So much for free speech in the 'enlightened' democracy of France!

No death penalty!? Oooops right France is 'enlightened!'

What 'damages' can a plaintiff suffer from a man merely commenting on an aspect of WWII history?

This is it!? This is what caused 55,000 euros worth of damage to the 'plaintiffs?'

Oh my God! He said the German occupation was 'not particularly inhumane?' Geez, what trauma did the plaintiffs suffer in that instance? They could not enjoy their croissants for a week after the offending comments; hmmmm that should be worth at least 20,000 euros!

WHAT AN 'ENLIGHTENED' DEMOCRACY WE HAVE IN FRANCE!

If you think France is bad, you want to see this country. One of the things I admire about France is that they stand up for their own national interests (and usually stand up against ours! .At least France can actually have a discussion about, e.g. banning all religious items in schools, and implement this with a minimum of fuss. It would never even be considered here. The politically correct bigots stifle debate at every opportunity.

A correct title would have been:
French Fascist leniently fined for Holocaust denial and causing dread and suffering amongst countless holocaust survivors and/or their progeny.

This is a very, very just exception on free speech, something which each and every country has.

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

Let me guess anyone who merely disagrees with your political views is a 'fascist' correct?

Tell me, if a pro-Soviet Communist announced in France that the Ukraine Holodomer never happened and was Nazi propaganda, would you support his being fined and even jailed?

What if a France-based black Hutu African stated that only 100,000 Tutsi Rwandans died in 1994 Rwandan genocide instead of 800,000+ due to the effects of war instead of a systemic extermination campaign; should he be fined or jailed?

ROFL. No, not at all. Heck, nearly everyone on board would be a fascist then
It's just you, Fascist Frankie.

I suppose you're referring to the Holodomor. From what I've been able to find about it, I'd say it is indeed a candidate for a similar treatment as the Holocaust.
But, only when the research on it is exhausted and no stone is left unturned to evaluate it, as is the case with the Holocaust. For the Holodomor, full access to and study of Stalinist era documents would be necessary, which has not yet been obtained. But it's a future candidate.

No, this one doesn't allow for classification with the Holocaust. There are far too much conflicting versions of the story and way too much active interests in the issue (Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire, Hutus, Tutsi, Belgium, France, USA, corporations,...). Only rock solid events where all research is exhausted qualify. In the case of the Holocaust, the only active interest is that of neo-nazis hoping to glorify Hitler, express anti-Semitism, and denying the atrocities of the Nazi era.

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

You are the one apparently defending a law that punishes people for merely offering a dissenting view of WWII history while I am calling for freedom of speech yet I am the fascist? Interesting....

Pointing out other peoples spelling errors simply makes you look like an obnoxious elitist; though I suppose you have to compensate for your severe lack of debating skills. So I suppose you should stick with what you are good at...

So in your view it is acceptable for communists to question the Holodomor of the Ukrainian Slavic people but it is not alright for alleged right-wingers to question the Holocaust of European Jewry?

So you have no problem with a black African questioning the Rwandan genocide but you have a problem with a white right-winger question the holocaust of European Jewry?

And how did you come to that conclusion? Have you studied the works of people like Graf, Rudolf etc...What makes you think that every stone has been unturned on the holocaust? Should society not be allowed to make this decision for themselves? If what you say is true then an open debate on the issue would see the revisionists soundly defeated no?

What qualifies you to make such a blanket judgement?

You're not calling for freedom of speech in a general, all encompassing way. The only times you advocate f.o.s. is in this particular context. Never, in any post of yours, have you defended freedom of speech as a concept. It's only the freedom of speech of Nazis that you advocate.

When you introduce a little known event, you could at least have its spelling right, to allow others to research the matter, no ? Try researching the Hollokowst.

I must be psychic. I knew you were going to go down that road even before I posted my reply. You obviously suffer from a reading comprehension disability.
I did not say either of this is alright. I did say it is too soon to put either on the same level as the Holocaust. As for the Holodomor, I distinctly said it looks like a prime candidate.

That open debate has taken place ad nauseam already. There isn't a historical event that has been more thoroughly researched. Unless of course you consider Ahmadinejad an ally in your quest?

