Free speech EU style

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d0600e-d852-11e8-8384-bcc5492fef49_story.html

European court rejects Austrian’s case over prophet slur



BERLIN — The European Court of Human Rights says an Austrian woman’s conviction for calling the prophet of Islam a pedophile didn’t breach her freedom of speech.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled Thursday that Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman in her late 40s, identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.” A Vienna court convicted her in 2011 of disparaging religious doctrines, ordering her to pay a 480-euro ($547) fine, plus costs. The ruling was later upheld by an Austrian appeals court.

 

i agree.

 

To what mate ? ha ha ( I dont even understand the post } are you saying the EU was wrong to uphold her conviction ?

 

has anyone ever been convicted ( this century ) for blasphemy ?

 

The I agree, I disagree thing has just been a thing across many threads by some members recently

 

yeah its Irmi so it makes sense !

 

I don't know, maybe I read it wrong. I think she shouldn't be charged.

 

I disagree
(With the court's decision)

 

I think I do too?

 

I disagree with both the lady & with Muhammad......

 

Nasty. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with the lady. It's about acknowledging her right to say it.

 

It's about what I say it's about

 

Protections should be in place for religious people that don't allow them to be persecuted. In the case you mention, it doesn't seem like anyone was hurt. But I feel like a small fine is appropriate to discourage such discourse from becoming normalized commonplace. I see the court saying something to the effect of, "You can't bash somebody's religion, or someone's religious group. We don't allow that."

The above is hard to say, because while I believe wholeheartedly in free speech and not being penalized for speaking your mind, I think that there are boundaries to consider; particularly when religion, social status/caste, gender/sexuality, or ethnicity/nationality are concerned. So, yeah... speak your mind! But if you have a mind to inhibit my freedom of expression or religion I don't want to have to listen.

 

To be clear: my use of the word nasty applied to the decision of the court.
But any way i look at it its primarily about that right of course. Especially when her statement was made in earnest, a sincere assertion and not solely or primarily made to offend or provoke (although i would be for allowing that in most instances as well. An exception would imo be when one bothers a random muslim individual with it on the street/at their doorstep just to rile them up)

 

Oration when considered, can inspire and drive forward change which benefits all however, whilst it may be insightful, when it becomes Incite-full and promote hatred then it must be questioned.
In relation to the case:-
Everyone should have the opportunity to Freedom of speech - it is simply a matter of personal opinion.
- and doesn't make it Right
This isn't about telling others what to think/do, it is moreover a right to express opine
(I'm reminded (on many occasions) of the phrase "Sticks and stones may break one's bones though words will (or should not) never hurt one")

 

To be clear I was just exercising humorous standoffishness

 

No one needs their religious feelings protected. If you have religious feelings you probably believe that whoever you believe in is the almighty creator. You should be a bit past the need for sensitivity. What people say shouldn't concern you because you know who the one true God is, so HA

 

Slippery slope is slippery.

 

Seems to me only if we try to push these issues into one generalized principle/rule, which we then want to apply on specific cases. If we (or the court that represents and upholds our law/principles for us) look into and handle such cases by looking at the details it should not be that slippery or difficult (except of course for the people who get offended by everything and choose to make it everybody elses problem)

 

When in Austria, do as the Austrians do. But I think the notion that anybody has a right not to be offended about anything is inimical to freedom of speech, and not a right I see a need to honor and protect.