A memory regulation (transl. Erinnerungsgesetz in German, transl. In the method, competing interpretations may be downplayed, sidelined, and even prohibited. Varied sorts of Memory Wave Method laws exist, specifically, in international locations that permit for the introduction of limitations to the liberty of expression to protect other values, such as the democratic character of the state, the rights and fame of others, and historical reality. Eric Heinze argues that legislation can work equally powerfully through laws that makes no specific reference to history, for instance, when journalists, lecturers, college students, or different citizens face private or skilled hardship for dissenting from official histories. Memory laws can be either punitive or non-punitive. A non-punitive memory regulation does not imply a criminal sanction. It has a declaratory or confirmatory character. Regardless, such a legislation may result in imposing a dominant interpretation of the past and train a chilling effect on those who challenge the official interpretation. A punitive memory law features a sanction, often of a criminal nature.

Memory laws usually result in censorship. Even without a criminal sanction, memory laws should still produce a chilling effect and limit free expression on historical topics, particularly among historians and other researchers. Memory laws exist as both ‘hard' law and ‘soft' regulation instruments. An example of a tough legislation is a criminal ban on the denial and gross trivialization of a genocide or crime in opposition to humanity. A tender legislation is an informal rule that incentivizes states or individuals to act in a sure way. For instance, a European Parliament resolution on the European conscience and totalitarianism (CDL-Ad(2013)004) expresses sturdy condemnation for all totalitarian and undemocratic regimes and invitations EU residents, that is, Memory Wave 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 regulation) initially appeared in December 2005, in Françoise Chandernagor article in Le Monde journal. Chandernagor protested in regards to the rising number of laws enacted with the intention of "forc(ing) on historians the lens by way of which to think about the previous".

2005, which required French schools to show the optimistic facets of French presence on the colonies, specifically in North Africa. Council of Europe and well beyond. The headings of "memory law" or "historical memory regulation" have been applied to numerous regulations adopted around the globe. Poland's 2018 law prohibiting the attribution of responsibility for the atrocities of the Second World Warfare to the Polish state or nation. States tend to use memory legal guidelines to promote the classification of certain events from the past as genocides, crimes against humanity and different atrocities. This turns into particularly relevant when there is no settlement inside a state, among states or amongst experts (equivalent to worldwide lawyers) about the categorization of a historical crime. Frequently, such historical events aren't acknowledged as genocides or crimes towards humanity, respectively, beneath worldwide legislation, since they predate the UN Genocide Convention. Memory laws adopted in nationwide jurisdictions don't at all times comply with international legislation and, specifically, with international human rights regulation standards.

For example, a legislation adopted in Lithuania includes a definition of genocide that is broader than the definition in worldwide law. Such authorized acts are often adopted in a type of political declarations and parliamentary resolutions. Legal guidelines towards Holocaust denial and genocide denial bans entail a criminal sanction for denying and minimizing historical crimes. Initially Holocaust and genocide denial bans had been considered part of hate speech. Yet the latest doctrine of comparative constitutional law separates the notion of hate speech from genocide denialism, particularly, and memory laws, on the whole. Denial of the historic violence in opposition to minorities has been related to the safety of groups and Memory Wave Method people belonging to these minorities in the present day. Due to this fact, the typically-invoked rationale for imposing bans on the denial of historic crimes is that doing so prevents xenophobic violence and [Memory Wave](https://trade-britanica.trade/wiki/Computer_Memory_Of_The_Brand_PHS-memory_reg