Bishop Richard Williamson appeal begins before The ‘Thought Police’ on his ‘Thoughts/Question’ of the Holocaust

If said interview given by SVT in Sweden, wouldn’t they be liable for said ‘thought crime/question’ as well as the German station or any other Syndicate station that aired the interview given in Sweden where Holocaust Denial is a crime?

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, a thoughtcrime is an illegal type of thought. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labelling disapproved thought as thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, “crimethink“.[1]more — The attorney for a British bishop convicted in Germany of denying the Holocaust says he was duped into his comments by a Swedish TV station. Attorney Benjamin Weiler said Monday as the appeal of Bishop Richard Williamson opened that his client was asked “leading questions” by the Swedish station SVT. Williamson, who was not present in court, was convicted last year of incitement for saying in the interview recorded in Germany that he didn’t believe Jews were gassed during World War II. The bishop was fined euro10,000 ($14,500) for his comments. In English criminal law, incitement was an anticipatory common law offence and was the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime. It was abolished on 1 October 2008[1] when Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 came into force, replacing it with three new statutoryoffences of encouraging or assisting crime.[2] The common law is now only relevant to offences committed before that date. Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[1][2] In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. There is an international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law, and that such prohibitions override or are irrelevant to guarantees of freedom of expression. The United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law hate speech regulation is incompatible with free speech.[8]

The German news agency DAPD reported Williamson’s defense team also argued he did not think the comments would be seen in Germany, where Holocaust denial is a crime.more