Illegal observation in the Netherlands

[ddt]

Suppressing historical documents? Not in a free country.

Mein Kampf in the original German.

http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-German-Language/dp/0984158456

Is this bit true or not?

And if an American company bought the American rights (to publish in German) before WWII?

As Darat already pointed out, and as you could have read if you had taken the little trouble to read the wiki-page on Mein Kampf, the US and UK rights have been sold before WW2. It's just not clear to me whether this pertains to the rights of the original German text, or to the right to (re)publish the translations. It seems it pertains to the original German text, as that edition you linked to is brand new.

If it weren't for the dispute with Disney ...

Dispute with Disney??? There is no dispute. It's just that Disney is the most fervent lobbyist for extension of copyrights. See Sonny Bono Act.

... would Bavaria try to prohibit it forever? Otherwise what exactly is the point? Am I wrong to think that ddt didn't just make stuff up?

I don't have a magic 8-ball, so I don't know what Bavaria would do if copyright was indefinite. And no, I'm not making stuff up. You might do some more research yourself before you post.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Did I get a few fact wrong during a digression? Looks like it.

Does any of that challenge my original point about freedom of speech?

Is there any possiblity that someone who sees the world through Euro-glasses can understand (let alone agree with) original point about freedom of speech?

At least in an American context, this is not an historically "right-wing" position. That is because an American does not have to have a particular ideological tendency to see how this freedom benefits everybody.

Much of the freedom of expression we have today is because left wingers insisted on US government obedience to the constitution (with right wingers fighting them all the way).

But sometimes the other way around. Do I need a disclaimer? Here goes: I hate Illinois Nazis.

 

[ddt]

Did I get a few fact wrong during a digression? Looks like it.

Does any of that challenge my original point about freedom of speech?

Is there any possiblity that someone who sees the world through Euro-glasses can understand (let alone agree with) original point about freedom of speech?

At least in an American context, this is not an historically "right-wing" position. That is because an American does not have to have a particular ideological tendency to see how this freedom benefits everybody.

Much of the freedom of expression we have today is because left wingers insisted on US government obedience to the constitution (with right wingers fighting them all the way).

But sometimes the other way around. Do I need a disclaimer? Here goes: I hate Illinois Nazis.

I can agree with the latter.

Sure we can have a reasonable debate about freedom of speech. But I'm more than a bit miffed by the hyperbole surrounding these debates. Let's note first of all that freedom of speech, in the US and Europe alike, is curtailed by other rights. You may not divulge state secrets, e.g., you may not out a CIA agent. You may not incite to crime. Most European countries add that you may not incite to hatred, in various gradations - in fact, Holland is one of the more liberal countries in that regard. The margins are really small. This case is mainly so well-known because Wilders already had gotten international fame.

I don't see where the right-left issue comes in, no-one thus far has mentioned it. My impression is that opinions on this issue are mixed within all parties in Holland, with probably the center christian-democrat party as the most restrictive when it comes to freedom of speech. And while the ACLU in the US is often portrayed as "left", they defend communists, neo-nazis or whatever stripe alike in their rights.