Tue Nov 8th, 2005 at 08:19:29 AM EST
We've seen a lot of condemnation of the Turks for suppressing debate on the Armenian massacres early in the last century, for, among other reasons, the restraint on free speech.
Can someone explain to me why this is different in principle?
A German Holocaust denier who has regularly lavished praise on Adolf Hitler has gone on trial in Germany.
Ernst Zundel, 66, moved to Canada in 1958 but was judged a national security threat and deported earlier this year.
Germany, where denying the Holocaust is a crime, has charged him with a string of offences based on 14 pieces of written work and internet publications.
Mr Zundel, who once described Hitler as "a decent and very peaceful man", faces up to five years in jail if convicted.
In a 20-page charge sheet, Mr Zundel is accused of using "pseudo-scientific" methods to try and rewrite the accepted history of the Nazi Holocaust.
He is charged with incitement offences, as well as libel and disparaging the dead.
He denies the charges, asserting his right to free speech, and questions the constitutionality of the laws being used against him. (BBC)
It looks like the same thing from here: views that go against government approved reality are being punished. In terms of freedom of speech they seem the same. Why is one acceptable and necessary and the other wrong?