Holocaust denial laws, was a positive step that would ensure protection of important international human rights and should be replicated elsewhere
this is an advocacy paper involving research and argument using sources. please see all sources(see both sides of argument) and prompt question, and my graded draft paper(what NOT to write). Please write this paper with a clear, concise argument and stating the main points. Please look at the prompt argument will be:like the Gayssot law and other Holocaust denial laws, was a positive step that would ensure protection of important international human rights and should be replicated elsewhere.

this is a hypothetical free speech scenario:
In 1915, over a million Armenians were killed in the Ottoman Empire. While many call this a case of genocide by the Ottoman government, the government of the Empire’s successor, the Turkish Republic, has never acknowledged that the killings were genocide. It has responded angrily when a number of countries’ legislatures have passed resolutions recognizing the events as “genocide.” This, in turn, has greatly angered Armenians around the world, who have lobbied in many countries for this type of recognition.

In 2001, the French parliament adopted a law officially acknowledging the deaths of Armenians in 1915 as genocide. Then, in 2012, the French parliament passed a law that would make it a crime to deny the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, similar to the Gayssot law that prohibits denial of crimes against humanity recognized by the Nuremberg Tribunal, including the Holocaust. (Specifically, the new law provided that genocides recognized by law would be criminalized; since only the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust meet this criterion, the law really focused on forbidding denial of the Armenian genocide). This denial could be punished with a sentence of a year in prison and/or a significant fine. France has a French-Armenian population of 500,000 and an approximately equal population of Turkish origin.

The French Constitutional Court overturned the law, and the French parliament considered but to date has not adopted a modified form of the law that would pass constitutional muster. For purposes of this question, however, we will hypothetically assume that the law is still in force in France.