Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... not sure what Israel and/or the Jewish people have to do with Denmark...

Haven't you heard? The Jews control North American and European media and banks and politicians. Or at least that's what Ahmedinijad wants us to believe.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

... not sure what Israel and/or the Jewish people have to do with Denmark...

Haven't you heard? The Jews control North American and European media and banks and politicians. Or at least that's what Ahmedinijad wants us to believe.

Yeah, Hitler is said to have believed the same thing. No surprise there: They are/were both complete nutjobs.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Yes wife, if you took him to court for libel though the burden would be on YOU to prove how his remarks damaged your reputation or inflicted damage on you. If he took you to court for YOUR statements then yes he would have to prove something but since my remarks were towards you and a libel suit against him the burden would be on YOU. I know this wouldn't happen but I was stating that in no way was he slandering you or defaming your name. He never called you a Nazi nor did anyone else, they just asked how your statement that studies denying the holocaust or the number of victims of the holocaust can be objective as it is not rooted in truth nor fact.

First of all, I never stated that “studies denying the Holocaust” are “objective.” You are grossly distorting what I actually said (as did Gerard.)

I said that studies which do not agree with the "3 tenets" of the official version can be defined as "Holocaust denial" and may be prosecuted by law in several European countries. And I went on to say that to even have a law banning "Holocaust denial" (no matter if it's objective or not) is an attempt to stifle free and open discussion of the subject, and qualifies as abrogation of free speech.

To me, to “deny the Holocaust” is to make allegations such as (but not limited to) “Jews were not targeted by Nazi extermination policies” or “Jews were not murdered en masse by Nazis” or even “The Holocaust is a big Jewish lie.” But in my opinion, to present evidence that contradicts the 3 tenets in some fashion is not necessarily a denial of the Holocaust. So perhaps I should give you the opportunity to define precisely what you mean when you use the term “Holocaust denial” in reference to me.

Now, on the subject of libel.

Under U.S. law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, that the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, that the remarks were defamatory towards the defendant's reputation, that the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

There is only one complete and unconditional defense to a civil action for libel: that the facts stated are PROVABLY TRUE. (Note well that word, PROVABLY.) You have to satisfy a jury that the allegedly libelous statement is actually true and correct.

A possible conditional defense is to make a case that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous.

So libel cases are a curious reversal of the usual scenario; the burden of proof indeed falls onto the defendant in a libel case (which could be called a reversal of the burden of proof.) In order to defend himself, Gerard would have to prove that his statements are either “true,” or not capable of being defamatory. This is the burden which I submit that he is not able to meet.

Since Gerard cited a British libel trial, it is interesting to note that under U.K. law, the burden of proof is even heavier. Once the plaintiff meets the burden of proof that the publisher made the allegedly defamatory statement, the untruth of that statement is then presumed – in other words, the innocence of the person being allegedly defamed is presumed, rather than the innocence of the person allegedly doing the defaming.

The fact that Gerard posted the information on a public website satisfies the first qualification (see Exhibits A through D, below.) Secondly, I submit that I am indirectly identifiable through information in my public profile. Thirdly and fourthly, I submit that the remarks were defamatory and false. Fifthly, I submit that the defendant is at fault. (Certainly, in an actual case that goes to trial, it’s up to a judge and/or jury to determine if a case actually satisfies all 5 criteria.)

Now if you are actually arguing that false allegations of being an anti-semite, a Holocaust denier, or a pro-Nazi are “not” slanderous, libelous or damaging to reputation, I beg to differ. I believe a compelling case could be made that such allegations are indeed “defamatory” toward one's reputation (even if they aren't against the law in one's particular country.)

Of course this is a message board, and that’s why Gerard probably felt safe in the assumed anonymity to make such libelous statements without the fear of prosecution – he feels he’s only defaming a screen name. However, there are enough details in my screen name and profile to make me identifiable to people who actually know me, and they include colleagues in my profession. I believe I might well be able to make the case that such libelous remarks, left undisputed, are quite damaging to my reputation. Of course, it would be my burden to make that argument.

However, as I said, I have no intention of litigating again Gerard. I am quite capable of handling this type of attack right here on the board. What I actually said was “if” I took the case to court, the burden of proof would be on Gerard to “prove” that his libelous statements are actually true.

Hope it’s clear. Now maybe we can go on to discuss the meaning of “conjecture."