BTW, I'm planning a trip to Auschwitz some time this year. Wanna come ? I'm serious. Anything to cure you

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

Unlike you I do believe in free speech for all! You call me a fascist yet you are the one defending a law that jails and fines people for the peaceful expression of their historical views. It amazes me how you can engage in such a hypocrisy with the sense of righteous indignation that you do...

This is pure libel! I challenge you to give an example of where I ever advocated or supported a 'free speech' for 'Nazis' only position.

The simple fact is you cannot rationally debate me so you resort to these petty little shots in the feeble hope it will discredit me somehow; or simply to lash out at an opponent you cannot handle in a debate.

As well if one types 'Holodomer' on the Google search engine it will offer the correct spelling. So do not insult my intelligence with such a weak excuse for jumping on my incorrect spelling of a word; you know why you did it and so do I....

First you call me a fascist and now you accuse me of having a disability; anymore personal attacks you would care to launch? Tell me, are you even capable of conducting a rational intelligent debate?

Interesting how the Holodomor which is accepted as a genocide by the Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Canada, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, United States, and Vatican City does not deserve the same footing as the Holocaust...

If this debate has taken place ad nauseum who represented the revisionist side? Since the revisionists are forbidden by law to debate the issue who exactly did the holocaust supporters debate?

Forgive me but I do not wish to have a guy in black mask throwing Molotov-cocktails at me!

They should never have fined him. Some neo nazi oufit will probably supply the money for the fine anyway.

A far better solution would be to make him wear clown shoes everywhere. We could do our part at USPOL by forcing all the racists to use pictures of bozo for their avatars.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

'Nazi,' 'fascist,' 'racists'....geez how many more well-poisoning ad hominem buzzwords are going to be used here?

That is a constructive solution! Here is another, maybe the administrators of USPOL should force the liberals and leftists to use pictures Stalin as an avatar.

Not a single country has absolute free speech. All have injunctions and exceptions to it. Such exceptions do not constitute fascism. You're the one that is throwing the word in without reason.

You're kidding me ? Right here and now you are.

Your disregard for language is only surpassed by your disregard for historical truth.

A fascist you are, so that is not an ad hominem, merely an observation. And your generalizing reply to my qualified answers demonstrate the second.

Yet. Does not deserve it YET. How many times do I have to repeat it before you understand it ?
Why the stress on Belgium ? I'm no nationalist.

These laws are relatively recent. Prior to that, the revisionists had all the opportunity they wanted.

Now that's an ad hominem. I never wear black masks.

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

Even Human Rights Watch conceded that 'holocaust-denial' laws are an affront to free speech. HRW even stated that the judgment against David Irving should have been overturned!

There is a huge difference between restricting free speech by outlawing death threats or incitement to murder/rioting etc and the outlawing of the expression of a peaceful non-violent historical view. Sorry, Human Rights Watch would seem to be in my corner on this one...

In this very thread I stated and I quote:

Unlike you I do believe in free speech for all!

What 'historical truth' have I disregarded?

It is an ad hominem; when you attack an arguer instead of the argument you are engaging in an ad hominem attack; truthful observation or not.

And why does the Holodomor not deserve the same status as the holocaust? Have you studied both of these events thoroughly?

12-15 years or more is 'recent?'

Frank, I'm sure it's forbidden in any european country to lie the holocoust, that's nothing French specific. Free speech has limmits in every country. I wouldn't even be surprised if lying the holocoust is even forbidden by law in the US, though I would have to do a research to be sure.
I'm sure you'd be the first one yelling to send that holocoust lier behind bars if he publicly spread such grave lies about the USA in newspapers.


If you seriously want to have a serious debate than you shouldn't start a threat which obvisously has the sole purpose to provoke and insult a certain group of people.

How do you know that the revisionists are lying if they are not allowed to present their views publicly in an open debate forum? Should the truthfulness of their claims not be established by debate and critique?

Back to the above question...how do we determine that they have lied when their views are suppressed by prison time and lofty fines?

No, unlike many of my European friends who support such Orwellian laws I support the right of all people to have an opinion. I would rather see such people refuted and embarassed with the truth if they are indeed lying; this would be more damaging to their cause then making ideological martyrs out of them no?

So I am wrong for expressing outrage at a man being persecuted for the peaceful non-violent expression of his views? Who am I insulting by defending free speech?