link broken
Link finally worked.
I find the fact that a court has held an individual responsible for his opinion, absent any indication of slander, libel, real damage or intent to damage very disconcerting. The wording quoted by the article was very indicative of an attempt to censure simply on the basis of a disagreement with the current government policies. It didn't indicate the usual type of restricted speech such as yelling fire in a crowded theater or incitement to riot.
I agree that this needs to be played out in the courts. I hope that another court would take a dramatically different stance. If not, it seems that merely being in disagreement with a Euro government entity and speaking about it may be a criminal act.
Scary thought indeed. Beware Santa.....
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 03-07-2001).]