All good points.

Europe has decided that the "slippery slope" argument needed to be taken into account: let such talk get too frequent and banal, and slowly you get to the point where these things (killing Jews and other hated categories) actually takes place. It happened once, it might happen again.

Maybe it's too conservative, but it is hard to dismiss given our tragic history. And frankly, I cannot be bothered about the freedom to blather obvious lies, especially when coming form people whom we know to have a racist and antisemitic agenda. (How do we "know" - because they keep on repeating these borderline things and behaving accordingly)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

There is a difference between saying, "This event never happened," and saying, "Hey, guys, go kill some Jews."

This guy is not even quoted in the article Jerome linked as saying the holocaust never happened, although he may have said it on other occasions.

Libération: Gollnisch perd son immunité de député européen
Gollnisch loses his MEP immunity

Accusé de contestation de crime contre l'humanité, il comparaîtra à Lyon.
Accused of contesting crimes against humanity, he will appear [before court] in Lyon

I am actually rather bothered by the name of the offence he's charged with. It's not even "hate speech" but "contesting crimes against humanity".

Les eurodéputés ont finalement conclu, selon le rapport de la Britannique Diana Wallis, que le délégué général du FN ne s'était pas exprimé «dans l'exercice de ses fonctions» de parlementaire.
The MEPs finally concluded, accoding to the report by the British [MEP] Diana Wallis, that the general delegate of the National Front hadn't expressed himself "in the exercise of his functions" as MEP

Fair enough.

Selon Diana Wallis, ces déclarations sont «directement liées aux activités professionnelles de M. Gollnisch en tant que professeur à l'université Lyon-III», dont il a, depuis, été exclu pour cinq ans.
According to Diana Wallis, these remarks [quoted by Jerome above] are "directly tied to Mr. Gollnisch's professional activity as a professor at the University of Lyon-III", from which he, subsequently, has been excluded for five years

So maybe he did deny the holocaust (although the Liberation article did not quote him) and then used the fact that he's a histrorian to weasel out of it by saying "historians of all people should be allowed to discuss the particulars of what happened". In any case, the EP used his defensive remarks as a convenient excuse to lift his immunity from prosecution.

S'appuyant sur les propos de Jacques Chirac, qui a estimé la semaine dernière, au sujet de la polémique sur le «rôle positif» de la colonisation, que «ce n'est pas à la loi d'écrire l'histoire», le numéro 2 du FN a prévenu qu'il se présenterait devant le tribunal «non pas en accusé mais en accusateur». Car il ne considère pas «légitimes les lois scélérates et liberticides» qui répriment le négationnisme, telle la loi Gayssot de 1990.
Drawing support from Jacques Chirac's position, who remarked last week, on the controversy over the "positive role" of colonisation, that "it is not for the law to write history", the National Front's no. 2 man warned that he would present himself before the court "not as accused but as accuser". [This is] because he does not consider "legitimate the villainous and illiberal laws" repressing Holocaust denial, such as the Gayssot act of 1990.

This is not to say that people like Goynisch are not dangerous. On the contrary, he shows he's quite smart in the way he argues his case, the legalistic distinctions he makes (for instance, between MEPs 'lifting' and 'not defending' his immunity) and the fact that he uses Chirac's opinion on the colonisation law as a talking point. As was discussed in the thread Torture and the Weimar Republic, the enemies of the rule of law are most dangerous when they use legalistic tactics to undermine it. But it does seem that the speech laws we are discussing are just affording these genocide apologists a spot in the limelight that they don't deserve.

We might be better served if they were quietly ignored. On the other hand, in the case of Turkey it is the state that is denying crimes against humanity so it is good that the Pamuk case gets as much media attention as possible.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

Well, then I conclude that we agree on the issue that freedom, in practical terms, cannot be unlimited, although you have to be careful when applying restrictions.  

EuroTrib has standards, I'm sure, but EuroTrib is privately held.

My point was that restrictions on freedom of speech are applied even in private forums as a mutually accepted social codex.  This social codex is the basis for national laws. A State has a much greater responsibility towards its citizens and their basic Human Rights than each individual. (Even though it ideally shouldn't be so).  

Gollnisch's comments do not interfere with the lives or property of others. (..) Freedom stops when your actions (or, on very rare occasions, words) harm others -- inciting violence, destruction of character (a civil-court issue), and so on.

If I understand you right, you seem to have a too narrow interpretation of the legal substance of the Human Rights when you only focus on lives and property in a physical sense.  Human Rights also include social, cultural and psychological rights, such as respect for identity and integrity. Whether Gollnisch's comments constitutes an act of discrimination is to be seen, but in my opinion and it seems the French authorities too, they justifies an investigation since Gollnisch is a member of the European Parliament, thus a public figure and a French citizen.  Still, I have to say that the case of Gollnisch seems to constitute a borderline case.    

Article 20, The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

(..) 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 29, Of the UN Declaration of the Human Rights.

(..) (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

He's, of course, dishonest in his statements, but he is not harming anyone or directing others to harm anyone here.

No, not physically but he is degrading the collective Jewish history, their identity and their integrity by  
publicly questioning their suffering, which is by most of us accepted as a fact?  The question is why? By knowing Gollnisch's background, being a member of the National Front party of Le Pen, it is pretty obvious what his intentions are.  Now since I don't know exactly what the guy said it is hard to have a specific opinion of whether he has uttered a discriminatory statement or not, but by French standards it seems to be worth looking into, of which I agree.  Whether he will be convicted or not remains to be seen.

Your analysis in the first half of the paragraph is subjective and cannot be the basis for constitutional law.  

Well an analysis is always subjective, within reason of course, although you have to have a factual basis, but then again it was meant to be a subjective statement.            

I agree that subjectivity can not be the basis for constitutional law, but most laws have to be interpreted to the best of someone's abilities and thus are subjected to the judicial expert's qualified opinions.  I am not a judicial expert and haven't argued that I am in my comment.  Still my opinions in this matter seems to coincide with what the French believe and many other people for that matter.        

What you consider an abuse, your neighbour may consider meaningful (or he may not).

Well, when I used the word abuse I didn't mean normal obscenity I was discussing the Holocaust issue, which I presume we are. On that matter I do think most people will agree over what is an abuse or not.  That is why statements from people like David Irving and Gollnisch causes such uproar in Europe and the rest of the world for that matter.  

When your words carry no direct attack on the rights of others, I think freedom of speech is absolute.

Well, this is your opinion, but others seem to disagree and that is why David Irving is arrested and Gollnisch is stripped of his immunity and are now under investigation.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.