Utopia Talk / Politics / Europe court sides with muslims vs free

Sam Adams Member	Sat Oct 27 17:22:23 http://www...ee-speech-european-court-rules The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday. Yikes.
Paramount Member	Sat Oct 27 17:49:40 I guess because it can be seen as hate speech or incitement against an ethnic group.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Oct 27 17:59:58 And euros think our government sucks.
Forwyn Member	Sat Oct 27 21:56:15 Seb will defend this.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 27 22:00:57 Seb will defend this.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:10:31 Decision of the Court Article 10 The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures. The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country. The Court reiterated that it has distinguished in its case-law between statements of fact and value judgments. It emphasised that the truth of value judgments was not susceptible to proof. However, a value judgment without any factual basis to support it might be excessive. The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made. The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. 3 The Court held further that 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. Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate. Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:15:34 Decision of the Court Article 10 The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 wentbeyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures. The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country. The Court reiterated that it has distinguished in its case-law between statements of fact and value judgments. It emphasised that the truth of value judgments was not susceptible to proof. However, a value judgment without any factual basis to support it might be excessive. The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made. The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. 3 The Court held further that 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. Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate. Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:21:51 Decision of the Court Article 10 The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures. The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country. The Court reiterated that it has distinguished in its case-law between statements of fact and value judgments. It emphasised that the truth of value judgments was not susceptible to proof. However, a value judgment without any factual basis to support it might be excessive. The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made. The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. 3 The Court held further that 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. Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate. Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 22:22:22 I imagine Britain is glad they got out.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:31:57 Britain has never been part of Austria.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 27 22:33:35 jergul, either you explicitly condemn this ruling immediately and in full, or you will have been deemed to support the suppression of free speech in the name of Islam. Condemn this. Right now.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:33:49 Also, the court is not a EU court (the convention predates the EU) and the UK has codified the convention's human right perspectives in its own laws a long time ago.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 22:33:53 "the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday." I assumed that was the court in Amsterdam or wherever.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:35:26 Ruggy Either you applaud the that the court did not engage in overreach by annulling a States' domestic ruling on the matter back in 2011, or you will have been deemed a Statist Trumptard.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:36:03 Applaud this. Right now.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 27 22:39:59 ROFL. It's a little late for crying about EU overreach bro. In the last month alone, the EU has rejected the right of a national government to set its own budget and to govern its own judiciary, but it's only on this particular issue that jergul starts crying about states' rights? I can say this in all honesty: The person behind the jergul moniker supports the suppression of free speech in the name of Islam. You got lost, bro.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:40:23 In a wider sense, I support proprotionate legal reactions to batshit crazy fake news. I do not believe that lies and distortions should be protected. This is a pragmatic perspective for moving forward in a manner that provides a semblance of hope for civilization survival beyond the medium term.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:45:14 Ruggy, bro Its not an EU court. Its fine that you are a federalist trumptard, but try to keep a grip on things. I don't give a rat's ass that Islam was on point in this case. The woman expressed batshit crazy and was fined for it. Not only appropriate, but the only way forward for the humanist democratic tradition.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:47:55 You lost your way when your supreme court ruled that lies and misrepresentations were protected by one of you constitutional passages.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 27 22:48:26 Hahahahahahahahahahaha 1) Yeah, not buying the federalism bullshit fam. Either condemn the EU's recent actions against Poland, Hungary, and Italy, or we can toss that aspect right out the window. 2) You support the suppression of free speech in the name of Islam. 3) Isn't it like 3 in the morning for you? Go to bed bro.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:48:32 (in addition to granting civil rights to legal entities of course. My God).
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 27 22:49:39 Muhammad is a pedophile rapist. Lock me up, EU scum
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 22:51:18 That SoB Muhammad was a highwayman that made his living high-jacking merchant caravans. He was an ordinary thief.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 22:53:29 He came up with that bastardized archaic demeaning philosophy to control his own gang.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:54:23 Ruggy I am merely pointing out that you have lost your way and become a Federalist Trumptard. I personally do have federalist leanings. That is known. I do not believe that lies, misrepresentations, batshit crazy, and fake news fall should be protected. My position has nothing to do with Islam. Bleating on about that is disingenious (fake news, misrepresentation, batshitcrazy). A fine is a proportionate reaction (mental health screening would be overreach). I would like to move forward with some hope is all. Fair enough that you do not have much of that. Why would you? And its morning.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 22:56:10 Ruggy See it more as a jaywalking level offense. No need to go batshit crazy.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 22:59:18 jergul, what happens if someone says, God Damn it?