***

Exhibit A

No, your inferred holocaust denial and anti-semitism are out of order.

Exhibit B:

You have stated a belief in holocaust denial or some other pro-nazi version of history.

Exhibit C:

Exactly, and she questioned it by stating that banned studies (those which deny the holocaust) are objective.

Denial of genocide is just one of my hot buttons.

And Exhibit D:

You seem content to minimize or deny the holocaust, then horrified that I call you on it. Well, here is your chance to vindicate yourself - provide us directly what you believe. You infer that it is that only 1.5 million Jews died, but your proof was fabricated, so I hope it is an alternate theory.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

First of all, I never stated that “studies denying the Holocaust” are “objective.” You are grossly distorting what I actually said.

It was clearly implied in what you said:

Any ... attempt to do objective studies of the Holocaust is a jailable offense in most European countries.

The only prosecutable and jailable offense in this context is to engage in Holocaust denial. Scores of objective studies have been and continue to be done and none of the researchers and / or publishers have been prosecuted and / or jailed.

Not even one Gerald Reitlinger who has, per your own admission, broken at least one of the three supposedly untouchable parameters by putting the number of victims below the 5 million mark that you claim cannot be questioned.

Thus, I reiterate (4th or 5th time now): Who was prosecuted and/or jailed where and when for what objective Holocaust research?

To make it more convenient, just fill in the three blanks:

Name:

City:

Date:

Unless you can substantiate your assertion that objective Holocaust research is a jailable offense in most of Europe, your above quoted statement can IMHO not be interpreted any other way.

[Chicky 0]

A private figure plaintiff must prove the negligent publication of a false and defamatory statement in order to maintain an action for libel. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that a reasonably prudent person would realize that the statement was both false and defamatory. (The Supreme Judicial Court has twice refused to expressly decide whether a plaintiff must prove that a defendant was negligent with respect to the article's defamatory content as well as its falsity. However, the SJC has stated that a libel defendant must prove that a defendant "was negligent in publishing defamatory words which reasonably could be interpreted to refer to the plaintiff." It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that a plaintiff must prove negligence with respect to falsity and defamatory content.)

Who bears the burden of proof on truth or falsity often is of more interest to lawyers and academics than to jurors who actually decide libel cases. A recent statement by the Supreme Judicial Court, although perhaps not a wholly correct statement of law, nevertheless effectively describes the task at trial: "While the plaintiff bears the burden of alleging the falsity of the libel, it is up to the defendant to prove truth as an affirmative defense."

So no, it isn't black and white wife, BOTH should assume they have to prove their case, not just the defendant. I believe in the UK it is almost always the defendant who has the burden of proof.

Gerard isn't the ONLY one who took your statement for saying you can't have objective studies of the holocaust and that objective studies of the holocaust are against the law. I believe ET just quoted you saying JUST that. No matter what you deny, you originally said that, and while you have since denied it, His statements were towards your ORIGINAL statement, therefore he stated what he believe to be fact and asked for you to expound upon it. His original comment was based off a reading a statement you made, whether it was a typo or not therefore not libelous.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Chicky

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

No offense but I gotta ask you: Are you by any chance working for the Bush administration? Is there any affiliation to Scott McClellan? Gotta give it to you: You’re certainly very good at copying his m.o. Just keep repeating that which is false in a hope to elevate it to fact by simply repeating it often enough. Sorry to say that this strategy of the current administration is not working on me. Whether it’s them or anyone else applying it.

This attempt was not even worthy of you, ET. Why don't you just go ahead and describe my "crime" of disagreement as "copying Hitler ?" Or maybe you could call me one of the Manson family. I'm sure it would pass for "intellectual debate" among some here, and you could get more than a few to mindlessly nod in agreement.

Anyway.... what exactly have I "repeated" that is false ? Quotes please. I have stated repeatedly that "Holocaust denial" is a prosecutable crime in many countries in Europe. What part of that didn't you understand, and what part is untrue ?

Let me re-iterate the central question I have put out there for you yet again: Who has ever been prosecuted in Germany or Western Europe for doing actual, factual research on the Holocaust? Who, when and where?

No more smokescreens: Name of the individual, place and time of the trial. That’s all I want to see.

Smokescreens ?? Let your fingers do the walking, ET ! You can easily Google this information yourself (that is, if you really want to know the list of offenders, and each and every detail of trials.) You seemed quite able to search the net for stats that would support your figures on numbers of victims... so if you want information, by all means go and get it.

