4 ms·

|Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Short of making a call to violence, I

|Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Short of making a call to violence, I will never hear from an authority about anything I say or post online. The same can't be said for much of Europe. In fact, didn't the EU courts just rule that criticism of Mohamed should be banned?

ben_w 8y ago
> In fact, didn't the EU courts just rule that criticism of Mohamed should be banned? No. https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/26/q-have-european-judges-just-banned-defamation-of-the-prophet-muhammad-a-no https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/26/q-have-e...
- hopler 8y ago
  Per the article, the EU court ruled that EU nations are individually permitted to ban criticism of Mohammed, as long as the criticism is ruled less valuable than the feelings of the people who dislike the criticism. It's legal to call Hitler a murderer in Austria, but not to call Mohammed child molester.
- wbxrs 8y ago
  The truth of the matter is that this woman said Mohammed was a paedophile for fucking a 9 year old (which is even correct according to the Quran). She was convicted in Austria for blasphemy. The EU said the conviction was correct. This should be terrifying to anybody who supports free speech. The ECHR is supposed to be a human rights court but they are allowing member states to convict people for blasphemy.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    As much as the Austrian conviction and this whole discussion about blasphemy and "religious freedom" makes me P.O., she was convicted of paying 500 Euros.
    - r_smart 8y ago
      So her speech isn't free as in liberty or as in beer, eh?
      - raverbashing 8y ago
        So, like Java? I'd say the case was good to highlight the absurdity of it. And sometimes speaking your mind has a cost.
        r_smart 8y ago
        Let's not conflate fundamental rights with programming languages. |And sometimes speaking your mind has a cost. Wait, you think this was acceptable? The fine for speaking is outrageous, and it will only get worse if it turns out it's not enough of a deterrent.
        raverbashing 8y ago
        Let's just say there are worse ways of paying it and that speech in this website is limited as well > Let's not conflate fundamental rights with programming languages If you r_smart you should have noticed the jest in this statement
        r_smart 8y ago
        |If you r_smart you should have noticed the jest in this statement It's my name. I make no claims about my intellect :) It didn't read like a joke to me, and rereading it as a joke, it seems like, at best, a quip. I stand by my previous sanctimonious tone. edit: Oh, and lastly, a small curtailment on free speech is the first step to a large one. Why wait until it's illegal to complain?
        wbxrs 8y ago
        That's the point of free speech: the state shouldn't put a cost on speaking your mind.

ben_w 8y ago

> In fact, didn't the EU courts just rule that criticism of Mohamed should be banned? No. https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/26/q-have-european-judges-just-banned-defamation-of-the-prophet-muhammad-a-no https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/26/q-have-e...

hopler 8y ago
Per the article, the EU court ruled that EU nations are individually permitted to ban criticism of Mohammed, as long as the criticism is ruled less valuable than the feelings of the people who dislike the criticism. It's legal to call Hitler a murderer in Austria, but not to call Mohammed child molester.
wbxrs 8y ago
The truth of the matter is that this woman said Mohammed was a paedophile for fucking a 9 year old (which is even correct according to the Quran). She was convicted in Austria for blasphemy. The EU said the conviction was correct. This should be terrifying to anybody who supports free speech. The ECHR is supposed to be a human rights court but they are allowing member states to convict people for blasphemy.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  As much as the Austrian conviction and this whole discussion about blasphemy and "religious freedom" makes me P.O., she was convicted of paying 500 Euros.
  - r_smart 8y ago
    So her speech isn't free as in liberty or as in beer, eh?
    - raverbashing 8y ago
      So, like Java? I'd say the case was good to highlight the absurdity of it. And sometimes speaking your mind has a cost.
      - r_smart 8y ago
        Let's not conflate fundamental rights with programming languages. |And sometimes speaking your mind has a cost. Wait, you think this was acceptable? The fine for speaking is outrageous, and it will only get worse if it turns out it's not enough of a deterrent.
        raverbashing 8y ago
        Let's just say there are worse ways of paying it and that speech in this website is limited as well > Let's not conflate fundamental rights with programming languages If you r_smart you should have noticed the jest in this statement
        r_smart 8y ago
        |If you r_smart you should have noticed the jest in this statement It's my name. I make no claims about my intellect :) It didn't read like a joke to me, and rereading it as a joke, it seems like, at best, a quip. I stand by my previous sanctimonious tone. edit: Oh, and lastly, a small curtailment on free speech is the first step to a large one. Why wait until it's illegal to complain?
      - wbxrs 8y ago
        That's the point of free speech: the state shouldn't put a cost on speaking your mind.