Discorso negazionista e libertà di espressione

This paper explores forms and contents of holocaust denial, which is presented as a puzzling discourse both in epistemic and moral terms. This explains the deep debate around 1) how to consider this kind of discourse; 2) whether and how it is justifiable to ban it. I argue that the question of freedom of expression and of its peripheral or pivotal relevance as a political value plays a large role in the normative evaluation of the available restrictivistic answers. I will consider, as possible anwers, penalization (restricting holocaust denial as a criminal discourse), epistemic rebuttal (restricting holocaust denial as a false discourse) and political rejection (restricting holocaust denial as hate speech). The conclusion will be that restrictivistic answers are unconvincing because the only countermeasure to false discourse is more discourse.