3 ms·
This is the same entity that has literally ruled that you can be charged with blasphemy for insulting religious figures, so intent to protect citizens is not a
by terminalshort 1y ago
This is the same entity that has literally ruled that you can be charged with blasphemy for insulting religious figures, so intent to protect citizens is not a motive I ascribe to them.
- computer 1y agoWhat entity specifically?
- terminalshort 1y agoThe EU Court of Human Rights upheld a blasphemy conviction for calling Muhammad (who married a 9 year old) a pedophile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v._Austria_(2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v._Austria_(2018)
- gretch 1y agoDang that's a crazy outcome. >Even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression. Although the expression of this opinion is otherwise acceptable, it was packed with "incriminating statements". But the subject of these incriminating statements is 2000 year old mythical figure.
- 1718627440 1y agoBut it IS protecting citizens from blasphemy.
- LostMyWords 1y ago>charged with blasphemy for insulting religious figures Isn't that the exact definition of "blasphemy"[1]? [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
- terminalshort 1y agoIndeed it is. And when you hear that someone has been charged with blasphemy do you think of a modern society or a medieval hellscape?