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 23:01:02 In a Synogogue? They get shot by a trump supporter.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 23:05:43 So you don't care about fair and equal justice. Got it.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 27 23:05:52 Yeah no. In the last month alone, the EU has -Rejected Hungary's right to set its own policy regarding asylum seekers -Rejected Poland's right to institute reforms of its own judiciary -Rejected Italy's right to set its own budget Absent your condemnation of all of these actions, the federalism argument is dead here. Your explicit rejection of free speech is noted. I don't know where you get the "hope" angle from (been watching Obama speeches lately?), but to be clear, people being allowed to express their opinions and arguments as they wish is a fundamental aspect of any free society. Sad that you disagree. jergul supports the suppression of free speech in the name of Islam.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 27 23:07:03 I'm a Bostonian, I don't know what jaywalking laws are.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 23:11:34 "jergul supports the suppression of free speech in the name of Islam." Fake news, a gross misrepresentation, batshit crazy, a lie. That detract from the fundamental values of any free society. Let me repeat. I have federalist leanings. You are the one who has become a Federalist Trumptard. You have lost your way, bro.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 23:13:39 There is a huge difference between a Federalist and a Nationalist.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 23:14:38 Ruggy used to be all wah wah state rights.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 23:17:10 All Federalists are Nationalists, but not all Nationalists are Federalists.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 27 23:17:53 jergul, we've already established that the federalism argument is dead. We've moved beyond that. The day a state institution gets to determine what a person can or cannot say is the day a society for all intents and purposes is no longer free. This goes against hundreds of years of progress for individual rights and liberties. The authoritarian movements of the 20th century really did ruin Europe. You, as a society, got lost bro.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 23:28:30 Ruggy We have established that you are a flip-flopping Federalist Trumptard. I don't think there is any moving "beyond" that ever really. State institutions get to determine what a person can and cannot say all the time. Test it out. Cry fire in a movie theatre. Insult a police officer. Joke about a bomb on a plane. The fundamental question is if you believe lies, fake news, misrepresentations, and batshit crazy are protected or should be protected. I do not think they should be protected for pragmatic reasons.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 23:35:08 HR Do you believe that the Stolen Valor Act violated the First Ammendment?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 23:42:25 I believe that those who are guilty are stealing the appearance of merit for personal gain. They have no legal or moral right to claim the earned said valor. Uncommon Valor was a Common Virtue. ~Adm. Chester W. Nimitz I guess that is a yes.
jergul large member	Sat Oct 27 23:44:29 No you mean.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 23:44:40 Excuse me, no. It does not violate The 1st Amendment.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sat Oct 27 23:45:04 Sorry.
Asgard Member	Sun Oct 28 00:05:38 Paramount came
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Oct 28 01:06:25 If Mohammed didn't want to be accused of getting hitched with a 6 year old, why did he get hitched with a 6 year old? This is absurd.
Aeros Member	Sun Oct 28 01:17:37 The whole point of freedom of conscience is that you can believe something nobody else does. Freedom of though is not tested when someone mindlessly parrots the social consensus. It is tested when someone defies the consensus. It is in that moment it is revealed whether or not a society is free. This is a fundamental truth a "human rights court" should understand. The U.S. Supreme Court certainly understood it. "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society." United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) America settled this argument a century ago. But apparently it's still an open question in Europe. And this is a problem. Not just for the people of Europe, but for Europe's future as an ally of America. Because there are tiers to our strategic relationships. You have Saudi Arabia tier, where you can be our son of a bitch (and do what we tell you) Or you can be South Korea tier and be our fellow travelers in the fight against tyranny and beyond that we defer to you even if it may be against our immediate interests. The EU has been south Korea tier. But it's becoming clear that Europe no longer shares America's values or international vision. Maybe it never did.
Paramount Member	Sun Oct 28 02:03:16 ”supports the suppression of free speech in the name of Islam.” - Rugian Isn’t the US and UK the strongest defenders of Islam? USA and Britain is allied with the Islamic State, you send them weapons so that they can obliterate civilians and behead people in their consulates even. You have a got president a who has even danced with the Barbarians with a sword in his hand. Rofl. And anyone who is using his or her free speech to criticize your president is being called an enemy, and then your presidents supporters are sending bombs to his critics.
Paramount Member	Sun Oct 28 02:13:23 ” Rugian Member Sat Oct 27 23:05:52 Yeah no. In the last month alone, the EU has -Rejected Hungary's right to set its own policy regarding asylum seekers -Rejected Poland's right to institute reforms of its own judiciary ” I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of things that a State in the US is not allowed to do and if they try to do something then the federal goverment of the US or the courts will them ”no, you must follow the our rules”.
McKobb Member	Sun Oct 28 02:14:40 So if you curse the Pope in the EU you are breaking the law? http://rs2...7a643.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Oct 28 04:14:47 The relevant take away is that the EU will provide no additional protection, but let the staes decide this. States rights, I guess this is good. The ruling is atrocious for other reasons, the relativisation of pedophilia or as they call it ”child marriage” (lol). It’s pedophilia, children cannot marry, certainly not 6 year old children. A linguistic shift here is akin to calling beating your wife to death for cheating, to a ”crime of passion”. ”Objective manner”. I have no idea what this even means, ”objectively” many muslims believe (unapologetically) in accordance with specific Hadiths, that Muhammed consumated a marriage with a 6 year old. We call the pedophilia in Sweden in 2018.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Oct 28 04:22:38 >>The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements<< The real criticism is for Austria, apparently the state is the arbiter of Truth as it relates to religion. You have to say things they believe is objective and neutral according to their definition, or stfu. Hitler.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Oct 28 04:24:53 It isn’t all bad. Ireland just removed their blasphemy laws. Good for Ireland.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: