In one post, JS says to UP (paparphrase): "Sure, you can have a valid opinion [by the way, what does 'valid' mean, JS?] about the EU plan to ban Holocaust denial," but then says (and this is a direct quote): "What I was advising was that one should consider where the EU is coming from in determining this law. I'm sure that Domer and any other legal experts we have around can tell you that law is anything but black and white (most of the time). There are many cultural and societal elements to the legal system in any nation. These stem from collective histories and national events that affect the population at large and thus the legislatures. Laws are also affected by the political system involved." More or less (probably more), this (the latter quote) is my (Domer's) position, which remains the same as when I first uttered it, and equally valid. I have no problem, as I say, with people using this proposed ban as an abstract or imaginary platform to wax poetic about libertarian theories of speech, but I react quite dyspeptically to the pretense of any expertise, entitlement or authority whatsoever to chime in about how this -- ESPECIALLY THIS -- matter is to be handled by those that actually lived through its horrors and will live with its dark legacy. (If I can be charged with arrogance for voicing this opinion, then what can you be charged with for running willy nilly into the eye of the storm in a dilettante's get-up, not ready for substantive contribution but merely to chime in with reflexive libertarianism.