Lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to three and a half years in prison on charges of inciting hatred for claiming the Holocaust was a lie. Some readers felt the sentence went against her right to freedom of expression.
The following comments reflect the views of DW-WORLD.DE readers. Not all reader comments have been published. DW-WORLD.DE reserves the right to edit for length and appropriateness of content.
It is entirely appropriate for both the lawyer and Zündel to be charged, convicted and sentenced for such behavior. The law about hate crimes is important for the prevention of the adoption of attitudes which might encourage racist attacks. There are limits to free speech and this is a good limit. Just like other free-speech limits, like not calling out "fire" when there is not a fire, this one is appropriate. -- W.J. Arnold, Canada
Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and the freedom to think? Is this the so-called democracy promoted by the EU? If so, one can understand when people turn to alternative forms of government. -- Arden Knapp, United States
How is it "hate" to suggest there is evidence that millions of people were not murdered? That would be good news, not hate. Hate is accusing Germans of being homicidal murderers and denying them a chance to examine the evidence and offer a defence against the charges. If revisionist arguments are wrong they should be subjected to peer review in a public forum, not jail. -- Kurt Bechle, United States
The earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese...no doubt about it. Am I subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment under German law? -- Dexter P. Huntington, United States
I am shocked that in what I always thought to be "liberal" and "open-minded" Europe, anyone could be convicted for voicing an opinion regarding history. Everything else historical is fair game for honest examination, why should this be an exception? Was Gallileo right or wrong to question the official teaching regarding the orbits of the earth and the sun? In the celebrated "Scopes Monkey trial," here in the US, I've always seen John Scopes portrayed as a hero who dared to question the official line. Should he have been tried and imprisoned for doing so? How is this different? People should be either allowed to question everything, or else they should be prohibited from questioning anything. If honest questioning verifies the accepted beliefs, then they'll stand on their own legs. If not, then let them crumble. -- Dominique Amarante, United States