[veronica]

I agree that words that incite violence should not be, and in the US, are not, protected. My point goes solely to speech denying that the Holocaust occurred. THAT speech, as hateful as it is, ought to be protected. In my view, the more effective destruction of an attitude such as that shown by the writer who was arrested would be to devastate his argument with the clear proof that exists that the Holocaust did in fact occur. It is obvious that there are those who deny that occurrence, and their speech withers next to evidence of the atrocities that occurred.

Depends on the context.

I'll try again. In certain European countries, words led to deeds, and most Germans are painfully aware of that. That is why they have the laws they do. Ernst Zundel has thumbed his nose at the law for years, to say nothing of his continuing pro-Nazi incitement. If he wants to be a martyr from jail so be it. To see him defended at this site as harmless retired painter, is both laughable and nauseating.

[NCLaw441]

As with most defenses of speech, the issue is not solely what this person said, but whether another's speech may also result in prison. Incitement to violence is speech that should be sanctioned, as should defamation and fraud. Hate speech, including the denial of events that clearly occurred, should also be sanctioned, just not legally by imprisonment, in my opinion. If by some twisted logic this guy is viewed as a martyr by some, that is further reason to respond to him with ridicule, rather than jail. If, outside of the incitement language, others act because of his words, they should be imprisoned for their wrongful ACTS, not the thought or hate that inspired those acts.