Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Tuesday November 13 2018, @12:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the Room-101-dept dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
1 (2)
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by isj on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:35PM (61 children)

    by isj (5249) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:35PM (#761265) Homepage

    The linked-to article seemed somewhat biased and with an axe to grind so I took the time to dig out the the source:
    http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188 (Case of E.S vs. Austria) [coe.int]

    Long and technical document, and I haven't read it all yet, but it seems that what the European Court of Human Rights only decided if the Austrian Court had decided according to the Austrian law ("protecting religious peace") and if it violated the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:41PM

      by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:41PM (#761267)

      Shhhh, go with the flow! Freedom of speech is endangered, that's all, full stop. We're in the Dark. Liberators wanted.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:00PM (47 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:00PM (#761278)

      Thank you! The case seems kind of straight forward.

      THE FACTS

      From January 2008 she held several seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam” (Grundlagen des Islams) at the right-wing Freedom Party Education Institute

      At the journal’s request, a preliminary investigation was instituted

      On 12 August 2010 the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft Wien – “the Public Prosecutor”) brought charges against the applicant for inciting hatred (Verhetzung), pursuant to Article 283 of the Criminal Code.
      At the end of the hearing on 15 February 2011, the Regional Court acquitted the applicant in relation to several of the statements originally included....She was however convicted of disparaging religious doctrines (Herabwürdigung religiöser Lehren), pursuant to Article 188 of the Criminal Code concerning three remaining statements. She was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings and a day‑fine of 4 euros (EUR) for a period of 120 days (amounting to EUR 480 in total), which would result in sixty days’ imprisonment in the event of default. The court considered the applicant’s repeated infringement as an aggravating factor,

      The Regional Court further stated that anyone who wished to exercise their rights under Article 10 of the Convention was subject to duties and responsibilities, such as refraining from making statements which hurt others **without reason** and therefore did not contribute to a debate of public interest. A balancing exercise between the rights under Article 9 on the one hand and those under Article 10 on the other needed to be carried out. The court considered that the applicant’s statements were not statements of fact, but derogatory value judgments which exceeded the permissible limits. It held that the applicant had not intended to approach the topic in an objective manner, but had directly aimed to degrade Muhammad. The court stated that child marriages were not the same as paedophilia, and were not only a phenomenon of Islam, but also used to be widespread among the European ruling dynasties.

      THE LAW

      The applicant alleged that her criminal conviction for disparaging religious doctrines had given rise to a violation of Article 10 - Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

      The Court’s assessment

      The Court, in conclusion, finds that in the instant case the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and carefully balanced her 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. They discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus their disparagement, and found that the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages (contrast Aydın Tatlav and Giniewski, both cited above), but amounted to a generalisation without factual basis. Thus, by considering them as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts came to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained elements of incitement to religious intolerance. The Court accepts that they thereby put forward relevant and sufficient reasons and finds that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 indeed corresponded to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

      58. Therefore, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not overstep their – wide – margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting the applicant of disparaging religious doctrines. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

      Wow, so you can't say provocative shit just to stir the pot? Imagine that.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:13PM (39 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:13PM (#761292)

        Wait, so if it is a historical fact that an old man had sex with a girl less than 10 years old centuries ago today it can't be said in public that the person was a pedophile?

        "The court stated that child marriages were not the same as paedophilia, and were not only a phenomenon of Islam"

        But this isn't about the 'marriage'. It is about that fact supported by historical documents that he was a paedophile. He had sex with a girl less than ten years old.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:24PM (29 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:24PM (#761295)

          It also say that Adam was 40 feet tall in the koran. Do you make fun of muslims for that too?

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:43PM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:43PM (#761299)

            There was no 'making fun of muslims' in the GP.

            Speaking of the koran the book itself states that it is a perfect book preserved on tablets in heaven (Surah 85:21-22) so whatever is in it must be true!

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:11PM (10 children)

              by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:11PM (#761308) Journal

              if it is a historical fact that an old man had sex with a girl [it] can't be said in public that the person was a pedophile?

              It also say that Adam was 40 feet tall in the koran. Do you make fun of muslims for that too?

              You are missing the point by quite a distance. The idea is not to make fun of Muslims--the idea is akin to, following your example, it would be forbidden to say that someone recorded to have been 40 feet in height was noted to have been "tall".

              The example in TFA is that it's forbidden to say that someone recorded to have diddled little girls was noted to be "a pedophile". That's what those words mean, respectively.

