Current Events > ECHR: defaming Mohammed is not free speech

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.foxnews.com/world/defaming-muhammad-does-not-fall-under-purview-of-free-speech-european-court-rules.amp

The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.

The courts decision comes after it rejected an Austrian womans claim that her previous conviction for calling Muhammad a pedophile, due to his marriage to a 6-year-old girl, violated her freedom of speech.

---

facts = defaming

fucking sjws
---

That's stupid.

Muhammad being important to you shouldn't make it illegal for other people to criticize him.
---

So basicly "we dont want any trouble with other religions, so well ban people from criticizing them."
---

Thats fucking stupid
---

She wasnt wrong tho

That is a pedophile
---

You can't call him that on gfaqs btw unless you want to be modded.

Fyi
---

Europe has turned Muslim, USA the only hope for the future
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

That's stupid.

sums up religion
---

Duncanwii posted...

So basicly "we dont want any trouble with other religions, so well ban people from criticizing them."

This is the right way to handle the situation.
---

RainblowDash posted...

Europe has turned Muslim, USA the only hope for the future

Hardly that.

More just banning it out of fear will cause a rise in hate if allowed, which is a little stupid really. Not going to stop people saying or thinking it and will just stoke the fires of the hate they want to stop.
---

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.
---

Funkydog posted...

RainblowDash posted...

Europe has turned Muslim, USA the only hope for the future

Hardly that.

More just banning it out of fear will cause a rise in hate if allowed, which is a little stupid really. Not going to stop people saying or thinking it and will just stoke the fires of the hate they want to stop.

You're talking to AlexG, alt right poster extraordinare, banned for posting literal child gore to "show the truth" about Muslims
---

free speech is bad
---

Solid Sonic posted...

Duncanwii posted...

So basicly "we dont want any trouble with other religions, so well ban people from criticizing them."

This is the right way to handle the situation.

No it isnt. If anything religions should be criticized more.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

Duncanwii posted...

So basicly "we dont want any trouble with other religions, so well ban people from criticizing them."

This is the right way to handle the situation.

Its not.
---

Duncanwii posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Duncanwii posted...

So basicly "we dont want any trouble with other religions, so well ban people from criticizing them."

This is the right way to handle the situation.

No it isnt. If anything religions should be criticized more.

Or maybe just stop practicing worshiping something that doesn't exist!

#HEWENTTHERE
---

Unimpressed posted...

You're talking to AlexG, alt right poster extraordinare, banned for posting literal child gore to "show the truth" about Muslims

Oh, welp.

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

Eh, I can see that, but with the whole rallying behind Charlie Hebdo we wouldn't actually want to give in to them. They are going to continue their attacks regardless and are just using anything they can as an excuse to try and intimidate the world.
---

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

Should we ban Obama and Clinton from saying anything because it might cause more MAGABomber-like attacks? Or should we punish the people who are actually resorting to violence?
---

Well, marrying a 6 year old girl is pedophilia by modern standards, but Mohammed lived nearly a millennium and a half ago. You really should put it in the cultural context of the day.

But she still shouldn't have been in legal trouble for this.
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Duncanwii posted...

So basicly "we dont want any trouble with other religions, so well ban people from criticizing them."

This is the right way to handle the situation.

Its not.

It's not if your answer to violence is more violence. It is if you just want to make a concession for peaceful coexistence.
---

It shouldnt be illegal to say something just because someone else might be a sack of shit about it.
---

TiamatLover posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

Should we ban Obama and Clinton from saying anything because it might cause more MAGABomber-like attacks? Or should we punish the people who are actually resorting to violence?

What the fuck?
---

Vyrulisse posted...

TiamatLover posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

Should we ban Obama and Clinton from saying anything because it might cause more MAGABomber-like attacks? Or should we punish the people who are actually resorting to violence?

What the fuck?

You're saying "we should ban saying this because people respond with violence". I'm just curious if you apply that same logic to other situations, or if your actual reasoning is something else.
---

TiamatLover posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

TiamatLover posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

Should we ban Obama and Clinton from saying anything because it might cause more MAGABomber-like attacks? Or should we punish the people who are actually resorting to violence?

What the fuck?

You're saying "we should ban saying this because people respond with violence". I'm just curious if you apply that same logic to other situations, or if your actual reasoning is something else.

seems obvious he is just trolling
---

andel posted...

