A memory legislation (transl. Erinnerungsgesetz in German, transl. In the method, competing interpretations could also be downplayed, sidelined, and even prohibited. Numerous kinds of memory laws exist, particularly, in countries that permit for the introduction of limitations to the freedom of expression to protect other values, such because the democratic character of the state, the rights and reputation of others, and historical reality. Eric Heinze argues that legislation can work equally powerfully via legislation that makes no categorical reference to historical past, for instance, when journalists, lecturers, college students, or different residents face personal or professional hardship for dissenting from official histories. Memory legal guidelines will be both punitive or non-punitive. A non-punitive Memory Wave Protocol regulation doesn't indicate a criminal sanction. It has a declaratory or confirmatory character. Regardless, such a regulation could result in imposing a dominant interpretation of the past and exercise a chilling impact on those that challenge the official interpretation. A punitive memory regulation features a sanction, usually of a criminal nature.

Memory laws usually result in censorship. Even with out a criminal sanction, memory laws may still produce a chilling effect and limit free expression on historical matters, particularly among historians and different researchers. Memory laws exist as both ‘hard' regulation and ‘soft' legislation instruments. An instance of a tough legislation is a criminal ban on the denial and gross trivialization of a genocide or crime against humanity. A smooth regulation is an informal rule that incentivizes states or people to act in a certain way. For example, a European Parliament decision on the European conscience and totalitarianism (CDL-Ad(2013)004) expresses strong condemnation for all totalitarian and undemocratic regimes and invitations EU residents, that's, citizens of all member states of the European Union, to commemorate victims of the two twentieth century totalitarianisms, Nazism and communism. The term "loi mémorielle" (memory law) originally appeared in December 2005, in Françoise Chandernagor article in Le Monde magazine. Chandernagor protested concerning the increasing number of laws enacted with the intention of "forc(ing) on historians the lens through which to contemplate the past".

2005, which required French schools to teach the optimistic points of French presence on the colonies, specifically in North Africa. Council of Europe and nicely past. The headings of "memory regulation" or "historic memory legislation" have been applied to diverse rules adopted around the globe. Poland's 2018 legislation prohibiting the attribution of accountability for the atrocities of the Second World Battle to the Polish state or nation. States tend to make use of memory legal guidelines to promote the classification of certain occasions from the previous as genocides, crimes towards humanity and other atrocities. This becomes particularly related when there is no settlement within a state, amongst states or among consultants (equivalent to international lawyers) in regards to the categorization of a historic crime. Ceaselessly, such historic events are usually not recognized as genocides or crimes against humanity, respectively, underneath international regulation, since they predate the UN Genocide Convention. Memory laws adopted in nationwide jurisdictions don't at all times adjust to international legislation and, particularly, with worldwide human rights law standards.

For instance, a regulation adopted in Lithuania features a definition of genocide that is broader than the definition in worldwide legislation. Such authorized acts are sometimes adopted in a form of political declarations and parliamentary resolutions. Laws in opposition to Holocaust denial and genocide denial bans entail a criminal sanction for denying and minimizing historic crimes. Initially Holocaust and genocide denial bans had been thought of a part of hate speech. Yet the current doctrine of comparative constitutional law separates the notion of hate speech from genocide denialism, in particular, and memory legal guidelines, on the whole. Denial of the historic violence towards minorities has been related to the safety of groups and people belonging to these minorities at this time. Therefore, the typically-invoked rationale for imposing bans on the denial of historical crimes is that doing so prevents xenophobic violence and protects the public order at the moment. Bans on propagating fascism and totalitarian regimes prohibit the promotion and whitewashing of the legacy of historical totalitarianisms. Such bans limit the freedom of expression to prevent the circulation of views that may undermine democracy itself, resembling calls to abolish democracy or to deprive some people of human rights.

The bans are widespread in nations within the Council of Europe, especially in these with first-hand expertise of twentieth century totalitarianism comparable to Nazism and Communism. One of these memory regulation also includes banning sure symbols linked to past totalitarian regimes, in addition to bans on publishing sure literature. Legal guidelines protecting historical figures prohibit disparaging the memory of national heroes typically reinforce a cult of personality. Turkish Regulation 5816 ("The Law Regarding Crimes Dedicated Against Atatürk") (see Atatürk's cult of character) and Heroes and Martyrs Safety Act adopted in China are examples of a lot of these memory laws. These memory laws are punitive laws which prohibit the expression of historical narratives that diverge from, challenge or nuance the official interpretation of the past. Such norms often embody a criminal sanction for difficult official accounts of the previous or for circulating competing interpretations. Laws prohibiting insult to the state and nation are devised to protect the state or nation from types of insult, together with "historical insult".