Talk:Verbotsgesetz 1947

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Application

The legal situation is as such: In 1992, parliament passed s. 3 h of the Prohibition Act which makes it illegal “to deny, grossly downplay, condone or justify the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a printed work, in the broadcast media, through another medium, or through any other public channel, and does so in a manner that is accessible to many people.”

In this regard, the Supreme Court has ruled that not only does the prosecution not have to establish that the „National-Socialist genocide“ did happen (since it is considered „a fact of common knowledge“; in German: an „offenkundige Tatsache“) but that the defense equally has no right to challenge the existence of the „National-Socialist genocide“ (since its existence is presupposed in s. 3 h of the Prohibition Act).

This ruling of the Supreme Court has been an issue of much controversy since „facts of common knowledge“ are in the German legal tradition considered „qualified opinions about facts.“ Opinions which might be believed by many people, which might be argued by competent men, which might have never been questioned, but which (in theory) could be wrong. „Truthfulness“ doesn‘t necessarily follow from „common knowledge.“ Thus, counter-evidence should be admissible (at the very least if the latter complies with scholarly standards). Depriving the defendant of his right to refute certain things the prosecution considers factual by disallowing the introduction of counter-evidence might deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trail.

Note that it is not necessary to deny that genocidal measures happened at all in order to violate the law. The denial of local events or measures which, in isolation, do not question that a genocide happened per se can also lead to prosecution (e. g. people were prosecuted and convicted for the denial of homicidal gassings in Mauthausen or for the denial of the massacre of Babi Yar.)

In 1992, an activist was convicted and sentenced for having denied that the massacre of Katyn, Poland, was committed by Germans. Christian Anderle (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand the english of the sentence "Upon the 1992 amendment, the Austrian Supreme Court stated that any reasoning or argumentation concerning the Nazi genocide and the Nazi crimes against humanity is no admissible evidence.". Certainly, that "no" should be "not", but I'm still not sure on the meaning. Should "concerning" be "attempting to justify"? Masonmilan (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]