TiamatLover posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

TiamatLover posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

Should we ban Obama and Clinton from saying anything because it might cause more MAGABomber-like attacks? Or should we punish the people who are actually resorting to violence?

What the fuck?

You're saying "we should ban saying this because people respond with violence". I'm just curious if you apply that same logic to other situations, or if your actual reasoning is something else.

seems obvious he is just trolling

I prefer not to dismiss people as "trolls" just because I disagree with them, unless I'm 100% sure it's trolling. And generally the only time I find it safe to assume people are, without a doubt, trolling, is when they claim Tiamat isn't best babe.
---

Religion of peace.
---

I hope they apply this to all religions cause otherwise it comes off as state sponsored endorsement of Islam.

Irregardless posted...

I hope they apply this to all religions cause otherwise it comes off as state sponsored endorsement of Islam.

Applying that kind of protection to any religion is stupid. No religion - or indeed, no idea full stop, religious or otherwise - should be immune to criticism.
---

Im sick of cowards not willing to stand up to radical Islam
---

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

I can see the point in this. I also don't see anything wrong with making fun of Mohammad or really any religious figure

TiamatLover posted...

Irregardless posted...

I hope they apply this to all religions cause otherwise it comes off as state sponsored endorsement of Islam.

Applying that kind of protection to any religion is stupid. No religion - or indeed, no idea full stop, religious or otherwise - should be immune to criticism.

I agree.

Just stating that narrowing this down to one religion sets a much worse precedent than applying it to all religions.

Axiom posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

I can see the point in this. I also don't see anything wrong with making fun of Mohammad or really any religious figure

It's like calling someone's car shit.

You can do it and their reaction would be illegal but if you get swung on for it, sorry for your luck but it wasn't exactly hard to see coming.
---

RainblowDash posted...

Im sick of cowards not willing to stand up to radical Islam

Tell me how you reason with or "stand up" to people willing to die to protect their religion. Killing them? That's been tried for generations.
---

Irregardless posted...

TiamatLover posted...

Irregardless posted...

I hope they apply this to all religions cause otherwise it comes off as state sponsored endorsement of Islam.

Applying that kind of protection to any religion is stupid. No religion - or indeed, no idea full stop, religious or otherwise - should be immune to criticism.

I agree.

Just stating that narrowing this down to one religion sets a much worse precedent than applying it to all religions.

Fair point.
---

Just another day in Europe
---

If this applies to all (established) religions, does that also mean it applies to Scientology?

If someone insults your religion you should be able to defend it.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

If this applies to all (established) religions, does that also mean it applies to Scientology?

If someone insults your religion you should be able to defend it.

Sure - you should be able to defend it through countering the arguments / claims against it. Not through violence or censorship.
---

Booooo!
---

TiamatLover posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

If this applies to all (established) religions, does that also mean it applies to Scientology?

If someone insults your religion you should be able to defend it.

Sure - you should be able to defend it through countering the arguments / claims against it. Not through violence or censorship.

That's what I meant
---

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

Yeah, let's curtail our fundamental right to freedom of speech to appease some backwards savages who are so unable to tolerate their precious religious feelings being hurt that they'll massacre people for it.

Fucking genius.

The second we appease violent authoritarians, we've all lost.

Ex-Kefiroth posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got a group of people that literally kill others in a religious rage if their prophet is "defamed" it just makes sense to stop it.

You aren't gonna convince them to lighten up so you take the only other road available to you. Nothing wrong with this decision.

I'm going to take a hard position against this sentiment and the court's decision.

The right to criticise religion must not be abridged to appease the violent tendencies of certain factions.

Islam and the extremists there require special treatment and self-policing because they absolutely cannot be reasoned with or swayed is my overall point.
---

This is why I think making rules because of fear of violence from one group is stupid.
---

any liberal sites reporting this? i only see right wing sites
---

C_Pain posted...

any liberal sites reporting this? i only see right wing sites

Does WSJ work?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-against-women-who-insulted-islam-1540580231

or newsweek?

https://www.newsweek.com/calling-prophet-muhammad-pedophile-not-protected-free-speech-court-rules-1189031
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Does WSJ work?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-against-women-who-insulted-islam-1540580231

>Newscorp

Yeah no.
---

You guys don't believe this actually happened?
---

this is the first step

next step is to make it illegal to criticize it at all
---