Absolutely, they have no right no to be offended. This is tolerence, and thus the basis for freedom of speech. So we need encourage free speech, together with the education of people, on how to be less easily led, and more individual. Using morality as their guiding light This would take away, most of the power on incitement that is acted upon. The dilemma, the leaders of controlling nations have, is they want the reverse, so they teach their populations, to follow absolutely, thus to be inciteable. Then they get the problem, that others can play the same game, with the tools and methods, they have created. So they introduce laws, to decide who can use the tools, to keep them for themselves. The best society, is one that trains moral individuals, not robots, ready for control. A society that is a collection of strong individuals, making a strong country, by choice and support. Individuals, who can listen to anything, and only act on knowledge,wisdom and morality from within. Through this, you converge on freedom, the other way you converge on control.

Why is holocast denial a crime in many countries?

Charlie - Smply because, people want to deny free speech! The reason; because 'democracies' need to control what you hear, and how you will process it. The EU is a master of it, with the UK within it, being the all time champion. There is no doubt in my mind, having considered the evidence, that the holocaust happened. Therefore, I have absolutely no issue, with hearing someone uttering at length that they think it didn't. It is absolutely their right of free speech, to put forward their views, and my right to be able to listen. I may even find something interesting, in their arguments, that I haven't as yet considered myself. No the true goal of all these rules, is plain simple censorship. Control of the information flow, this is what is practiced in the EU, through a network of individuals implanted by the state. The huge challege for this regime, is the Internet, so the EU is trying to close and regulate access to it, because it circumvents the EU masters. Remember, they are only doing it for your own good!

I will concede these argeuments to Mr. Fleming Rose only after his newspapaer has published cartoons demeaning Holocaust. If he has the guts, he can show us the freedom of expression.

Charlie - I think it is quite in order for you to throw down the gauntlet to Fleming Rose, it is basically asking him, to put his money where is mouth is. However, logically he does not need to answer, because in free speech, he has no duty to be balanced in his publication, he can basically publish what he likes. Indeed, the onus is on you to find an outlet, to represent your views, and provided, such an outlet exists, then you really can't complain. Free speech is different to impartiality. The problem is, that such outlets do not exist in some places. This can be for many reasons, legal afronts to free speech, as in your previous example of punishing holocaust denial, state cencorship, or commercial pressures. It is these attacks on free speech, that we must attack ourselves, to allow people to be able to speak freely, and articulate their views, regardless of how unsavoury they are to some listeners. We should actually defend Fleming Rose's freedom of speech and project our own rights of free speech in parallel.

"People have to accept being offended from time to time in modern democratic times and, in fact, people do not have a right not to be offended." Hear Hear! Not only that, from day to day I expect to be offended, if we are not offended how can we expect to learn or gain education from experience, I want to meet the person that has never been offended. that's the person I want to meet, what a comedy that would be! after the initial sting of the offending comment one realizes that there are elements of truth to even the most emotional of overreactions, the trick is to find out what is constructive and what is emotion, then take what you like from the experience.