Actually you are the one who is trying to malign me with well-poisoning emotional terms and accusations involving my allegedly spreading 'hatred' and 'racism.' Sorry, but men in clown suits, Bozo avatars and hysterical rants about 'racists' under every bush is hardly indicative of a brilliant debater seeking a rational open exchange of ideas.

On the other hand I am making a solid effort to discuss the issue. I have not insulted anybody. I believe anyone who compares our behaviour in this thread will clearly see who is interested in 'serious debate' and who is not. All you have done in this thread is troll; two posts and not one rational well thought out contribution in either post.

Fist of all, people have been punished for lying the holocaust also in other countries, not only France.
You are very well entitled to your outrage and your oppinion, that's not at debate.
I only wanted to point out that you can't expect to have a serious debate when you start your posts with insults. Had I been French, I would have been offended by your remarks. I'm 99% sure YOU would have also been offended by that opening post if it was directed at the USA, I suspect you would have called the auther of the post anti-american and other things, is it not so?
If you want to have a civilized discussion than write in a civlized manner, what kind of responses do you expect by starting with provocations???


Back to the topic. Of course limits to free speech are necessary. Other wise I could simply call President xyz publicly a stupid motherfucker. How far these limits may go that is an other topic of debate.
Personally I think it's ok to forbid to publicly lie genocides like the holocaust, how else do you want to protect the dignity of the victims?

You seem to be ignoring the big question...how do you know the revisionists are lying? How do the courts know? Are the judges historians?

I am glad I am at least entitled to be outraged.

France prides itself on being a progressive enlightened democracy; my alleged insults were nothing more then the mere expose of the fraudulent pious nature of a state that pretends to honour freedom. You call that an insult; I call it reality.

Many Europeans cannot handle the truth about the underlying fascistic nature of their allegedly enlightened democracies. When France and other EU nations stop persecuting the politically incorrect for the peaceful expression of their views; I will stop pointing out this hypocrisy.

First, I am not an American! Second, I would not refer to such a person as a 'fascist' who spreads 'hatred' and 'racism.' I do not support ad hominem attacks against people but I tend to make exceptions for those who make truthful impassioned statements toward nations that abuse human rights.

I have been quite civil considering that I have been demonised as a 'fascist,' accused of spreading 'racism' and have been basically accused of trolling. I think my self-control has been quite exemplary considering the personal attacks I have endured!

I agree limits are necessary! For example you should not be allowed to conspire to murder people or to incite a riot but the peaceful non-violent expression of a historical view should be protected free speech.

By exposing the liars as frauds! This will damage them a lot more then making ideological martyrs out of them! If these revisionists are indeed liars then why not smack them down in a public debate? Would it not be better to honour the victims by thoroughly humiliating the revisionists in public view with facts and truth then by simply persecuting them?

Fine for HRW. I don't agree. The jews have suffered to an extent few other peoples ever experienced and the respect for that is more important than this tiny, singular infraction upon a right that is not absolute anywhere to begin with.

Yet, you never advocate this right in any other context. It's always about the Jews. And your own website shows your motivation much more clearly than your quoted statement does.

That the Holocaust has occurred precisely as it has.

If you experience every observation as an 'attack', then you have even more issues than I already mentioned.

As explained previously, because the event has not yet been exhaustively researched. One needs the Stalin era Soviet documents for that. If those confirm that the famine was orchestrated by the Stalin government, then it can have the exact same status as the Holocaust.

Given that the Holocaust was over sixty years ago, and that is was researched for over 50 years with an unprecedented fervour, and given that the only 'historians' that still question it are invariably linked to neo-nazi and other fascist organizations, I'd call the case 'closed'.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

If humans were machines without feelings and were only sensible to facts than you may had a point. The point is people are more likely to consume hate propaganda, sensations and trash news instead of serious investigative reports. When you read in the newspaper that a certain president received a blowjob that news spreads rapidly and soon everybody talks about it. Even if this news emerges to be wrong the other day, a certain stain on the presidents image will remain. One simple negative remark in the newspaper and your reputation may be irreparably dammaged, even if it's only a lie. Obviously the democrats and republicans have been quite succesful in the past elections to make their opponents look like morrons with such tactics.

