#85946: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smrtí nikoho žádná skutečná svoboda ve své podstatě nikd 

 Hledej dál idiote, nebo se nauč počítat, tohle je z roku 2013. :-)

#85955: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smrtí nikoho žádná skutečná svoboda ve své podstatě  

 Jo vy myslíte, jak se mladej Džugašvili domáhal u Evropského soudu pro lidská práva jakésí "náhrady"  - soukromý život - za to, že píší o jeho dědovi, že se podílel na vraždění v Katyni - tak to je fakt velká legrace. 

In the applicant’s case, the newspaper’s publication of the first article had contributed to a historical debate of public importance, concerning Joseph Stalin and his alleged role in the Katyń shootings. The second article concerned the author’s interpretation of the domestic court’s findings and could therefore be seen as a continuation of the same discussion. Furthermore, the Katyń tragedy and the related historical figures’ alleged roles and responsibilities inevitably remained open to public scrutiny and criticism, as they presented a matter of general interest for society. Given that cases such as the present one required the right to respect for private life to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression, the Court reiterated that it was an integral part of freedom of expression, guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention, to seek historical truth.

In conformity with the principles laid down in the Court’s case-law, the national courts had considered that the articles contributed to a factual debate on events of exceptional public interest and importance, had found that Stalin’s historic role called for a high degree of tolerance to public scrutiny and criticism of his personality and actions, and had taken the highly emotional presentation of the opinions outlined within the articles into consideration, finding that they fell within the limits of acceptable criticism.