3 ms·
She was not convicted after appeal right? She retained her right to free speech, and the Austrian courts should not convict somebody on these counts. Weird that
by deugtniet 8y ago
She was not convicted after appeal right? She retained her right to free speech, and the Austrian courts should not convict somebody on these counts. Weird that you link that.
EDIT: It's the total opposite, I apologize. She was convicted for her speech, but the courts found her speech to disrupt the religious peace, and not freedom of opinion. Turns out disrupting religious peace is illegal in Austria, which is a stupid law.
- XCabbage 8y agoNo, everything you say here is incorrect. The case being described in that article IS the appeal to the ECHR, which upheld her conviction.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- cyphar 8y agoFrom the first line in the article: > The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a woman convicted by an Austrian court of calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not have her freedom of speech rights infringed. Now, I don't particularly like the Daily Mail, but given that you are expressing the exact opposite of the situation described in the article I would expect some sort of argument. It appears you misunderstood the article's title?