              Observing that someone was recorded to have been something, whether it's "tall" or "thin" or "a pedophile" or "fat" or "rich" or "poor" or whatever they have been recorded to have been, is just that: observing that something was recorded. It's not "making fun" of anyone to notice things written, not by them, long ago.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:10PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:10PM (#761343)

                The way I read it is that the case was about her to pull an emotional reaction (hate/disgust/violence against Muslims) from her audience by stating that Mohammed was some paedophile, not that she stated some fact (independent of true or false) or opinion.

                • (Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:21PM (4 children)

                  by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:21PM (#761377) Journal

                  A parallel with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the three Abrahamic religions, would be to put down Abraham by talking about "that child killer Abraham and his incestuous family".

                  I can see how that might put someone off, and fair enough. But as a Christian I wouldn't take offense to the content (the tone perhaps), because:

                  • Abraham was working on killing his son in cold blood and was stopped at the last minute (Gen. 22 [biblegateway.com]).
                  • Abraham's nephew Lot impregnated both of his own daughters (Gen. 19:30-36 [biblegateway.com]) after previously offering them sexually to strangers (Gen. 19:4-8 [biblegateway.com]) as a "consolation prize" for a mob wanting to have sex with some visiting angels.

                  So Abraham, and his family, are recorded to have engaged in behavior that would today perhaps be frowned upon; they were just humans. In the same way, the prophet (and recorded pedophile) Muhammad is what he is, a man as are the rest of us, but one who is considered to be a prophet of God by one of the world's major religions. Not everyone agrees, of course, but that doesn't change any of the relevant facts pro nor con.

                  The recent case in Pakistan about many Muslims wishing a woman to die merely because she disagrees with them, I would think, is more of a reason to point out possible problems with Islam as practiced today than Muhammed's personal habits long ago, but to each his or her own.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:04PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:04PM (#761448)

                    So Abraham, and his family, are recorded to have engaged in behavior that would today perhaps be frowned upon; they were just humans. In the same way, the prophet (and recorded pedophile) Muhammad is what he is, a man as are the rest of us, but one who is considered to be a prophet of God by one of the world's major religions. Not everyone agrees, of course, but that doesn't change any of the relevant facts pro nor con.

                    Another Christian here. I wanted to also point out another wrinkle in even daring to discuss this with Muslims. (I have had at least one or two...ummm...awkward conversations about this.) In Islam, a prophet is considered to be morally far above all the rest of us benighted souls. To even question their actions is tantamount to blasphemy. Thus, to their point of view Mohamed is not "just a man", like the rest of us. As you say, this does not change the relevant facts, but it does indicate how difficult it is to discuss the issue with Muslims.

                    The recent case in Pakistan about many Muslims wishing a woman to die merely because she disagrees with them, I would think, is more of a reason to point out possible problems with Islam as practiced today than Muhammed's personal habits long ago, but to each his or her own.

                    Yes. People are being persecuted merely for disagreeing with someone else's religion. This strikes me as being necessary for much more immediate attention today.

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:07PM (2 children)

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:07PM (#761451)

                    Abraham's response to God was not "human" it was being a sheep.

                    A human response to the idea of murdering your own child because some disembodied voice tells you to would "Fuck off, you psycho".

                    Lot also was a monster. His behaviour was not something "that would today perhaps be frowned upon", it would have been an abomination in his time too.

                    God acted worse than both though. Imagine forcing a follower to think he had to murder his own child to prove his loyalty.

                    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:04AM (1 child)

                      by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:04AM (#761576) Journal

                      Yes, and apparently none of the Christians/Jews here want to censor you for speaking this way about important people in their religion.

                      --
                      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
                      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 14 2018, @06:39PM

                        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @06:39PM (#761833)

                        How would any Jews or Christians censor me on this site? They're welcome to debate the issue, but that doesn't sound like censorship.

                        They're also welcome to mod my comments, but that doesn't sound like censorship either.

                        Maybe that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Thanks for not posting A/C by the way.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:56PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:56PM (#761391)

                simply speaking an inconvenient truth is outlawed as hate speech, just as designed.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:53AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:53AM (#761572)

                  Intent matters.

                  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:15AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:15AM (#761609)

                    Nope. Offensive speech should not be banned, even if the intent was to be offensive.

              • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:56PM

                by krishnoid (1156) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:56PM (#761506)

                That's what that word means today. Is the article stating that his acts at the time are being categorized using the current definition of a word? Was there a comparable word at the time, and did it mean the same thing as it does now? Also, is this the current legal, dictionary, or common (or even scientific) definition of the word?

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:15PM (16 children)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:15PM (#761311) Journal

            I was not aware it said that. Yes, people should make fun of muslims for that.

            It seems that the creators of South Park really shouldn't travel to Europe. They've lampooned Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, and others.

            These are well-established historical facts:

            1. Muhammed had sex with a young girl. That makes him a literal paedophile. He wrote in the Koran that Allah said he could do it, which rather means Allah condones paedophilia.

            2. Ancient Greek men had sex with young boys. That makes them literal paedophiles. The boys were called catamites. It was a well-established institution called pederasty.

            3. Ancient Israelites ethnically cleansed Canaan after the Exodus. It is recorded in Deuteronomy (Amorites, the Horims, others). They wrote that Yahweh told them to, which rather means Yahweh condones ethnic cleansing. This is in the Christian Bible also. The book of Genesis also reports that Lot impregnated his daughters.

            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?

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:36PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:36PM (#761322)

              Muhammad probably just saw that people he met had been getting shorter the last few generations (perhaps some nutritional issue?) and extrapolated back to the time of adam. This is the same procedure as used by climate science to predict the earth will suffer a runaway greenhouse effect like venus.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:44PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:44PM (#761327)

              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

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:32PM (#761408)

                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)

                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.

            • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:08PM

              by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:08PM (#761372)

              Did Muhammad really have any sex with people other than Khadija? After all, he had children only from her. Maybe he had fictive marriages with those other women for political reasons, or to provide refuge for them.. As far as gender equality is concerned he was a lot more forward thinking than most Arabs either in middle ages or nowadays.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:19PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:19PM (#761376)

              These are well-established historical facts:

              The only item in that list that is a well-established historical fact (as opposed to just found in some religious text) is the one about the ancient Greek men.

              There, I stated a handful of facts that impugn three major world religions

              No, you didn't. Two of your items don't state established facts, but religious myths that may or may not be based on actual facts. And for the one item that does state established facts: I'm not aware of any world religion that gives special religious significance to ancient Greek men.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:02PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:02PM (#761392)

                the pederasty "of the greeks" was pushed by socrates (or whichever one it was) within his school/cult and was only widespread in that school/cult. it was not appreciated by the rest of the population and was attacked and i think this Head Pederast was either exiled or killed or somethin'. acting like a high percentage of greek men were pederasts is just antiwhite propaganda.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:57AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:57AM (#761675)

                  The parent post is just completely wrong. So inaccurate that only an islamophobic white supremacist could have written it. Stupid white people, and the horses they ride in on, if you get my drift.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:29PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:29PM (#761379)

              Muhammed had sex with a young girl. That makes him a literal paedophile. He wrote in the Koran that Allah said he could do it

              Why do some guys name their junk?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:10PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:10PM (#761397)

                The same way your mama named you "my little boy", "my little plaything" etc

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:29PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:29PM (#761407)

              According to the quoted court statement above, the ruling upheld was against much more inflammatory speech than your fact based neutral presentation. IOW, its not what you're saying but how you say it.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:25PM (2 children)

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:25PM (#761475) Journal

                So now we're convicting people based not on ideas or facts but on a turn of phrase? That's absurd and dangerous and anathema to a free society.

                Honestly, if Muslims don't like people in free societies saying things about their religion that they don't like, they can either A) decide to not give a shit (like the rest of us do when others criticize our religions) or B) stay in their perfect Muslim societies where they're free to stone blasphemers to death or whatever capital punishment they mete out. They do not get to invite themselves to our free societies and then presume that their particular cows are more sacred than anyone else's.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:56AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:56AM (#761588)

                  They do not get to invite themselves to our free societies and then presume that their particular cows are more sacred than anyone else's.

                  May I suggest you thank your lucky stars that Donald Trump is your President then. Only Trump has the guts to call for a Muslim ban and call out this kind of pandering to the whims of what amounts to foreign guests. It's only the Democrats that pray at the alter of multiculturalism and seek to punish anyone who disagrees with their policies of self loathing, self destruction and rejection of free speech rights.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:01AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:01AM (#761677)

                    May I suggest you thank your lucky stars that Donald Trump is your President then. Only Trump has the guts to call for a Muslim ban and call out this kind of pandering to the whims of what amounts to foreign guests

                    Are you saying that your pedophile leader says it's alright to say that their prophet was a pedophile? Trump has no guts, he is just scared from watching Fox News, as are you, evidently. Berlusconi.

            • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:13AM

              by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:13AM (#761578) Journal

              and from the Greeks they learnt sex with boys

              t. Herodotus

              --
              Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 14 2018, @04:20AM (1 child)

              by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @04:20AM (#761593)

              considered the font of the Western tradition

              As long as it isn't Comic Sans...

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 15 2018, @01:43PM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday November 15 2018, @01:43PM (#762149) Journal

                font [merriam-webster.com]:

                2 : SOURCE, FOUNTAIN
                a font of information

                Though, these days I'd say the preferred font of the Western tradition is dingbats. I mean, obviously.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:33PM (6 children)

          by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:33PM (#761319)

          Wait, so if it is a historical fact that an old man had sex with a girl less than 10 years old centuries ago today it can't be said in public that the person was a pedophile?

          My understanding from the record is that he officially married her when she was 6, but that he didn't consummate the marriage until she started menstruating. Still pretty icky, since she was somewhere around age 10 at the time, but not quite as icky as banging a 6-year-old. Nobody else at the time seems to have thought this was unusual or out of line, and the wife in question actually made a big deal about all of this as proof that she was more legitimate than his other wives because she had definitely been a virgin before she was married.

          It's also worth mentioning that however icky all of this is, child marriage is happening among American Christians today [theguardian.com]. This appears to be the result of a literal reading of Deuteronomy 22:28-9: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Of course, they don't actually pay the silver shekels, because that would be inconvenient, but I guess the inconvenience factor isn't enough to not force a child into a situation where the man who raped her once gets to do so as often as he likes. So it's not like Christians can legitimately claim the moral high ground on this one.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:16PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:16PM (#761470)

            Where did Christians come into this? There are atheists in the crowd here you know.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:31PM (1 child)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:31PM (#761482) Journal

            That is also appalling. I have never heard of that, but it is repugnant.

            See, oh Muslims of the world? Someone pointed out that child marriage is happening among American Christians today, and we Christians can say yeah that's gross and still not jihad on anyone.

            That is how it is done by civilized people in free societies. Chew, and digest.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:15AM

              by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:15AM (#761522)

              See, oh Muslims of the world? Someone pointed out that child marriage is happening among American Christians today, and we Christians can say yeah that's gross and still not jihad on anyone.

              I don't think you have to tell them that: As much as you hate folks like ISIS, there are lots of Muslims that hate them far more, which is the reason they've fought them and are on their way to wiping ISIS off the map.

              It is strange, though, how the US government has repeatedly fought on behalf of the Saudis when the Saudis are the government sponsoring more Islam-motivated terrorism than just about anyone else.

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 14 2018, @08:31AM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 14 2018, @08:31AM (#761658) Journal

            It's also worth mentioning that however icky all of this is, child marriage is happening among American Christians today [theguardian.com].

            So if "American Christians" do it, that makes child marriage ok? What exactly is the point of "but group X does it too" (particularly when group X doesn't actually do it)?

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:47PM

              by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:47PM (#761810)

              Some guy once said something about not focusing on the speck in someone else's eye while ignoring the plank in your own eye. Given that a lot of the anti-Muslim hate is coming from conservative Christians, them hating modern Muslims because Mohammed married a child 1400 years ago (as was apparently normal at the time), while at the same time making themselves out to be all holier-than-thou because they're doing the exact thing right now (which is definitely not normal), is more than a bit hypocritical.

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:03AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:03AM (#761679)

            What ever happened to MikeUSA? Did he actually try the fifty shekels thing, and get shot dead?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:42PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:42PM (#761326)

          you miss the point (as did the author of the article).

          The Austrian court argued that marriage (even consumated) to a minor, especially in said historical setting, is not the same as being a paedophile (That might not agree with your definition though). To put this modern moniker on a person living in that time was therefore incorrect, as he probably did not marry her because he wanted to have sex with minors. And there were many hints that she did this with the purpose on giving people a negative impression of the religion, and she did not provide evidence or background to her statements.

          Now, I know many of you would prefer (or think they prefer) absolute free speech, but actually, I am very convinced we are in the minority in most countries. Europe had religious wars many centuries ago and it is no surprise they instated such laws to keep the peace. I think the law did its job her and the ruling was fair (even although I think the law is outdated).

