referred to “Zionist Jews” and not Jews in general. Of course, both in the title of the book and in the excerpts read during the proceedings, the term “Jews” without modifer predominates, while the term “Zionist Jews” is also constantly identiied with “Jews”, making it extremely diicult to discern the diference, even if one assumes that there is indeed a diference.49 Furthermore, the Court accepted that this is a historical-scientiic book “based on historical sources and undeniable speciic facts concerning the Jews’ trans-historical pursuit of global dominance … The strong phrasings and the characterizations against the so-called Zionist Jews, found repeatedly in the book, are logically and meaningfully consistent with the style and the content of the book, which is a book of polemic, and are justiied by the defendant author’s exercise of his right to freely express his thoughts”. Thus, we have a paradoxical situation wherein an author explicitly declares in his book that he is a racist and a Nazi. He does not care to (nor could he) hide his political ideology from his readers. Yet the Court gives its own interpretation of the author’s historical views and refuses to classify him as a racist and a Nazi. By adopting the false distinction between Jews and Zionist Jews, the Court, in a lengthy and highly unusual ratio decidendi, constantly refuses to read the actual words and see that the use of the term “Jew” is the dominant one in the book, and that no such distinction is plausible. Besides, the author himself refers en bloc to “Jews”, “Semites” and “Jewishness”, while praising national socialism and Hitler’s practices. Nevertheless, the Court gave its own meaning to the book, ruling that, based solely on the excerpts in question, one might distort and misinterpret the author’s intentions and belie the substance of his work! In other words, the court fully accepted the author’s argumentation, as it found that the Jews’ trans-historical goal is indeed global dominance based on the author’s well-grounded sources and undeniable cited facts. As a result, the author did not ofend Jews on grounds of their racial or national origin. On the contrary, it was the Jews themselves, or at least a part of them, who were linked to dark pursuits, schemes and conspiracies. On similar grounds, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court judged that the appeal court decision was well-reasoned and conirmed the acquittal. This Supreme Court decision is emblematic, not only because the Plenary Session handed down its irst case law on the matter, but also because it weighed the right to express a purely racist, and not just “revisionist”, discourse against the others’ protection of their rights from violations through the application of the antiracist law, and decided in favour of the former. Most importantly, though, this decision of the Supreme Court,50 which has a special authority not easily ignored by other courts, must also be seen within the context of the Supreme Court’s other case-law regarding freedom of speech, and 49. 50. 50 | However, cf. the very interesting minority view in this Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court decisions in Greece do not constitute a precedent in the AngloSaxon sense, but they do have an autorité de la chose interprétée. ROSA LUXEMBURG STIFTUNG