[tgs]

I had to read that a few times to understand that's precisely what she meant.

http://www.mfs-theothernews.com/2012...recognise.html
From news article:

Hillary Clinton US not to recognise Armenian Genocide:"Clinton said the administration was wary of compromising free speech".(TZ).Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu thanked his American counterpart, Hillary Clinton, on Saturday for her remarks on France's controversial genocide bill.Clinton was asked on Thursday why the United States has not matched a move by French lawmakers to criminalize denial that the killing of Armenians during World War I was genocide. Clinton said the administration was wary of compromising free speech. She said the issue was best left to scholars.

[Ifroham4]

There are two issues here: to recognise the 1915 murders of the Armenians as genocide and to criminalize denial of it. While the first one should really be based on the objective facts of history and supporting evidence, the second one is typical European idiotism when they go from despicable atrocities to some weird form of obligatory redemption nation-wide. Perhaps in countries at the core of these horrible events such as Germany, Austria or Latvia and others who were complicit (in case of the Holocaust) criminalizing denial of it might have some sense and impact on the young generations. With 1915 this bill then would only make sense if passed by Turkey (which won't happen as we know). So why would France try to be hollier than the pope (if not for the sake of the votes of Armenian diaspora)?