Lawyers and historians who testified in court in defense of holocaust deniers, are threatened with prosecution1. Such a blanket prohibition of speech, where truth is no valid defense2, can lead down the slippery slope to hate speech laws and repression of #TrueSpeech. Denying that the Nazi holocaust killed 6 million Jews is a felony3 in many countries. “Scholars have pointed out that countries that specifically ban Holocaust denial generally have legal systems that limit speech in other ways, such as banning “hate speech“.”[Laws against Holocaust denial|Wikipedia]
Disclaimer: I do NOT deny the Holocaust, I am not a historian.
Note: European internet companies such as Swiss protonmail 4 can be forced to turn over your information to authorities when accused of holocaust denial, and probably for hate speech. Their privacy guarantees are misleading.
On April 10, 2000, a Swiss court sentenced 79-year-old publicist and retired teacher Gaston-Armand Amaudruz to one year in prison for “denying” the existence of homicidal gas chambers in World War II German concentration camps. […]
“We also don’t allow any content that encourages hatred of another person or group of people based on their membership in a protected group”
That interview was one of fourteen videos that YouTube banned from the E. Michael Jones channel on YouTube in June. As with other thirteen, the only explanation YouTube gave was that the video violated its rules concerning hate speech, I.e., “We also don’t allow any content that encourages hatred of another person or group of people based on their membership in a protected group.” YouTube’s notice did not identify the offending hate speech or the “protected group.” Source
Technology opened a loop hole in the iron clad media gag order that blocks #TrueSpeech
REPORTS ON CRIMES When reporting crimes, it is not permissible to refer to the suspect‘s religious, ethnic or other minority membership […] such references could stir up prejudices against minorities. [GUIDELINE 12.1. by the German Press Council],[obeyed USA, world wide, generalized to Forbidden to mention negative facts about “minorities”, to avoid stirring up prejudices ]
Hate speech laws close a loop hole created by the internet revolution. Unexpectedly, the internet and social medias gave the ordinary citizen the power to influence the general public and inform with #TrueSpeech about issues the the old media had conspired to repress. The information monopoly of the old media was broken. And so was the air tight gag order of PresseKodex12, that makes #TrueSpeech not permissible
In a note emailed to Google employees on Monday, Pichai said employees have a right to express themselves but ‘to suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.‘ GOOGLE CEO SUNDAR PICHAI’S NOTE TO EMPLOYEES [Read more: Daily Mail]
By Royal decree, like the medieval pope, Pichai decided which scientific facts may be discussed, and which not. Googles CEO decided that sex differences or race differences are offensive and thus must not be mentioned.
In the past, Google profited from hiring only the Best and Brightest and most Motivated.
This has been a very difficult time. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.
First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
Freedom of speech and terror prevention take a back stage compared to the unalienable PC right of Muslims not to be suspected of crimes or racially profiled. 89 people were killed in his concert before his very eyes, but he is not allowed to voice theories suspicious of Muslims?
Two French music festivals cancel Eagles Of Death Metal shows following singer’s comments that ‘Muslims were celebrating in the streets’ during the Bataclan massacre
Musicians that witnessed and survived the killing of 89 people by Muslim terror made a personal statement, free speech and quite likely a factually true statement. In reprisal, two of their concerts were cancelled.
Image: Moments from terror: Eagles Of Death Metal perform on stage before ISIS gunmen stormed the building
Inverting the old adage "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me", political correctness considers non-violent words a more serious offense. Protected minorities, on the other hand, get away with #KillAllWhiteMen.
Eagles of Death Metal were onstage when ISIS gunmen murdered 89 people
Frontman Jesse Hughes blamed a Muslim ‘conspiracy’ for the terror attack
Said Muslims ‘celebrated in the street’ and security guards were ‘in’ on it
Bataclan Theatre and music festivals have fiercely condemned his claims
Two French music festivals have cancelled Eagles of Death Metal’s concerts following allegations by the band’s frontman of a Muslim ‘conspiracy’ during the Paris attacks.
PC people spite "deviants", even at their own financial loss. Political correctness feels in the right to economically ruin non-minority people for free speech. Even more, PC prevents valid opinion and eyewitness testimony to shed light on a crime. PC is a hindrance to terror prevention.
