Defaming Mohammed does not fall under free speech?
The ECHR ruling on “defaming” Mohammed is of course absurd and pathetic. But a few points are getting missed:
Austria and many other European nations have had these de facto blasphemy laws for a long time, and in the vast majority of cases they’re enforced against people allegedly insulting Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular. So this isn’t new and it’s not really about Islam per se. Spain and Italy and Austria and others routinely bring cases against people for likewise saying mean things about the Pope, the Virgin Mary, Jesus, etc.
The ECHR isn’t part of the EU and the UK won’t be leaving it with Brexit. It’s tied to the broader Council of Europe, which includes non-EU members. Most notably Russia, which should tell you how truly useless it is.
This is an odd case for Eurosceptics / “anti-globalists” / nationalists to invoke, since this was an instance of an international institution not overriding a law made and enforced at the nation-state level. Their reasoning was ridiculous and wrong, but the result is one of “respecting national sovereignty” if that’s what you care about.
All that said... thank your insult-able deity of choice that here in the United States both our free speech law and the court tasked with enforcing it aren’t nearly as toothless. The First Amendment continues to be the most protective rule of its kind in the world, by far, even compared to other more-or-less liberal democracies.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Our Founding Fathers were pretty sharp here, when they set up this Republic.
Free speech is a pressure relief valve to allow discussion to short circuit violence; that usually follows law enforced silence!
:)I read the article. Seems obvious, if you are getting it on with a 9 year old, you are paedophile. Seems like there are plenty of sources that strongly implied that happened. It is not that uncommon for these so-called religious types to fuck kids. Religious institutions tend to use their power to control people.
People get angry about ridiculous things. Like if I suggest that Jesus might have been gay. Why is that a big deal? I think the chances are at least 50/50 considering the company he kept. As Jesus was a hardcore jew, he would have been expected to be married before his mid-twenties. So with Jesus and John, who do you think was the giver and who was the taker?
Anyway, are his teachings worth any less because he is gay? Absolutely not. Anyone who is anti-gay clearly cannot call themselves Christian.
If anyone is offended by what I just wrote, feel free to call the ECHR. I like to speak my mind and I have every write to do so. Any authority that thinks they can take that away can go FUCK THEMSELVES.
Muhammad is not a prophet of God.
Now I am a "criminal" in parts of the world for saying that. Yay. Stupid government control freaks.