I have already pointed out that this is an attempt on your part to derail the argument away from the actual point: whether Europe has free speech when it comes to the Holocaust. Of course you didn't like my answer, as you very much wish to turn this debate into a ridiculous discussion of whether Ernst Zundel and his ilk are really bad guys who think horrible things, and therefore whether they deserve to be in jail because of their icky opinions. Talk about smokescreens !

Well.... you can huff and puff and even stamp your little foot if you wish, but I am not falling for this diversionary tactic. Back to the point, please: Does Europe have free speech when it comes to the Holocaust ?

To use your own words, "let me re-iterate the central question I have put out there for you yet again" -- how is mandating "correct thought" and making "uncorrect thought" a prosecutable (even jailable) offense equal "free speech" in a supposedly free society ?

Again, try to grasp the concept. The point is not "who" is being prosecuted for "Holocaust denial," but that any one at all could be. How can "expressing an incorrect belief" be a prosecutable crime ? My point remains: a statute that outlaws "Holocaust denial" is an abrogation of the concept of free speech, as known in Western societies.

But I will get into your smokescreen just a little and see if we can lift the fog some to get a clearer picture of why your argument that “there is no freedom of speech in Europe” and that we have some double standard in regards to free speech doesn’t hold any water:

Well actually, this is your smokescreen, ET. Because I never said "There is no freedom of speech in Europe." I said there is freedom on speech on any matter, EXCEPT the Holocaust.

Why do you keep trying to re-write and change what I said ? Your conditioned response to the entire subject of the Holocaust is making your knee jerk so wildly, you've turned into a vertible Pavlovian Rottweiler, foaming at the mouth.

To continue your lame argument, you quote and try to debate with this (note: bold added by ET and not in original):

If one expresses views that are not in line with the officially accepted version of the Holocaust, one faces the threat of prosecution. This is a fact. And it's a double standard.

#1 The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews for extermination as a people

#2 Over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies

#3 Tools of mass extermination, specifically gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews

To mandate that any discussion or research of the Holocaust MUST acknowledge and accept 3 basic points of the official view, or be subject to prosecution, is not objective. I say it's not objective because it demands that any study/review of history be considered through the filter of the official stance. If one's alleged research concludes that the official conclusion is correct, then it is accepted and legal. If one's alleged research does not support the official conclusion, it must automatically be considered "Holocaust denial" and a prosecutable crime. This is not objective.

Raul Hilberg places the number at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger estimated that the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million.

And your "rebuttal":

Thank you for effectively deconstructing your own allegation that anyone not acknowledging the “three basic points” will be subject to prosecution.

Or has Gerald Reitlinger (at least not acknowledging point #2) indeed been prosecuted? If not, my work here is done as your entire argument really hinges on the claim that objective Holocaust research is a prosecutable offense in most of Western Europe. It is not.

Again, the subtle nuances of the English language seem to have tripped you up. And again, you have "embellished" my statement to suit your argument. Please note: "Subject to prosecution" does not equal "will be prosecuted." Governments may pick and choose who they want to silence, and who they don't.

If you will wipe the fog from your own eyes and go back and read my original post more carefully (and not just selectively cutting and pasting sentences together from different paragraphs in order to take them out of context,) you will see that I actually mentioned Reitlinger and Hilberg in answer to your accusation that I was "diminishing" the 6 million figure and denying the Holocaust. I never said they Reitlinger and Hilbert are, or would be, prosecuted. I pointed to them as respected historians who don't agree with the 6 million, and asked if you would consider them deniers as well. You chose not to answer. Instead, you try to say that since they have not been prosecuted, then it proves that there is free speech. This is called "begging the question."

Usually Germany applies Holocaust denial laws to people like Zundel, for expressing views that gas chambers didn't exist, or that the 6 million figure has been grossly exaggerated. He published a whole line of pro-Nazi literature written by himself as well as other authors, and also sold Nazi "memorabilia." Germany figures that not many people would be willing to try to defend this guy considering the current climate in Germany, so they don't worry about it becoming a cause celebre for free speech advocates, which might threaten to strike down the whole law. Now Zundel may well be certifiably insane (did you know about his publications stating that the Nazis escaped on UFOs ? ) but why should that be grounds for imprisonment ? If he said that the Kosovo massacres were merely Muslim lies, no one would propose that he should be locked up, or that any mandates should be passed to outlaw "Kosovo denial."

