3 ms·

Quoting tabloids is not going to win you any arguments

• ygkkojr6 8y ago
  Talk about "shooting the messenger". Maybe you'll like this American, left-leaning publication better: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr... Edit, to the guy below: it wasn't invalidated... can you even read? The European court said that the conviction was valid. I'm laughing that the EU says free speech is important and Hungary is violating that right, but there's no free speech in the EU.
  • skrause 8y ago
    The publication doesn't matter because you're directly contradicting yourself. You just wrote in another comment: > Having a corrupt public servant (if this is the case here) does not make a country a "repressive state". And now you seem to argue that other countries look repressive as well by quoting a single conviction that was invalidated by the ECJ.
    • andai 8y ago
      That's the opposite of what happened.
    • cyphar 8y ago
      The EHCR, not the ECJ (the latter of which is related to trade agreements). The EHCR did the opposite of invalidate her conviction -- they upheld the decision of the Austrian court[1]. In other words, they rejected the claim that Austria's anti-blasphemy laws are a violation of human rights (which I disagree with -- though I'm definitely not anti-EU like others in this chain). [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...