Freedom of Speech in Europe

[ADeadSmitty]

Is there such a thing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

[Phishfan]

This is a touchy subject in Europe. Many of the countires who have these laws have also banned Nazi paraphanalia. I would imagine that is because #1 these countries were dominated by Nazis and camps were located there and #2 to put down any future risings of Nazi movements which has been problematic at times.

[pintofguinness14]

This is just another example of why I'm proud to be an American.  This guy is a scum bag, but he shouldn't go to jail for believing in a screwed up version of history.  People should be punished for their actions, not their beliefs or statements. 

Don't think this could never happen in the U.S.  If the Supreme Court is intent on using foreign judicial opionions to inform its own (as in the recent decision to ban executions for the mentally disabled), it's possible that in the future the Court will decide that this kind of speech is not inherrently political but rather inherrently hateful and therefore is not protected by the First Amendment.  Maybe the lawyers will weigh in say whether I'm off base or give a better explanation.

[Fau Teixeira]

i'll agree with that asshole on one thing:

He said it was "ridiculous" that he was being tried for expressing an opinion.

[Dave Gray]

This was already an issue here in the form of "hate crimes", which was deemed to be an unconstitutional practice, if I remember correctly.

[ADeadSmitty]

Yeah but typically the issue of "hate crimes" here has to do with being punished more severely for crimes that are motivated by hate (racism, sexism, etc.), but would be crimes no matter what the motivation. That raises very difficult issues, but they are different.

In this case, this guy is just going to jail for speaking. That is wrong.

[Dave Gray]

In this case, this guy is just going to jail for speaking. That is wrong.

I'm not saying that the judgement is correct or incorrect, but he is being charged with libel -- a false publication that damages reputation.  That is a crime here, too.

If he knowingly lied in a book and made false statements, and then people suffered damages (which has a lot of gray area to it) because of it, it's libel.  ...that's the nature of the law here, as well as there.  I think this is just taken a little extreme, because the "damages" are not very clear.

[bsmooth]

I'm not saying that the judgement is correct or incorrect, but he is being charged with libel -- a false publication that damages reputation.  That is a crime here, too.

If he knowingly lied in a book and made false statements, and then people suffered damages (which has a lot of gray area to it) because of it, it's libel.  ...that's the nature of the law here, as well as there.  I think this is just taken a little extreme, because the "damages" are not very clear.

No he was convicted of Holocaust denial. If you openly disagree with any part of the uniformly accept number of killed, or how they were killed, you will be charged, tried, and convicted.
Currently there is some debate as to the number of actual Jews killed, as a nice round number of 6 million sounds a little to exact, even for the meticulious record keeping of the Nazi's.