Prohibiting to lie the holocaust is intended to protect the dignity of the victims.
What you are asking here for is to allow to spread lies about very well documented facts that involve many victims. Imagine the following scenario: You were tortured by a group of extremists. The other day you read in the newspapers that you have actually tortured yourself in an attempt to bring these extremists into jail. Assume you have the evidence to expose these reports as false, would you say: "What the heck! who cares what people write in the newspapers as long as I have the hard evidence"??
We are talking about well documented fatcs that involve victims, you can hardly deny the fact that the victims of the holocaust exist.

Furthermore free speech is in no way threatened in Europe as you seem to depict it. You can say absolutely anything you want with the sole exceptions of publicly insulting, threatening, calling for murder AND lying genocides that have been identified by the government as genocides, in order to protect the dignity of the victims of these crimes. I don't feel my right of free speech threatened by these limitations.

Well the question wasn't directed at me in the first place. The judges are not the arbiters of history, they simply make decisions based on numbers, facts and reports of witnesses, that's it. If this holocaust liar somehow attained some sensational new facts that raises serious doubts that the holocaust ever happened and exposes all the victims as liars than I'm quite sure he has nothing to fear. But as long as he makes baseless comments than I give the dignity of the victims a higher priority than 100% free speech.

That is a crock and even Jewish academic Dr. Norman Finkelstein whose parents survived the camps will tell you that the holocaust was not a unique genocide amongst the genocides.

My book is not really about the Nazi holocaust. There are very excellent historians who have done very excellent research on the subject. My book is mostly about the misuse or exploitation of the Nazi holocaust for political purposes. The main claims I make in the book are, first of all, that the notion of Holocaust uniqueness - that is, no group of people in the history of humankind has suffered the way Jews have suffered - has no basis in historical fact and is an immoral doctrine because it ranks human suffering, saying some suffering is better and some suffering is worse. The main purpose of this claim of Holocaust uniqueness is to immunize, to protect, Israel from criticism.

Norman G. Finkelstein

The holocaust is not a valid excuse for denying people their basic civil rights! Did Jews suffer in WWII? Most definitely! Did they suffer in a way that is so unique that people should not be allowed to question history or Israeli crimes etc...? NO!

Maybe I feel a certain affinity with politically incorrect white men who are jailed for expressing a view that offends privileged minorities? However, I have clarified my position that I advocate free speech for all people.

Then why not debate the revisionists and silence them once and for all with the truth?

I consider 'ad hominems' an attack and you have launched numerous ad hominems.

You mean documents like ones cited in the following article?

news | sbu documents show that moscow singled out ukraine in famine :.: 5 Kanal :.: First News Channel of Ukraine

Here are the flaws in your logic...

1) The questioning of the holocaust has been outlawed in several European nations for about that amoung of time; it was outlawed in Austria in 1947 for example.

2) 'Guilt by Association' is a fallacy. Just because one may allegedly be linked to 'Nazis' does not discredit his claims; if Ernst Zundel merely has a friend who is a National Socialist should I dismiss his claims based on this fact?

3) You have failed to substantiate the claim that all of these historians are indeed linked to 'fascists;' however, since your definition of 'fascist' tends to be anything right of Lenin what can I say....

So this is the excuse we use to jail anybody who questions a taboo aspect of history? Are you saying the people of Europe are soooo stupid that they needs the righteous purveyors of diversity and tolerance to think for them and tell them what is right and wrong?

I think Americans were more offended by Clinton lying about the relationship instead of a 'blowjob.' However, this is a 'red herring' argument you are introducing so I will move on....

Why do you continue to ignore my questions about the truthfulness of the revisionist claims? How do you know these people are indeed lying? Have you studied their claims? How do you know that they are lying? What qualifies the courts to make this determination? Are the judges historians?

If it is so well documented why not debate the revisionists and silence them once and for all with the truth?

This is a false analogy.

If it is so well documented why not debate the revisionists and silence them once and for all with the truth? Why jail them? If their claims are so wild and outlandish why not humiliate them and drive them under a rock with the truth?

Sure it is! You just do not seem to grasp that the EU is free for those who tow the government party lines on multiculturalism and history! Geez, even the Soviet Union was free for communists who supported the doctrines of the state...

Your right to free speech is safe because you tow the government party lines on diversity and history; try exercising some dissent for an experiment and see what happens to you.

This is my point! How can they determine someone is lying about history if they are NOT experts in history? Does this not strike you as odd?

