Before celebrating repeal, let's establish what Godwin's Law actually was, and, more importantly, was not. First, Godwin's Law was not a prohibition or condemnation of mentioning Hitler or Nazis or the Holocaust. Heck, it's not even a claim that you lose a debate if you mention Hitler. But...even if it were: So the eff what? Surname aside, Godwin had no more authority over what gets posted on the internet and the effect of posts on the internet than you or I.

Second, Godwin's Law, in its entirety, is simply:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1. {In this context 1 = 100%}

In other words, the longer a thread on a message board is becoming, the more likely it is that some poster will make some comparison involving Hitler. So the eff what? The longer anything verbal becomes, the more likely that some poster or other will compare something or other to another something or other, be it puddles to lakes, or Hillary to Medusa or turds to rainbows. Common sense, no? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem But: So the eff what? Does that mean no one on the internet should mention lakes or Medusa or rainbows? Or the Hitler turd? (Note, "the Hitler turd" is a metaphor, or comparison, involving Hitler and therefore violates Godwin's so-called law.)

After all, if we political posters were capable of inventing an infinite number of apt metaphors and similies, we'd all be too busy writing the Great American Novel to post and we'd all be from Texas, like Dr. Phil, spouting folksy metphors like "This weather is hotter than the hinges of the door to Hell." Besides, eliminating mention of some marvelous being pooping rainbows would likely end all internet political discourse in the universe! Then, where would we Caucusers be (other than actually getting stuff done)? Oh, and LMA (Law, My Ass): It's Godwin's Meaningless Statement of Probability, or Godwin's Duuuu-uuuh or Godwin's Truism (sometimes referred to hereinafter as "Godwin's Whatever"):

tru·ism....
a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting
"the truism that you get what you pay for"
synonyms: platitude, commonplace, cliché, stock phrase, banality, (old) chestnut, (old) saw, axiom, bromide....
Logic a proposition that states nothing beyond what is implied by any of its terms.

(unattributed definition yielded when I googled "truism," with deletions indicated by edited as indicated by.... )

According to wiki, Godwin created Godwin's Whatever in 1990. (Don't trust any internet truism pushing thirty.) When I first noted Godwin's Whatever, maybe around 2006, Mr. Google passed me an article stating that Godwin had said that he had created Godwin's Whatever to see how fast a meme would spread on the internet. That was it. Nothing deep. Years later, however, I noted that Godwin's explanation of his motivation was (or perhaps had metamorphosed into) something to the effect of "I wanted to reduce the number of casual references to the Holocaust."

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you: Had Godwin's original intent actually been to reduce the number of casual references to the Holocaust, wouldn't Godwin, a lawyer, have worded Godwin's "Law" very differently than the language quoted in the second paragraph of this essay? But, for the sake of discussion on a discussion board, let's assume hypothetically that Godwin's original intention had indeed been reducing the number of casual references to the Holocaust because Godwin believes that such references disrespect the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. So the eff what?

Godwin's opinion would be the opinion of one person out of billions of people--and you know what internet posters say about opinions. (Why, yes, I do see the irony; Why do you ask?) Besides: If anything, Godwin's Law exponentially increased the number of casual references to the Holocaust, many of which have ranged from themselves being knee-jerk, mindlessly inane to ugly, authoritative attempts at shaming and censoring peers for speech, and most likely, political speech. Doesn't that disrespect the memory of the eleven or twelve million people Hitler had killed much more than would posting, say, that someone's painting is as boring as any painting that Hitler ever produced? And, riddle me this: Exactly what kind of persons, especially politicians, would benefit most if a law did ban comparisons involving Hitler?

In any event, no matter what the original intent of Godwin's Law, it's way past time for it to go. Given how much harm of various kinds it's done, Godwin should have repealed Godwin's law long ago, regardless of his original motivation for creating it. Inasmuch as he hasn't, here's the really news: Vested in me (and you) is every bit as much authority to amend or repeal internet laws, memes, truisms or whatever as was vested in Godwin to enact an internet "law" in the first instance. Yes, 1 = 100% as much authority. (You've always had the power, dear reader, as have I.) Soooo.....

By the authority vested in me to amend internet laws, I hereby amend Godwin's Law by adding at the end thereof the euphemistic, but sincere, question "So the eff what?" As a result of said amendment, Godwin's Law, in its entirety, now reads:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1. So the eff what?

Second: By the authority vested in me to repeal internet laws, I hereby repeal Godwin's Law, as amended. Nothing herein shall be construed as condoning any disrespect of any victim or victims of the Holocaust.

This post is the official exegesis, amendment and repeal of Godwin's Truism Law. When (not if) anyone attempts to use Godwin's Law to shame/censor you, provide the wannabe censor with a link to this post as authoritative evidence of the amendment and/or repeal of Godwin's Law and then continue with your original train of thought, without getting distracted, deflected or hijacked. You're welcome!

First Addendum to Law Repealing Godwin's Law: Remembering the victims of the Holocaust every January 27 or more freqently, especially by visiting a holocaust memorial, or, if none exists in your vicinity, bringing one into existence, would be a far more effective antidote to disrespecting the memories of the victims of the Holocaust than attempting to shame/censor your peers by invoking Godwin's Law. https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special...

The first video below (after the stills) is of a song that recites laws that have all the same legal force and effect as Godwin's Law, namely, zero. The artist speak-singing in the video created the role of King Arthur in the Broadway musical, after he had captured the heart of the then-recently widowed Elizabeth Taylor from Eddie Fisher during the filming of Cleopatra. Sadly, they later divorced. Twice. All of which is to say that the full story of Cleopatra and Antony never ends well. Neither does the full story of any marriage of Elizabeth Taylor. Neither does any complete version of the Arthurian legend, at least not until return, if any, of the once and future king. Neither does invocation of Godwin's Whatever (now repealed, as amended) in an attempt to shame/censor political speech. (Knock, knock. Who's there? Orange! Orange who? Orange you glad I don't explain my reasons for posting every video I post?)

Long before they met

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7E5rtnFH4 width:400 height:400]

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vt0B0bZVM8 width:400 height:400]