CENSORSHIP = GOOD

I don't know, maybe because it's fucking vile to deny it and nobody in the society except some far-right lunatics want to entertain either the idea it didn't happen or the idea of Fascism somehow being a 'good thing'.

In the end, we are a society ('we' being people in a nation) and your 'freedom to express' should be curtailed when it interferes with what the masses feel safe and content with at a base level (meaning basic level of safety and contentment). I am not even talking about the law, I'm talking about even in the wild west anarchy first amendment to the hilt, never forget that the second amendment is there too and what may just happen if you piss the wrong people off in pure anarchy. So, even in anarchy freedom is curtailed and limited precisely by what the masses feel safe and content with.

The question is where to draw that line, I think stopping anything like Nazism being entertained as a good idea is a solid start. The idea shouldn't even enter people's minds, it's poisonous, we have seen what happens and denying that very brutal outcome is the first step towards forgetting how horrific it is. On the other hand, you as a right-winger may argue that denying the horrors of Soviet Russia and Cambodia should be outlawed, to which I'd agree entirely but do not confuse that mutation of left-wing ideology to be anything resembling what actual Socialism and its values are. In fact, each and every Communist regime has had more in common with Fascism (ignoring economics) than with any left-wing nation that's not Communist, if you want I'd even take you up on this debate but next month as I'm in three atm and busy IRL.

On the other hand, you as a right-winger may argue that denying the horrors of Soviet Russia and Cambodia should be outlawed,

Yep.

Not to mention the systematic slaughter of native american first nations.

Sure, I don't support denying a single part of history at all. Truth is absolutely what we should always aim to attain insofar as what overall a society wants the information being relayed as 'valid ideas' within it. 

The problem is that we'll never evolve (and never would be more than other primates even with our language capacity) if we never ever trusted what others told us about the past, meaning we inherently do need authority to stop lies being spread or else the lies can just as easily become the 'truth'. It's easy to blame the authority as 'evil' but the alternative is far more sinister and in fact a perfect example of how sinister it can be when authorities fail to stop the spread of falsehood-tainted propaganda and other such lies is the very Holocaust in discussion, meaning it is self-evidently necessary to prevent its denial even to justify said prevention.

Censorship of Holocaust denial is good, yeah, there's no reason to even remotely believe it and quite a few, severe reasons to prevent it.

What is the discussion? Did the Holocaust happen or not? Don't cherrypick and sidetrack. Stick to the discussion and pick your side.

you decided to quote me, not even accredit

Did the Holocaust happen or not? Answer the question.

It was the only example in the discussion we had.

Sure, whatever, 60 million jews were slaughtered by nazis.

Why is this slaughter somehow special or sacrosanct or more deserving of denial censorship when examined from a historical context veritably jam-packed with slaughter ?

but if a person is reasonable, the truth prevails. all we can do is hope the majority follows the truth.... and i think human nature is such that the truth tends to prevail when it matters most. 

Why is this slaughter somehow special or sacrosanct or more deserving of denial censorship when examined from a historical context veritably jam-packed with slaughter ?

geee i realllly wonderrrrrrrrrr whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I can't figure out what thesis is under discussion here.

So, do US citizens have a First Amendment right to make up lies about  well established historical facts?  Yes.

I see.  So, do US citizens have a First Amendment right to make up lies about  well established historical facts?  Yes.  The government may not restrict speech just because  that speech is evil or motivated by irrational prejudices against unpopular groups of people.

I think that a national law should be passed just like the one in Texas. It would say that any civilian can sue somebody for lying for $10,000.

Yes, my neighbor says Trump won the last election, so I could sue him for $10,000 plus lawyers fees.