It's interesting to note that Zundel's alleged "crimes" didn't even occur in Germany; he is on trial for the content of his internet website which was based out of Canada. After a complaint, the Canadian government tried him for "inciting hate," but the conviction was overturned as a violation of Canada's free speech protections.

Zundel didn't voluntarily choose to return to his native Germany; he was forcibly deported there by Canada, to be immediately arrested at the airport. (Since German citizens may access Zundel's site on the internet, Germany apparently felt this qualifies as a prosecutable offense in Germany.) Zundel has not been accused of engaging in violent acts himself, or even calling for violence. But it seems the German government is prosecuting him in part on the grounds that someone might decide to act violently after reading his website. (Zundel is apparently associated with some white supremacist groups who have been connected with violence, although no one has accused him of personally taking part in actual violence, either directly or indirectly.) It's an interesting case in many aspects.

Now.... I realize that many in Germany and some other European countries still feel great guilt and shame over what happened during the Holocaust, and of course want to prevent such atrocities from happening again. Often there is a very emotional response to the subject, much like many Americans had (and continue to have) after 9/11. But curtailment of individual rights and freedoms as a way to "protect us from evil," a la the Patriot Act or making "Holocaust denial" a crime, is even more dangerous to a free society.

Many have given their lives fighting for the individual rights and freedoms that we have enjoyed for several

hundred years in the Western world. No one who loves liberty should agree to surrender those liberties, no matter what the "threat."

You continue with a quote from me:

You (and many others) have staunchly defended the right of the Dutch newspaper to print any article or cartoon they want under the protection of "free speech," no matter how it ridiculous it is, no matter who it offends, and no matter how it has "incited hatred."

And answer:

Yes, I do believe that the paper was right printing that which it saw fit to print as what it printed did clearly not violate any law on the book. And I do believe that other papers were right to re-publish it for their readers to see what the whole debate is all about. I believe that Europe ought to take a stand and defend it’s right to live it’s life based on it’s ideals and standards. And Europe ought to do so with much confidence.

How dare the Muslim community try and dictate what we can and cannot print into our papers when they won’t let us lecture them on what to print in theirs? How dare they criticize us for being disrespectful when they are being disrespectful on a regular basis themselves (I provided links to many distasteful, disrespectful and hate inciting cartoons that are run regularly in the Muslim/Arab media)? As I always say: If you can't stmach it, don't dish it out. It just ain’t cool to throw stones when one sits in the glasshouse. In this case, the Muslim/Arab world and particularly the stone-throwing mob clearly does.

Besides: What’s next? No more sunbathing in Berlin’s city parks? No more nude beaches in Europe? No more pork at the butcher store? Close up the beer garden? I don’t think so.

Nice rant. But what in the world does it have to do with the question of whether Europe has free speech when it comes to the Holocaust ? Answer: nothing.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

A private figure plaintiff must prove the negligent publication of a false and defamatory statement in order to maintain an action for libel. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that a reasonably prudent person would realize that the statement was both false and defamatory. (The Supreme Judicial Court has twice refused to expressly decide whether a plaintiff must prove that a defendant was negligent with respect to the article's defamatory content as well as its falsity. However, the SJC has stated that a libel defendant must prove that a defendant "was negligent in publishing defamatory words which reasonably could be interpreted to refer to the plaintiff." It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that a plaintiff must prove negligence with respect to falsity and defamatory content.)

# 1 - I already stated why I feel this situation meets the 5 criteria, and I also clearly stated that is would be up to the judge/jury to decide if I am standing on firm legal ground. The “negligence,” in case you weren’t paying close attention, was Gerard’s attempt to attribute statements to me that I never made, and to “spin” my actual remarks into entirely different meanings. Willful misquoting and misrepresentation are certainly considered “negligence.”

#2 - As far as what constitutes “prudent” people – this does not only apply to people who might agree with you. There are many who agree with me, even if they may feel intimidated from saying so here because of the witch hunt mentality on this particular thread. The small number of VJ members who nodded in agreement that I indeed must be a Holocaust denier (or pro-Nazi or anti-semite) is not a jury properly instructed on what constitutes libel. And while their comments do not pass for an actual scientific poll of public sentiment on the matter, even such a credible opinion poll would also be irrelevant in a court of law.

