>>>Another example is revisionism of the German holocaust. In this case, the government is fortunately not involved, but there are certain minority groups that would like people to believe that all of these atrocities (or most of them) were simply made up.
>>
>>What worries me is that, due to what the French have done, the position of those holocaust-revisionists becomes stronger. They can now give a clear example of a case where 'denial of a so-called genocide' can't simply be called an act of a subversive, dangerous fascist.
>
>
>IMHO, both these two laws are offending free speach right.
>
>If someone is dumb enough to say/preach publicly that WW2 Holocaust did not happen, then he/she is already severely *punished*. No further action needs to be taken. Except maybe mandatory appointment with shrink.

I disagree on this one. The countries that have a law that forbids people to deny the holocaust have a very good reason for that law. Sure, those who deny the holocaust are ridiculed by many of us, but not by all. Not all people have enough knowledge about the holocaust, either due to young age or due to a lack of interest. The law must prevent that these people start doubting the horrors of WWII. The effect could be devastating. I think freedom of speech is about freedom to express an opinion, not about a freedom to deny the real facts or introduce unreal 'facts'. It is not a right to lie.


>If however, some credible/knowlegeable historian is able to positively prove ANYTHING about Armenian/Turkey WW1 Case ;
>Then he/she should be alowed (wellcome) to do this, without any legal obstacles - weather he is living in France(EU) or Turkey.
>
>2c