3 ms·

>you will be mostly ok! But you won't. Mostly OK does not protect you from ruinous lawsuits or investigations. With the way the justice system works on the EU

>you will be mostly ok! But you won't. Mostly OK does not protect you from ruinous lawsuits or investigations. With the way the justice system works on the EU level I would never trust "mostly OK". We had an EU court find that posting factual information about a religion was blasphemy and not protected as freedom of speech as a human right.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v._Austria_(2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v._Austria_(2018)

detaro 6y ago
The ECtHR is not an EU institution. If you want to be angry at someone about that case, be primarily angry at Austria for their law. (Although I'd appreciate it too if the EU states gave themselves an updated set of protections in these areas, without some of the compromises the convention has)
- Mirioron 6y ago
  Why would Austria's law matter? Freedom of speech is either protected as a human right in the EU or it's not. This case shows that the judicial system in the EU thinks it's not protected. If the officials can't even get something like this right, then how are they ever going to get anything else right? Just because they aren't an official EU institution doesn't mean much. It's still largely the same culture and legal traditions running it and every EU country is under it.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Because they were sentenced in Austria, under Austrian law, and the ECtHR can merely check if that violates the convention (which is an agreement by states, which explicitly added a clause allowing local laws to add those restrictions). And given that the convention on human rights includes states like Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, there's some different standard to be expected. (which is why I think the EU should maybe have their own, narrower convention on top of it. Which again is something the states need to do in the end, and Austria could just fix their own laws first if they thought that needed doing)

detaro 6y ago

The ECtHR is not an EU institution. If you want to be angry at someone about that case, be primarily angry at Austria for their law. (Although I'd appreciate it too if the EU states gave themselves an updated set of protections in these areas, without some of the compromises the convention has)

Mirioron 6y ago
Why would Austria's law matter? Freedom of speech is either protected as a human right in the EU or it's not. This case shows that the judicial system in the EU thinks it's not protected. If the officials can't even get something like this right, then how are they ever going to get anything else right? Just because they aren't an official EU institution doesn't mean much. It's still largely the same culture and legal traditions running it and every EU country is under it.
- detaro 6y ago
  Because they were sentenced in Austria, under Austrian law, and the ECtHR can merely check if that violates the convention (which is an agreement by states, which explicitly added a clause allowing local laws to add those restrictions). And given that the convention on human rights includes states like Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, there's some different standard to be expected. (which is why I think the EU should maybe have their own, narrower convention on top of it. Which again is something the states need to do in the end, and Austria could just fix their own laws first if they thought that needed doing)