Now.... it’s interesting what you chose to cut and paste from what appears to be The Massachusetts Bar Association’s Guide to Journalists.

http://www.massbar.org/publications/journa...ndbook/?sw=3153

The MBA’s site contains guidelines that journalists should follow in print and broadcast media to avoid libel cases. It’s an excellent manual in how to watch out for the pitfalls of potential litigation. I'm pleased you chose it, as I have long experience in this particular type of law. You should have read the guidelines more closely.

Because in your desperate search of the fine print to find something – ANYthing – that you think might possibly be a “legal loophole” which would defend one's making defamatory allegations without providing concrete evidence, you cruised quite cavalierly right past the most important caveat of all, which was staring at you from the opening statement (Italics mine):

Although state and federal law provide some immunities even for false publications, the significance of being able to prove at trial the truth of a publication simply cannot be overstated. To a certain extent, therefore, in preparing an article for publication the press must think like a prosecutor does in presenting a case to a jury. That means considering whether witnesses exist who can testify from their own personal knowledge about the reported event, whether they will agree to testify if asked to do so, whether they would comply with a subpoena, whether they would lie under oath, whether they would appear credible or biased, whether there is any documentary evidence that supports or rebuts the article, whether such documents still will exist when the case finally reaches trial and whether alternative sources of information about the story have been exhausted (such as speaking to the subjects of the publication, or to others who might later be called by the plaintiff or the defendant to admit or deny the truth of the article). While every journalist need not have a working understanding of the Rules of Evidence, it should be understood that, generally speaking, a fact can be proven at trial only by someone who has personal knowledge of its existence and not by someone who merely heard of the fact from someone else.

Translated: don’t say it if you can’t prove it in a court of law, or you leave yourself wide open to a lawsuit.

You really need to think more like a prosecutor.

Who bears the burden of proof on truth or falsity often is of more interest to lawyers and academics than to jurors who actually decide libel cases. A recent statement by the Supreme Judicial Court, although perhaps not a wholly correct statement of law, nevertheless effectively describes the task at trial: "While the plaintiff bears the burden of alleging the falsity of the libel, it is up to the defendant to prove truth as an affirmative defense."

So no, it isn't black and white wife, BOTH should assume they have to prove their case, not just the defendant. I believe in the UK it is almost always the defendant who has the burden of proof.

I believe that’s what I just said in my previous post to you. But it’s nice to have you repeat it back !

Gerard isn't the ONLY one who took your statement for saying you can't have objective studies of the holocaust and that objective studies of the holocaust are against the law. I believe ET just quoted you saying JUST that. No matter what you deny, you originally said that, and while you have since denied it, His statements were towards your ORIGINAL statement, therefore he stated what he believe to be fact and asked for you to expound upon it. His original comment was based off a reading a statement you made, whether it was a typo or not therefore not libelous.

Again, the opinion of the VJ peanut gallery, even if it had been unanimous, would be irrelevant in a court case.

Important note: I have not denied making any of my own statements – this is another untruth.

I deny Gerard’s and ET’s conjecture (and apparently your own) that what I stated translates into some kind of agreement with goose-stepping Hitler Youth who claim no Jews were ever massacred, or that Hitler was the greatest thing since sliced bratwurst, on and on ad nauseum into a myriad of other fantasized “offenses” against the Jewish people which I never, categorically never, in my entire life, committed.

Again, “conjecture” is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. Gerard would have to provide “proof” that I am that which he alleged I am. That, I’m afraid, he cannot do.

The very best legal counsel, and the advice you should give to your clients, is that extreme caution should be exercised when making damaging allegations, and any such allegations that can't be empirically proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt should not be included at all in any publication or broadcast.

Nice try, though !

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Anyway.... what exactly have I "repeated" that is false ? Quotes please.

This:

Any questioning of or attempt to do objective studies of the Holocaust is a jailable offense in most European countries.

And all you have to offer is Ernst Zündel? Is that your example of those imprisoned for "objective" Holocaust study? Please, spare me...

[Chicky 0]

I'm sorry I just don't agree with that. My comments about what ET said weren't something I'd bring into court. That was my own personal statement.

