Your fact-checks will appear here
Intergovernmental organization
Holocaust denial theories have been systematically dismantled by historians and scholars through converging lines of evidence: contemporaneous Nazi records, survivor and perpetrator testimony collecte...
In the United States, denying the Holocaust carries no general criminal penalty because the First Amendment protects most speech, and federal and major institutional sources state Holocaust denial is ...
Major Jewish organizations generally use the IHRA working definition and the related “Three Ds” framework — demonization, double standards, and delegitimization — as the baseline criteria for judging ...
Legal definitions of antisemitism in the U.S. increasingly center on the IHRA “working definition,” which federal bills like the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025 would require the Department of Educ...
Holocaust deniers deploy a repeatable toolbox of rhetorical tricks—conspiracy claims, cherry‑picked “evidence,” quote‑mining, moral relativism, and dehumanizing language—to cast doubt on well‑document...
Two broad fault lines run through contemporary definitions of antisemitism: one, exemplified by the IHRA working definition and allied tests, explicitly treats certain delegitimizing and demonizing cr...
Promoting Holocaust denial in the United States carries that range from amplifying antisemitism and inflicting harm on survivors to drawing federal scrutiny and possible institutional sanctions; polic...