freedom of speech

by **ahmads** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:51 pm

Holocaust denier Irving is jailed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

this is freedom of speech on newdays in the world :idea:

by **MissLT** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:43 pm

What's your point?

by **ahmads** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:40 pm

LennyeTran wrote:What's your point?

if you read all subject you will know what I mean :wink:

by **MissLT** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:48 pm

ahmads wrote:
LennyeTran wrote:What's your point?

if you read all subject you will know what I mean

You don't think I did? :roll:

by **ahmads** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:22 pm

LennyeTran wrote:
ahmads wrote:
LennyeTran wrote:What's your point?

if you read all subject you will know what I mean

You don't think I did?

why they judged a person who talked about his opnion ... ???

by **MissLT** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:36 pm

ahmads wrote:why they judged a person who talked about his opnion ... ???

He, as a historian, DENIED the fact that people died during Holocaust. Not only that, he made a book about it. Do you think this is just a personal opinion?

by **ahmads** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:53 pm

LennyeTran wrote:
ahmads wrote:why they judged a person who talked about his opnion ... ???

He, as a historian, DENIED the fact that people died during Holocaust. Not only that, he made a book about it. Do you think this is just a personal opinion?

no,,
but there were many cases destroied hestory ,,,,,without punishment :?:

by **MissLT** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:59 pm

ahmads wrote:no,,
but there were many cases destroied hestory ,,,,,without punishment

Such as??????

by **Hardi** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:40 pm

Yes Ahmads, sad isn't.

by **Elba** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:53 am

Well friends,

I think I can understand what Ahmads wanted to say:

A personal opinion is not a FACT, right?
Then a judgment can´t aply a punishment to a conclussion of theories. Laws are for judge facts, not suposissions.
What the writter did is analyse documents about holocaust, and MAYBE in any place he find something that make him think gas chamber never exist, he said that, "I think acording to my analysis that the chamber never exist" and then the bomb explot.
I think is an exageration of the law. The statement of the writter don´t mean that holocaust don´t exist. The proof of holocaust are the survivers. All they are facts.
In this case the book of that writter is only a confirmation that there are hundred, thousands that want to finish with the holocaust story because any political reazon, and that´s the confirmation that the holocaus existed.
In that case what people must to do about the writter is Laugh, poor crazy man, who is going to belive his words,
And that´s all, but judge for an opinion, a suposotion, donesn´t has any utility.

freedom of speech

freedom of speech

Who is online