Merhaba!
Before going on with this topic, I think few clarifications are necessary.
First, talknig about liberties/rights we should differentiatiate between:
negative liberty/negative rights (defined as the individual`s liberty from being subjected to the authority of others, the area of personal freedom others should refrain interfering with), meaning;he right to life, to liberty, to the security of person (Helvetius says that: "the free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment.....it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale")
and
positive liberty/ positive rights (defined as the freedom of the individual to achieve certian goals), meaning: the right to education, to health care, social security etc
It is all about the ratio between the state and the individual and the relation between individuals and about the state role of preserving the negative liberty of the individuals.

On the other hand, when talking about what I/ you/ he/ she...give value to and respect, I think one should bear in mind that we are living in a multicultural world and before judging/ expressing a personal opinion, one should try to make an exercise of understanding the"other" fist.

As for the permanent "fight" for being right, remember that Socrates himself used to assert: "all I know is that I know nothing".

i think too many people confuse tradition and cultures with religion..they are not the same thing..

I fail to understand what this -13 pages long- fuss is all about .Is it just me, or does the article say that she ACQUITTED.
Anyone can sue anyone ,only the final decision of the court matters.So,some prosecuter may have brought him before justice by misinterpreting this new law , but 301 clearly states that this law cannot be applied when critisism is involved.And they both aquitted.So,where's the problem?
Its amazes me how some of you exagerated it to the point of claiming that noones allowed to critisize governments in Turkey.None of you ever read any turkish paper or watch turkish tv's???Looks like only KeithL does.You would be surprised by the amount and harshness of the critisism governments get here.
Besides,Turkish higher court (yargitay) have decisions, that are binding for all courts btw, in which it states that even if critisim against government members is deregatory or humiliating it cannot be evaluated as criminal act and that politicians have to deal with it.

There are similar laws in MANY other European countries and people DO get sentenced to 3 years prison for expressing their oposing views on holocoust, like the 68 year old historian David Irving.
Yet EU press keeps presenting the 'ordeal of Pamuk ' of having to attend a court meeting and acquitting, as the human rights violation of the century.Although even if he would get convicted ,he would get a 1000$ fine, at worst. (6months to 3 years in prison? Please..even murderers get out in a few years in this country.Sentences for such short periods of time get either postponed untill he comits another crime or at worst he would have to pay a fine.)But im not surprised Eu press prefers to present it that way.

As for catwomen who wrote somewhere in her post:
'The problem some countries have with law 301 is that it's vague and allows the GOVERNMENT to convict for anything they want'
Are we talking about the same country :Turkey??
Turkey is built on the principle of 'güçler ayriligi' where independent COURTS decide whom to convict NOT governments.
Thats why government gets his ass kicked by courts frequently.Especially by higher courts like 'Anayasa Mahkemesi'.

Quoting aenigma x: Quoting KeithL: Its not ironic. Ataturk purposely set it up this way. He made sure that no follower of his could take the powers he set up and lead Turkey the wrong direction. Additionally, this also assured that sympathizers of the Osmans or any other Islamic based government could not lead the country away from its secularism. The military is the protector of the people, not the protector of the politicians. Why do you think that the approval of Turkey's military and general staff is always between 95 and 99%? What other country do you know where the military is so respected by its people? Keith L – you have a strange way of arguing your point. I find increasingly that I am arguing with other members comments’, more than the issue under discussion. You ask “what other country do you know where military is so respected by its people?”. The answer is easy, any “police state”. Fascism is defended by such dedicated and respected forces too! Not a good example! Ataturk did set up the country in this way because he was changing the country radically and rightly needed to protect both his ideals and Turkey. However, I feel it has been allowed to continue for two long. Ataturk was a liberal minded, forward thinking and inventive leader who I am sure would be horrified to find that his country’s policies have remained relatively stagnant since his death (apart from the forced hand of the EU application). One of his 6 main fundamentals? REFORMISM! “Positive science is the torch held aloft by the Turkish people as it progresses on the path of civilisation.”