter: it's your intent that makes all the difference.
Freedom of speech is often touted as an absolute right. You should be free to express anything, including denial of the Holocaust. To many, it's an acceptable trade off since any limits put forward by a government are perceived as a slippery slope to authoritarianism.
The events of last week demonstrate the inherent paradox in the line of thinking. Allowing anything to go unchecked, culminated in a downright insurrection aiming to disrupt a constitutionally enshrined legal process. It wasn't just storming a building, it was very much storming the foundational framework that governs how people organize themselves in the United States... and this includes threatening that very same unchecked free speech right.
It was basically a demonstration of Karl Popper's famous paradox of free speech. See, free speech is an equitable right. Free speech doesn't exist if the humanity of certain groups in society is denied through legal policies which are founded in racial, gender, origin, religious, political or other types of discrimination.
In order for free speech to be truly free, society has to be intolerant towards such discrimination.
That's what laws such as in Germany are about. They aren't intended to curb free speech. They are intended to protect it. You can say and promote whatever you want. You just can't promote ideas with the express intent of curbing free speech rights based on discrimination.
An often heard argument is that such frameworks are a form of discrimination itself. But that's just a rephrasing of the paradox with the express goal of derailing the discussion into a circular argument.
The best response to that argument would be: "Well, sure, punishing revisionism is a form of discrimination. But would you rather have people freely rewrite history with the express intent of disrupting society based on a framework of free, open, equal and democratic values?"
See, when confronted with revisionism, a sensible approach is never "Well, they are wrong, and we need to fact check their claims." It's always a set of questions you have to ask yourself first: "Who are they? What do they want? Why should we even listen to them? And why should we allow them to disrupt the peace?"
I’ve heard this joked about like this: “it’s a fact so true you’re put in prison for denying it”