Exactly. I couldn't give a crap if the Czechs hauled the guy myself, good for them I think. Guy's major crap obviously. It's their country, and they have every right to do what they want. If a Pakistani or Iranian man was in the USA promoting a book saying how 9/11 was great and wanting to speak on it - see how quickly he would get cuffed
I don't think anyone will be arrested for praising and promoting books on 9/11 in USA. Though you may not be well liked by your neighbors to be sure.
it is an attempt to shut down those , who is going against themself. They want to make the rest of the world accept it as a dogma, which can not be questioned . And label everyone who is questioning it Jews/israel/both haters or antisemit
The standards are different in Europe as compared to the US. In the Balkans and Southern Russia the situation isn't so good. Without NATO, Europeans would be killing each other as we speak.
As to the issue, I agree with Browntwn's sentiments - it shouldn't be illegal, show the rat bastards for what they are. Although we ignore that the notion of "free speech" is never absolute, in any modern state I know of - "yelling fire in a crowded theater" test in the U.S, the "rational persons standard" and fighting words doctrine, etc. That notwithstanding, my bent is to say, show ridiculousness for what it is. You really think so, Bogart? I rather think political development has induced at least a nominal working acceptance that cooperation, if begrudged cooperation, is easier than war - especially in Europe, the antic's playground for so many centuries. "Convergence theory" may no longer have the cache it did in the '60's, but I think Haas, et al, had it right, basically; if the nation-state is an imaginary, constructed thing of the last couple centuries only, there is nothing whatsoever giving it an underlying, ineluctable permanency - "Europe" is as "real" as the several nation-states that erstwhile bled, and functional pressures may indeed drive the end of the several states we now have. Edit: Sorry, just noticed Alexa_s's comments. Yes, right - it isn't an absolute right under any modern state, most have some kind of "rational persons" limitation in place.
I think people often mistaken the freedom to express something with the freedom to say what you like, when and where you like. Free speech is more about having and expressing views than literally the freedom to speak.
Absolutely no offence intended, stOx, but on this particular subject, your wording is really as tangled up as your thought-processes appear to be! You're still apparently confused between "having" and "expressing" views (these are not difficult concepts!), but now adding further to your own confusion by somehow collating the two while collectively contrasting them with some sort of as-yet-undefined third proposition apparently called "literally the freedom to speak"! Keep taking the tablets, man: recovery is always possible.
I understand it may have confused you that i write in plain English, But i don't have time to do a cheer and choreograph a dance routine for you, Perhaps you can reread what i wrote after you have finished watching buffy, charmed or whatever inane shit it is you invariably watch... no offence. the point is, freedom of speech is not about the freedom to literally speak, It's not about being free to talk. It's about having the right to say what others may disagree with.
Somebody check for me.. is Alexa in another thread trying to sound smart again? She is? What's that, her post didn't make any sense? And she was trying to make someone else look foolish? Well that's not unusual I guess.
Check out HR 1913 in the US. (Love the number.) Like the other laws they burden the people with, this is of benefit only to the overlords. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text "Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself." --Salman Rushdie
Apt words from someone whose book will get you arrested in pretty much any Muslim state for the possession thereof. Interestingly, I believe the words are: "You have teh right to remain silent....". You know the rest. My understanding is there is a version of this bill already which is already law. This bill simply adds the gender and sexual preference challenged to the hate crime list. By the by, reading the text of that bill, I noted the wording classifies offenses against the whites and Christians because they are either white or Christian as being hate crimes............ stOx.