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:43PM (#761714)

            The Austrian court argued that marriage (even consumated) to a minor, especially in said historical setting, is not the same as being a paedophile

            So, what they are saying is that back then people didn't know this was a bad thing to do in that society.

            The leader of the Iranian Revolution in 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, wrote extensively on Islamic Jurisprudence. A two-volume book, which was published originally in Arabic, was called ‘Tahrir al Wasilah’. Translated into Farsi, the book is called “Tahrirolvasyleh.” (read entire text here.) Khomeini also had another treatise on Islamic rules for living, called in English, “The Little Green Book.”
            It is useful to understand what an esteemed Islamic leader such as the Ayatollah teaches his followers.

            A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven. ["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]

            A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Wasilah [wikipedia.org]

            Tahrir al-Wasilah Exegesis of the Means of Salvation or Commentaries on the Liberation of the Intercession; Tahrir al-Vasileh) is a book by Ayatollah Khomeini as a commentary on a traditional theological text, and as a guide for Shia Muslims.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @07:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @07:21PM (#761421)

        The idea that you can't say something provocative is frightening. Especially when the provocative thing happens to also be fact.

      • (Score: 2) by hellcat on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:25PM (5 children)

        by hellcat (2832) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:25PM (#761474) Homepage

        Good source material. And yes, you can stir the pot.

        But you can't incite hate. That's the law she broke. It has nothing to do with "free" speech.

        Speech has never been totally free. For instance you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

        Similarly,

        Gun control has always existed. Children can't buy them, and you can't waltz into Congress with a shotgun.

        My point is that ALL social norms have boundary layers, it's not all black and white. It's a good thing that an open society discusses these things, openly.

        It's a bad thing to listen to an emotional pundit like Hildebrand and consider his thoughts rationally.

        The entire basis for this episode is based on Prophet Muhammed and Aisha. The Guardian has a nice article about it.

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth [theguardian.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:30AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:30AM (#761557)

          Nice example of whataboutism in that article.
          "Muhammed was a kiddie-diddler"
          "What about King John, he married a 12 year old"

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:33PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:33PM (#761708)

            Context is important.

            On 24 August 1200 King John of England married Isabella of Angoulême in Bordeaux. A year earlier John had managed to get his marriage to Isabel, Countess of Gloucester annulled due to consanguinity.

            His first marriage to Isabel of Gloucester in 1189 had initially been declared illegal by the Archbishop of Canterbury Baldwin of Forde due to the fact that both of them were great grandchildren of King Henry I of England. However they had received a papal dispensation, from Pope Clement III, to remain married so long as they did not have a sexual relationship.

            Isabella of Angoulême is thought to have been 12 years old when she married John, however some commentators think that she may have been as young as 9. Isabella had, before the marriage to John, been betrothed to Hugh IX de Lusignan, but the marriage had not taken place as Isabella had not yet reach the age of consent.

            At the time of the marriage John was finalising details of his marriage to a Portugeuse princess. However, while John's ambassadors were traveling to bring the princess back to Rouen, he hastily married Isabella instead. The marriage was designed to prevent Hugh de Lusignan gaining control of La Marche that would have cut Aquitaine off from Gascony, and Poitou. However, as a result of the marriage King Philip II of France, in 1202, confiscated all of John's properties in France and gave them to John's nephew Arthur, Duke of Brittany. At the Battle of Mirebeau later that year John captured Arthur and 200 other knights.

            This doesn't look like an old leacher marrying a child for the specific purpose of sex. From the historical context, he married the girl to get out of having to marry someone else, and then had his lands stripped from him.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella,_Countess_of_Gloucester [wikipedia.org]

            Isabella, Countess of Gloucester (c. 1173 – 14 October 1217), was an English noblewoman who was married to King John prior to his accession.

            On 29 August 1189, John and Isabella were married at Marlborough Castle in Wiltshire, and John assumed the Earldom of Gloucester in her right.[2][3] Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, declared the marriage null by reason of consanguinity and placed their lands under interdict. The interdict was lifted by Pope Clement III. The Pope granted a dispensation to marry but forbade the couple from having sexual relations.[3]

            Shortly after John acceded to the throne in 1199, and before the end of August, he obtained an annulment of the marriage. The annulment was granted on the grounds of consanguinity, by the bishops of Lisieux, Bayeux, and Avranches, sitting in Normandy.[4] John, however, kept her lands, and Isabella did not contest the annulment.