If they are liars why not debate them and expose them as liars? Is it because you are parroting what your government masters feed you in the media about the issue while actually knowing nothing about it yourself?

I would love to see a debate between the two sides! If the revisionists are liars my plan of an open debate would expose them as frauds no? Would this not be a good thing? If anything I am challenging the establishment to put down the revisionists once and for all using all of this authentic documented facts at their disposal. What does the establishment have to fear if they have the truth on their side?

Wow, that's a lot of "rolleyes". A story which would have actually been shocking wouldn't have needed all these rolleyes, would it? Now, we know the expression on your face, but it doesn't make you any more convincing.

Free speech is sometimes not, in France, considered as a value in and of itself. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is debatable. However, as WOI said, there are laws against diffamation in pretty much every country on earth, just like there are laws against threats.

Now that was enlightning. A thread discussing the differences in appreciation of free speech in different countries, as well as trying to find out which is best and why could have been interesting. But what you posted here is tantamount to copy pasta - you posted an article and then your raw emotions of sympathy for that extreme right leader. No argument, nothing. What was your point, besides trolling?

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Do I have to be convincing to make the truth believable?

Since when is questioning aspects of history in good faith the same as committing the tortious act of libel or slander against a living person? How does one damage the reputation of a person who has been dead for 60+ years

Nothing wrong with a little humour to illustrate a point no? I am curious though as to how one can suffer 55,000 euros worth of damage from some politician expressing a non-violent view about WWII history? I am at a loss for that one...

If you feel I am trolling then feel free to ignore my threads; it is simple as that. Hmmmm...I must wonder though folks how many other posters are accused of trolling for merely presenting articles along with their own opinions of the articles or situations within said articles?

You do not understand. Let me explain it to you. You were not trying to "make the truth believable", you were and you are trying to convince people of your opinion that what happened (the trial...) was wrong.
Everybody agrees about the truth, the facts - but you added and opinion; except you failed to defend it in any way in the first post.

In good faith?

As for "libel and slander", it is quite obvious, and I don't think I have to explain this to you as well. You being familiar to the people who usually make these claims, you know what is always behind such claims. Why do you think almost all negationist historians decided to go to the conference organized by Iran? Yes, the country which advocates a second genocide of jews.


I'm trying to have a serious discussion here.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

No, not everyone does agree about the truth; never assume to speak for everybody here; I have met people who reject the truth regardless of how well proven it is...

You state that I have not defended the truth in the opening post? That is certainly true as like many other posters I was merely reporting on an event and offering my opinion of the event though the opinion im my view was accurate in the sense it demonstrated the hypocrisy in France. In later posts I think I did a fairly decent job in defending my position.

I believe that is what I stated....I have no credible reason as of yet to believe the people who have been punished operated in anything less than a sincere belief in what they promoted.

However, if we had open debate on the issue where these folks could be confronted and allowed to respond; maybe I would learn something new?

I believe there is some dispute as to the meaning of the Iranian presidents comments on that issue...

Comment is free: Lost in translation

Second, what does attending this conference have to do with their views on history? Their views stand or fall on their own regardless of the conferences they attend. If they are indeed merely anti-Semites clinging to a falsehood to malign Jews should this not be more reason to expose their lies and deceit in open debate no? Or is it more comfortable to poison the well against them, jail/fine them and call them liars without taking them to task in a battle of the wits over the issue?

We will see....

My point was indeed that you were not "defending the truth", as the truth was never attacked, but that you reported a fact, and your opinion was not argumented at all. I'm glad you finally understood.
You should have used arguments from the first time, instead of lots and lots of "". But you finally provided some, so that's better than nothing I guess.

You said "in good faith", but actually you have nothing to support your claim. It was an abusive statement. Saying that you didn't know and that it might have been in good faith would have been honest.

Sure, people should not be presumed to be guilty, except when there is enough proof to make it nearly impossible that they are innocent. I don't know about the place where you live. In France, there's a large jewish community, and most if not all of them have family which died during the holocaust. As much as I can understand that someone far, far away from europe with no interest or documentation on the historical events can deny the holocaust, it becomes ridiculous when the denier lives in France.

I'm defending the case that they lied. We already saw that they could hardly avoid knowing the truth. We now see what their motive is.

Like the debate between creationists and defenders of evolution?

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

This is one of the few things that I actually like about Denmark, we have as good as no political correctness anymore.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?