I'd say what Gerard said was his opinion, not meant to be factual, he simple COMMENTED on something you said that he took in a way you didn't mean it to be construed. That's why I don't agree it was libel, his opinion from what you said is just that, an opinion. Everyone would get sued for libel if our opinion could be used against us in a court of law. If I say in a newpaper editorial about unruly neighbors that I think my neighbors are idiots because they have too many kids and they tear up the neighborhood. Can they sue me for libel? That's simply MY opinion of them. I don't believe questioning someone's statement, or sharing your opinion of someone is slanderous or a case for libel. What kind of damage has it done to you? I dont see anyone else on the board whispering that you are prejudiced against Jews. People say a lot of things that aren't true that cannot be proved in a court of law. I get where you are coming from but simply an opinion of a person isn't libel. If I say you are a vile fat ###### that's my opinion, and someone could think you are a ###### and treat you accordingly so, you might not get a job cause I said it on TV and prospective employers heard it. But its my opinion, and not really something I could prove in court. How can I prove you are a vile fat ######? In all honesty, I cannot as its a matter of my opinion, but could still effect you adversly if stated in a public medium. I don't think that of you just used it as an example

I can't be bothered spending time looking for the few articles I read about how opinion is free speech and most often times can't be considered libel. You'll just find some way to nitpick it or go find a differing opinon which is what law is all about. Everyone has a differing opinion on it. Its why Supreme Court Justices on cases even when all ruled in a certain favor write dissents because there are certain facts, or instances of the way the law was interpreted that they didn't necessarily agree with but taken in whole they did. One law can be interpreted different ways in different states. That's whats happening here.

On me skipping the opening, yeah I saw it, and read it. One doesn't necessarily have to pull an entire article to prove a point. As a defense attorney I'd need to take into account what the procescution was going to use against me and find case law that would be against what I'd be trying to prove BUT I'd need to find more case law that would help someone rule in my favor and prove my point. That's exactly what I did. The judge could hear what you said, then hear my testimony and still rule in my favor because he felt my interpretation was more accurate than yours.

Oh and I generally do take the role of prosecutor but I just wanted to try the role of defense for once.

I'll give you respect though for debating with me. I'm sure I'll get no respect from you but thats fine. I can give respect to people even when disagreeing with them.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Chicky

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

An Italian embassy has been burned down now. Just an update.

[Chicky 0]

###### hell, well will they let it die??? When they pull a trucker out of his semi and beat him almost to death?

Sorry couldn't help it

But in all seriousness, someone needs to do something to stop it. Its going too far now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

wife_of_mahmoud - if you are making a claim that Europe does not permit free speech with regards to the holocaust you should at least back it up with suitable factual examples to give some legitimate validation to what you are saying. That's what separates fact-based opinion from pure conjecture.

Its your responsibility to provide evidence to support your argument, not ET's.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

wife_of_mahmoud - if you are making a claim that Europe does not permit free speech with regards to the holocaust you should at least back it up with suitable factual examples to give some legitimate validation to what you are saying. That's what separates fact-based opinion from pure conjecture.

Its your responsibility to provide evidence to support your argument, not ET's.

Thank you!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

First of all, I never stated that “studies denying the Holocaust” are “objective.” You are grossly distorting what I actually said.

It was clearly implied in what you said:

Any ... attempt to do objective studies of the Holocaust is a jailable offense in most European countries.

The only prosecutable and jailable offense in this context is to engage in Holocaust denial. Scores of objective studies have been and continue to be done and none of the researchers and / or publishers have been prosecuted and / or jailed.

Thus, I reiterate (4th or 5th time now): Who was prosecuted and/or jailed where and when for what objective Holocaust research?

To make it more convenient, just fill in the three blanks:

Name:

City:

Date:

Unless you can substantiate your assertion that objective Holocaust research is a jailable offense in most of Europe, your above quoted statement can IMHO not be interpreted any other way.

Still waiting on your response here wife_of_mahmoud...

Edited February 18, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Chuckles 0]

In the end, I do not believe this argument has anything to do with the events taking place in the world concerning the hardline Muslim violence. Everyone knows there is limits to free speech, as in direct speech that will reasonably injure people.

I do not know this law, but does it really say anywhere you cannot physically say "the holocaust did not happen"? I think it deals with reasearch done within Germany and 'official' doctrine. So inline with that I can say "muhammad likes to see cartoons of himself", an equally assnine thing to say, just like the first quote, but both protected under free speech.