            It's anyone's guess what actually went on. Kind of a different situation though to moohammymud

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:20AM (#761611)

          But you can't incite hate. That's the law she broke. It has nothing to do with "free" speech.

          It has everything to do with free speech. If you want to censor something, then at least be brave enough to admit you want to do so, rather than hiding behind more comforting terminology like a coward.

          Speech has never been totally free. For instance you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

          The reason given for that is that it creates a clear and imminent danger. Merely inciting hatred does not necessarily do that, and so it does not meet that standard.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 14 2018, @08:34AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 14 2018, @08:34AM (#761660) Journal

          It's a bad thing to listen to an emotional pundit like Hildebrand and consider his thoughts rationally.

          So we should consider emotional pundits irrationally instead? My view is that if you're considering someone's thoughts rationally, then you don't need a law to suppress their speech, even if they are emotional pundits.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:04PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:04PM (#761282)

      More to the point, the defendant claimed that Humammad was a pedophile *without* providing andy contextual details.

      "person X is a pedophile" requires some qualification

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:36PM (#761298)

        They should learn how to search the internet for information. Here is a start.

        Book 008, Number 3309:

                'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

        Sahih Muslim, Book 8, chapter 10, verse 3309-3311

        Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234

        Sunan Nasa'i: Bukhari vol.5 book 58, no.236 p.153 & no. 234 p.152

        Sunan Ibni Majah, Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1877

        Biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishak/Ibn Hisham, translated by A Guillaume, page 792

        AL-TABAR, Hadith IX:131

        https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Responses_to_Apologetics_-_Muhammad_and_Aisha [wikiislam.net]

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:35PM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:35PM (#761485) Journal

        No, it absolutely does not when it is a fact.

        "Ted Bundy was a serial killer." That is a cold, hard fact and stands alone. Nobody is required to give it any context.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:20PM (#761706)

          <sarcasm>Who?
          Is this the guy who founded Bundy Rum? He was a killer? With what? A glass bottle?</sarcasm>

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:27PM

        "person X is a pedophile" requires some qualification

        No, just a bullet between the eyes.

        Word is though, his child bride was a twenty-something widow and declared to be a child over a hundred years later on the grounds of it wouldn't do to have their prophet getting someone's sloppy seconds.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:09PM (6 children)

      by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:09PM (#761307) Journal

      That site is blocked at my office so I can't read it at the moment...but based on the quoted potion in the summary:

      “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.”

      I'd be interested in how exactly they define things like "objects of religious worship." Because as a...let's say "humanist"...I hold the various declarations of human rights (such as the UDHR) in pretty high regard, and this ruling is really hurting my feelings and feels quite malicious to say that people cannot plainly state undisputed facts...

      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by isj on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:18PM (1 child)

        by isj (5249) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:18PM (#761312) Homepage

        The AC reply above quoted a larger and informative portion of the ruling.

        If your employer blocks access to the EU court site(s) then you really need to talk to your network/firewall administrator.

        • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:45PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:45PM (#761363) Journal

          If your employer blocks access to the EU court site(s) then you really need to talk to your network/firewall administrator.

          That's the intended behavior. "This website has been blocked because it resolves to an IP address that is located outside the United States."

          But they let us have unrestricted Facebook access...to the point where there's official training material saying you are allowed to check Facebook from your work computer as long as you're on break (and nobody actually tracks breaks, so people pretty much use it whenever the boss isn't looking over their shoulder)...but nope, you can't access EU government documents. And you can't request to have anything unblocked unless you can provide "legitimate business justification".

          I'm just happy I can still read Soylent...they seem to be blocking a lot of the more well known alternative news sources lately. And when there's big news (elections and such) even CNN gets blocked for the day. But Soylent seems to stay under the radar.

          If I really cared I'd just tether to my phone or proxy though my server at home...but meh, not really worth it.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:40PM (3 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:40PM (#761487) Journal

        I had a friend who was a Sabean witch. He kept a small room as an altar to his god, which was represented by various small gourds. Can those of us who carved pumpkins for Halloween be imprisoned now for hurting the feelings of Sabean witches?

        Those of us who cook pasta and strain it with collanders are desecrating the sacred headwear of the Pastafarians. Can they now have us imprisoned for doing so?

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 1) by Acabatag on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:51AM (2 children)

          by Acabatag (2885) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:51AM (#761532)

          I'd have to ask a pastafarian if they considered that desecration. I would bet they'd say to not worry about it, though.

