SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As the days go by our hard won freedoms and liberty are slowly being eroded. In Europe a crushing blow has been made to freedom of speech with a European Court of Human Rights upholding a conviction for saying that the person known as Muhammad ten centuries ago was technically a paedophile based on information in historical texts. The statement was made in reference to Muhammad's marriage to a six year old child name called Aisha. The court found that “Presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society.”. In giving its ruling that "Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship" the court has additionally demonstrated a complete misunderstanding as to the religion involved which worships "Allah", a word meaning 'God', not 'Muhammad' who claimed to be a prophet of this god. Freedom of speech is dying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:44PM (1 child)
There, I stated a handful of facts that impugn three major world religions and the culture considered the font of the Western tradition. Anyone can go and read the proof in their texts. Should Europe now imprison me, too, for the evidence those parties gave against themselves?
Only if you don't pay your EUR 4.00 / day fine.
I agree the motives of the person pointing out that the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile are beyond suspect, and maybe they should be convicted of inciting hatred (or whatever), as motives do matter when considering speach (think "yelling fire in a theater" just to watch the people run, vs. "yelling fire in a theater" when the place is actually on fire), but the idea that one cannot point out that he was, factually and by the words of their own religious texts, a pedophile is a bit much to put it mildly. And I say that despising these right-wing groups and all they stand for ... exactly as much as I despise religion, and all it stands for (which is arguably the same thing, as the vast majority of religions are just other kinds of hate groups, by other names. "You're not chosen of God/Faithful/Righteous enough, we shall look down upon you (or worse if you way anything that points out our Emperor wears no clothes)").
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:32PM
That's not even remotely analogous. The argument people use in favor of punishing people for falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing a panic is that it creates imminent danger to others because they can't evaluate the situation quickly enough. Talking badly about a certain group of people, regardless of one's intentions, does not usually result in imminent danger (keyword: imminent) to that group of people. Because of that, the intentions there are irrelevant. If we're going to ban any speech, the imminent lawlessness standard is better. Merely inciting hatred should not be illegal.