3 ms·
Offensive for who? Let's try to avoid double-standards here. Mohammed images were offensive for many people in the world as well, but West protected it. So if t
by kushti 11y ago
Offensive for who? Let's try to avoid double-standards here. Mohammed images were offensive for many people in the world as well, but West protected it. So if the images were okay, this one should be protected in the same way.
- DanBC 11y agoTo try to expand this a bit more, because Americans don't always understand Europe's limited version of freedom of speech. In some EU countries holocaust denial is banned. Or anti-semitism is banned under race discrimination hate speech law. Or blasphemy[1] is banned. But that leaves a gap for hate speech against Muslims - they're not a racial group and they're not Christian, so there was nothing preventing for example the Mohammed cartoons. So when Muslims protest the cartoons often they're not asking for much, they're just asking for something similar to what Jews and Christians have, or they're asking for the protections that Jews and Christians have to be relaxed. In the context of the EU where freedom of speech is already limited that claim is not bizarre or out of place. Personally I'd want countries to remove some of the laws (eg, the blasphemy laws got dropped in England) rather than adding nebulous anti-Muslim hate speech to the law. [1] EG, "Life of Brian" was banned from Glasgow cinemas for years because blasphemy; the comedian Stewart Lee went through a very expensive legal case for "Jerry Springer the Opera".
- poloniculmov 11y agoMost european countries don't have anti-blasphemy laws anymore.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kushti 11y agoDoes Brendan Eich case represent American unlimited version of freedom of speech?
- dogma1138 11y agoI think you are confusing most of Europe with the UK. Most of Europe has freedom of speech which goes far beyond what is offered in the UK. The only country where Holocaust denying is out right banned is Germany beyond that only France has a law that specifically protects against antisemitism. And sorry but Muslims have way way more "freedom" as far as saying and doing shit goes, you virtually cannot criticize immigrants or Muslims in the current political climate in most European countries until a situation boils over and blows up into public rage. People especially in the public sector are so afraid from being marked as racists that they try to cover up pretty much every possible scandal that involves Immigrants/Muslims until it blows up completely. You can have the figures from the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and many other "controversial" organizations freely go about and preach pretty much genocide as long as they substitute Jews with Zionists.
- pfg 11y ago> The only country where Holocaust denying is out right banned is Germany beyond that only France has a law that specifically protects against antisemitism. It's actually 14 European nations according to Wikipedia. Some have more generalized genocide-denial-laws.
- dogma1138 11y agoAren't those under the wide banner of European Union Framework Decision for Combating Racism and Xenophobia? It seems that the only prosecutions regarding it are pretty much exclusively related to France and Germany/Austria. I do find these laws silly tho genocide denial should not be criminalized it only gives it legitimacy and vigor.