Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14639
    27 Oct '18 16:23
    ... does not fall under freedom of speech.

    Is this a correct decision?

    https://amp.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    27 Oct '18 16:37
    "The applicant's comments "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship," the court said, adding that the statements were not based on facts and were intended to denigrate Islam."

    That's pretty scary. Intending to show a deity isn't worthy of worship isn't protected by free speech? Also, Muhammad having sex with a 9 yr old is rooted in Islamic tradition. So how an what she said not be "based on facts"?

    A serious danger lies in this ruling. Who's to say this ruling can't be used as a precedent to punish criticism against government?
  3. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    27 Oct '18 16:451 edit
    http://www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm

    Nobody worships Muhammad. He’s not a deity.
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    27 Oct '18 16:581 edit
    @athousandyoung said
    http://www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm

    Nobody worships Muhammad. He’s not a deity.
    Hey, you're proving Muhammed's not worthy of worship. that falls outside of free speech.
  5. Garner, NC
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    27886
    27 Oct '18 17:10
    @athousandyoung said
    http://www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm

    Nobody worships Muhammad. He’s not a deity.
    Try going to a predominately Muslim country and criticizing Mohammed. Please include me in your will beforehand.

    You'll fare better to criticize Allah.
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    27 Oct '18 17:59
    @techsouth said
    Try going to a predominately Muslim country and criticizing Mohammed. Please include me in your will beforehand.

    You'll fare better to criticize Allah.
    It is not considered a criticism of Muhammad to say that his barely pubescent wife may have been as young as 9 (or as old as 19) when they first had sex. Nor is it considered a criticism to say that Muhammad should not be worshipped.
  7. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56379
    27 Oct '18 19:28
    @great-king-rat said
    ... does not fall under freedom of speech.

    Is this a correct decision?

    https://amp.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749
    The ECHR ruling does not actually state that it doesn’t fall under the right of free speech.

    What it says is that the Austrian courts decision doesn’t need overturning, because the Austrian courts weighed the matter thoroughly and methodically.

    The ECHR isn’t like the US supreme court. It generally just makes sure proper procedures were followed.
    It also makes sure that the agreed to human rights are upheld.

    In this case they found that the Austrian courts had been diligent in their approach, weighing up free speech and anti-religious hate speech.

    Considering how right-wing / anti-Islam Austria is, I can only imagine the court is correct in assuming the case was handled properly to come to that conclusion.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 Oct '18 19:34
    @shavixmir said
    The ECHR ruling does not actually state that it doesn’t fall under the right of free speech.

    What it says is that the Austrian courts decision doesn’t need overturning, because the Austrian courts weighed the matter thoroughly and methodically.

    The ECHR isn’t like the US supreme court. It generally just makes sure proper procedures were followed.
    It also makes sure t ...[text shortened]... y imagine the court is correct in assuming the case was handled properly to come to that conclusion.
    shav: The ECHR isn’t like the US supreme court.

    No, it's utterly worthless.
  9. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56379
    27 Oct '18 20:36
    @no1marauder said
    shav: The ECHR isn’t like the US supreme court.

    No, it's utterly worthless.
    You obviously refer to the US supreme court, full of politically appointed people, who get a cushy number for life.

    The European court of human rights does not judge evidence, it judges if the evidence was judged properly according to State laws and taking into consideration human rights.

    Nothing wrong with that.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 Oct '18 20:41
    @shavixmir said
    You obviously refer to the US supreme court, full of politically appointed people, who get a cushy number for life.

    The European court of human rights does not judge evidence, it judges if the evidence was judged properly according to State laws and taking into consideration human rights.

    Nothing wrong with that.
    It has a consistent record of utterly failing to protect human rights.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    27 Oct '18 20:45
    @no1marauder said
    It has a consistent record of utterly failing to protect human rights.
    ...unlike the U.S. Supreme Court...
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    28 Oct '18 03:23
    @kazetnagorra said
    ...unlike the U.S. Supreme Court...
    Correct.
  13. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65546
    28 Oct '18 03:532 edits
    @shavixmir said
    The ECHR ruling does not actually state that it doesn’t fall under the right of free speech.

    What it says is that the Austrian courts decision doesn’t need overturning, because the Austrian courts weighed the matter thoroughly and methodically.

    The ECHR isn’t like the US supreme court. It generally just makes sure proper procedures were followed.
    It also makes sure t ...[text shortened]... y imagine the court is correct in assuming the case was handled properly to come to that conclusion.
    I would define your anal incest jokes as hate speech, but would never dream of restricting that speech, it says more about you than me, and it should be in the open for all to see so that you may be judged.

    Edit: Let's not get the idea that all hate is bad. Hate is a natural emotion and what a person hates is as much an indication of that persons philosophy as what they admire and what their ideals are. You have a clear clash with me and what I post here because I make a principled stand for freedom, that is what you hate.
  14. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56379
    28 Oct '18 06:35
    @no1marauder said
    It has a consistent record of utterly failing to protect human rights.
    Let’s hear a few examples then.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    28 Oct '18 13:57
    @shavixmir said
    Let’s hear a few examples then.
    Here's two cases. One in the EU Court:

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/14/employers-can-ban-staff-from-wearing-headscarves-european-court-rules

    One in the SCOTUS:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/01/411213623/supreme-court-rules-for-woman-denied-abercrombie-fitch-job-over-headscarf

    See the difference?

    Don't get me started on the Charlie Gard atrocity where your courts ruled the State can decide a child could be denied life sustaining treatment, even if the State isn't paying for it, over the wishes of the child's parents claiming it was in Charlie's "best interest" to die. The chance of the SCOTUS rendering such a horror is virtually zero.
Back to Top