Moderate Muslim and PC activism against Jihadists?
When will Muslim moderates, instead, vehemently support law enforcement’s fight against Muslim extremists? When will human rights and political correctness become concerned about victims of violence, instead of worrying about offending the offenders?
No need to refute if Hate Speech laws can silence discourse!
A protected group (Jews) demand hate speech laws, to see an even more protected group (Muslims) turn these free speech restraints against them. Under Political Correctness, Free speech has become a tragedy? Political and Scientific discourse can be silenced in the name of the PC religion‘s dogma of equality. The topic must not be mentioned, it can not be discussed. Intelligent logical argument does not need to be refuted, it can be silenced.
Black French Comedian faces 7 year prison term for comments about Paris attacks , Famous 1960ies movie bombshell Brigitte Bardot is facing her 5th hate speech conviction for saying “I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country.” 
A row erupted on Monday between French Jewish and Muslim community leaders after the head of France’s Jewish community blamed young Muslims for “all violence today” in a radio interview.
Hate speech laws started with the good intention to prevent inciting violence: "Kill Blacks, gays, …..". Since then they went down a slippery slope, where a harmlessly uttered private opinion can ruin careers
Sadly, "privileged whites" heaping bananas on a black soccer player’s car is a much worse crime then "repressed Blacks expressing justified anger" throwing cobble stones or Molotov cocktails onto police and burning down neighborhoods of London, Paris, or Los Angeles.
"Underprivileged groups" have the privilege to use violence with impunity. "Privileged White heterosexuals" have no free speech rights and get imprisoned for non-violent speech. Our legal system is back to the middle ages. Of course, academic researchers like J. Philippe Rushton or Arthur Jensen also get threatened with impunity, and the New Black Panther party can publicly threaten the life innocent "white" Hispanic George Zimmerman.
A former local election candidate for the far-right Front National (FN) in France has been sentenced to nine months in prison for comparing the country’s justice minister, who is black, to an ape.
Anne-Sophie Leclere provoked a storm last year when she compared Christiane Taubira to an ape on French television and posted a photomontage on Facebook that showed the justice minister, who is from French Guiana, alongside a baby chimpanzee. The caption under the baby ape said "At 18 months", and the one below Taubira’s photograph read "Now".
Leclere was an FN candidate in Rethel, in the eastern Ardennes region, for the 2014 local elections, but the FN soon dropped her and went on to do well in the March polls.
On Tuesday, a court in Cayenne, French Guiana’s capital, sentenced her to nine months in jail, banned her from standing for election for five years, and imposed a €50,000 (£39,500) fine. French Guiana is an overseas département of France and is inside the European Union.
French Guiana in South America is part of the European Union? Amazing. And a court in South America censors speech in Europe. Shocking. And they can not find a lawyer in South America who would defend her? Appalling!
It also handed the FN a €30,000 fine, putting an end to a case brought by French Guiana’s Walwari political party, founded by Taubira.
The court went well beyond the demands of prosecutors, who had asked for a four-month jail sentence and a €5,000 fine.
A political statement by South American judge who enjoys his power over European politics. Shocking
PC demands tolerance towards all "minorities" but is inherently intolerant towards the majority.
The limits between socially acceptable and legally allowed freedom of speech are unclear. S/he whose expression of opinion treads into these realms, need not fear legal sanctions but can count on social sanctions.
This includes everything from moral condemnation and social ostracism to libel, personal defamation, ridicule of his person, slander and bullying. Because of the perceived breaking of taboos, which consist of speech outside the social consensus, many critics and especially their followers perceive no need to seriously deal with the contents of the criticized statement or to even make an effort to mentally absorb and understand the content [of this taboo speech].
Thus, tolerance turns into intolerance: […] who deems marriage a matter between a man and a woman is blamed for discrimination and homophobia. Who sets forth the Catholic position on homosexuality, is marginalized in talk shows. 23 The calls for tolerance thus easily turn into intolerance towards those [dissenters] who indeed tolerate PC opinion, but do not consider such it as morally equal.