I'm saying you're concerned about rather bloody trivial inequality compared to the inequality that is being kept in place every day around you. The freedom to say the Holocaust never happened is pretty low on my list of priorities for bettering the world. I'm trying to explain to you *why* these laws are there, and you just keep coming back with very abstract principles of equality and freedom that have little bearing on the situation as it stands and are about as useful as male nipples. Oh no, I can't deny the Holocaust. I fail to see how this is destroying society. Meanwhile, there are plenty of unequal situations that are destroying society. You live in the Netherlands, how about the "rheumatism treatment isn't refundable but curing homosexuality is a refundable treatment". Now there's some fun codified and very odd legal inequality. Priorities! You just keep evading my point. Do you understand or don't you understand why these things were forbidden in the first place? Do you understand why we put collaborators into jail and denied them their civil rights (e.g. voting)? There's a far bigger portion of the electorate that is latently fascist then there are fundamentalist hacks. In equivalent situations, both types of symbols can be equally deadly. However, Europe did not experience the 3th Kalifate but the 3th Reich. Are you clear on the reason this is done yet? Yes, and knowing some people from the AEL they are at times idiots. They're trying to draw false equivalents between laws and would prefer if the Muhammed cartoons were also banned to the Holocaust cartoon being legal. They knew the law, they overstepped it, they got punished. Cry me a river. Preferably next to a monument commemorating certain events that happened in Europe somewhere around the middle of the 20th century. It's an illustration of positive and negative freedoms. Freedom of Speech is an abstract freedom because not everybody's speech is as important, nor can everybody take advantage of it in the same way. In that way, even if you can speak out, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to have any impact. So what's the difference in that situation between having or not having free speech. You think that homeless guy you pass on the street has much use for "freedom of speech"? Let me reiterate for the last time, I'm not here to defend these laws in principle. I'm trying to make you see what the difference is, why they are there and what the difference is between the USA and Europe on that point, namely, the USA doesn't have to worry about it because they don't have that history. If the USA ever gets taken over by a fascist dictatorship that purges a great deal of it's own citizens and afterwards leaves the rights and symbols of said dictatorship and her followers untouched, we'll have a comparable situation and you may get to score a point on this one.