Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I think you misinterpret that. You can still believe that only just a 
>> negligible number of Jews died in WW2. You can privately and publicly 
>> express that. The only thing you can not do is write that down in a 
>> pamphlet and hand that out in the streets. Makes sense to me.
> 
>   I'm not saying it's a good thing that wackos can spread their conspiracy
> theories. I'm just worried about how far they will go with this questionable
> limiting of freedom of expression.

I think it does not change any law in the Netherlands. I am not familiar 
enough with Finish law to judge if this constitutes a limiting of the 
freedom of expression there.
Take also into account that in these times freedom of expression is also 
hampered by people that shout a lot of profanities towards other groups. 
This makes an intelligent debate difficult and prevents a lot of people 
from saying anything because they don't want to be associated with any 
of it. Such a law may therefor also increase the /de facto/ freedom of 
expression.

> 
>   If someone writes in his webpage his opinion that immigration is
> detrimental to the western society, can that be considered "material
> containing expressions of xenophobia"? Technically it *is* xenophobia
> (regardless of whether it's based on rational argumentation or not).

That is a valid point of concern. I guess that in practice if you put 
something like that on your personal weblog there is no problem. If you 
place it in a more public place it will be. And if you are prosecuted 
for other offenses they can and will take it into account to increase 
the punishment.

>>>   Yes, I am being a paranoid. This is all normal and good. Just ignore
>>> everything.
>>>
>> And this is where I am completely lost. I recognize all words but in 
>> this order they don't seem to make sense.
> 
>   It was sarcasm.
> 
I guessed that much, and still it did not make sense. ;)

Post a reply to this message