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by deimtee on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:37AM (1 child)

            by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:37AM (#761561) Journal

            As a Reformed New Orthodox Pastafarian, we are okay with both uses of the Sacred Collander, as long as they are done respectfully, and it is washed between tasks.
            Can't speak speak for the Orthodox Reformed Pastafarians though, those heretics have weird practices. And don't even start me on the One True Pastafarians, bloody hell.

            --
            No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:08AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:08AM (#761680)

              Splitters!!!

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:47PM (7 children)

    by VLM (445) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:47PM (#761269)

    Freedom of speech is dying.

    Only for whites, males, Christians, capitalists, supporters of western civilization, etc.

    There's never been more freedom if you love pedos or hate white people, for example.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:53PM (#761389)

      You reek what you sow.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:19PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:19PM (#761471)

      Time for that ol' dose of reality for VLM!

      Republicans are overwhelmingly the ones found to be pedophiles, cheaters, and criminals. Congrats on electing a self-described sexual assaulter, obvious liar, and very likely criminal to the highest office of the land.

      The more you push the idea that you stand for the moral majority the more people realize you are batshit crazy and racist.

      Thanks gain VLM for outing yourself, more of your comrades here need to understand what you are. Maybe then they'll decide to become citizens again.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:47PM (4 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:47PM (#761488) Journal

        Republicans are overwhelmingly the ones found to be pedophiles, cheaters, and criminals. Congrats on electing a self-described sexual assaulter, obvious liar, and very likely criminal to the highest office of the land.

        Bill Clinton? John Edwards (he was a serious contender)? Also, a huge chunk of the people caught up in #MeToo are famous Democrats.

        Take a breath before posting stuff like you did lest you be hoisted on your own petard.

        It would be wonderful if we could all agree to move past the pretense that (Republicans | Democrats) are more moral than (Republicans | Democrats).

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:08AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:08AM (#761518)

          overwhelmingly

          Not an exclusive word there. Maybe "statistical majority" might have been more palatable to you? Do you even English?

          Take a breath before posting stuff like you did lest you be hoisted on your own petard.

          I'm not a pedophile or misogynist so that isn't something that concerns me. Also I'm an independent so partisan hackery doesn't worry me either. I stand by the fact that Republicans are worse overall. Feel free to compile a list of corrupt nasty politicians and post it sometime and we can crunch the numbers.

          It would be wonderful if we could all agree to move past the pretense that (Republicans | Democrats) are more moral than (Republicans | Democrats).

          Except factual evidence denies your assertion. That claim is simply another salvo in the attempt to cause division and apathy. I'm an independent so it isn't some personal attack for me, and the evidence is already in. "They're all the same" is just a way to get people to give up on voting.

          Your post is just another item in the "probable fake persona shill" column for Phoenix666. Even your username is telling, rebirth of the anti-christ? Even if you are a real person then your tales of woe regarding the Clintons shows you to be rather unstable or personally at best personally biased. Often goes that way, people get burned once and they flip a 180.

          So real or not you're still a quack.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:11AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:11AM (#761681)

            I'm not a pedophile or misogynist

            Suuuure you're not, AC! Do you like gladiator movies, Jimmy? You know how Republicans in Congress save their place in a book? They bend over a page!

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:03PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:03PM (#762154) Journal

            Ah, it's you, AC. The brave, brave AC who swans in, throws a couple of ad hominem molotovs, and then melts back into the shadows.

            Nope, I'm a real person. Going to meet with my kids' teachers for parent-teacher conferences today in NYC and everything. The things I have written about, which it is rather flattering you remember, are real experiences I have had. It is lamentable that you have not; perhaps you have lived too sheltered a life. Then again, we'd never really know since you're too timid to even make up a moniker to post them under.

            It's also rather ironic, again, that you bang on about facts when you assert, contrary to them, that Phoenix666 is a "fake persona shill" despite my having submitted more stories [soylentnews.org] under that handle than anyone else.

            I will grant you, though, that in that you are at least consistent: facts confound you. Reality over-challenges you.

            Shrink back into your safe space and weep that you lack the courage to go out and live life, that others manfully stride into the light of day when you cannot even imagine that anything is real, and scornfully discount anyone who says otherwise.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:37AM

          by crafoo (6639) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:37AM (#761562)

          Good god thank you. The entire Democrat | Republican thing is such an obvious divide and conquer tactic. We are just about at the point that we can't discuss facts and policy anymore. I can only conclude that this is by design.

  • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:23PM (5 children)

    by Entropy (4228) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:23PM (#761294)

    So paedophile is OK if speaking against it would hurt paedophile-follower feelings then? Because screwing a six year old is just fine, right?

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:02PM (4 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:02PM (#761304) Homepage Journal

      To be fair, he married her at six, but didn't bone her til she was nine. Still, no matter how you look at it, she was not sexually mature when he started fucking her. The child lay there, wondering "WTF is this all about, anyway?" And he did not give the smallest damn whether he caused any discomfort, or even injured her. His own dick took paramount importance.

      --
      "no more than 8 bullets in a round" - Joe Biden
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:45PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:45PM (#761331)

        And that's if you discount "thighing". Look it up. But be prepared to be disgusted by what men of that religion have done to young girls.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:38PM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:38PM (#761357) Homepage Journal

          They will use infants in the same manner. If it has a pulse, it's good enough to use.

          --
          "no more than 8 bullets in a round" - Joe Biden
          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:49PM (1 child)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:49PM (#761489) Journal

            I have read in China men use geese.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:13AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:13AM (#761682)

              Sows, mostly, for Runaway. What were we talking about, again?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by brkpt on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:05PM (12 children)

    by brkpt (1214) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:05PM (#761306)

    So the main issue was that she called Muhammed a paedophile which is defined as having a primary sexual interest in prepubescent children, when in fact he was married to older women as well and stayed married to the child long past her puberty. The way in which she made the relevant statements was deemed derogatory. I wonder if there is a legal way to point out that Muhammed had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old according to scripture or whether any such statement would be seen as an insult.

    I wish we were free to criticise anything using any words we deem appropriate, no matter whether it offends others.

    Also, I can't believe my first post is about the lack of free speech in my hometown.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:54PM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:54PM (#761337)

      I think you understand correctly.

      You can make that statement, but not if the purpose is to insult people (which is why, also in Europe, you an find many books about the live of Muhammad). Of course when exactly you insult people is hard to determine. It helps however when you don't make the stupid interjecting comments that the woman was making during her lecture. Honestly, everybody with a brain knows what the purpose of the whole thing was.

      The courts walk a thin line here in order to do justice to a law that has the express purpose of keeping religious peace. After the religious wars in the 16-17th century, this thinking is ingrained in the legal system of several European countries and is seen as more important than allowing you to say everything you want to say.

      I sort of agree with your wish, but be aware that it has far more potential for causing violence. I do not think most societies are ready for it.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:13PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:13PM (#761344)

        I sort of agree with your wish, but be aware that it has far more potential for causing violence. I do not think most societies are ready for it.

        That's absolutely absurd. Free speech wouldn't be causing the violence in this case; the people offended by the speech would be. In order to claim that it's the 'offensive' speech that causes the violence, one has to completely ignore the concept of personal responsibility. After all, if you hear something offensive, it is entirely on you if you choose to commit violence in response to it.

        If someone commits violence in response to speech they found offensive, they should be jailed for violating someone else's rights. We should never choose to ban certain speech just because some people are barbarians. If they're not ready for a free society, then they don't get to live in a free society.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:52PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:52PM (#761415)

          That's OK, as established in more than one Youtube video there's such a thing as offensive walking through a Muslim neighborhood in many parts of the western world.

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:05PM (#761450)

            That's OK, as established in more than one Youtube video there's such a thing as offensive walking through a Muslim neighborhood in many parts of the western world.

            Well, a woman walking outside without wearing a burka is practically a crime against humanity.

        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:53PM (2 children)

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:53PM (#761490)

          If you have to claim "free speech" as justification for what you are saying, then perhaps what you are saying has no other merit.

          • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:42AM

            by crafoo (6639) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:42AM (#761566)

            Well then, debate the person on the merits of their statement instead of telling them they are not allowed to speak. Free speech is a basic human right. Not being offended or insulted is NOT a basic human right. Either be prepared to defend your beliefs and debate those you find reprehensible or make way for those that are better prepared. If no one has a real, persuasive argument against what you are hearing.. Well maybe it's a difficult and painful thing, but maybe it is also true. The truth is like that sometimes.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:23AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:23AM (#761612)

            What the hell are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the comment you replied to?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:19PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:19PM (#761495)

          That's absolutely absurd. Free speech wouldn't be causing the violence in this case; the people offended by the speech would be.

          That's asinine. That's like taking a chainsaw to the base of a tree, and then claiming that it wasn't you that downed the tree, it was gravity.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:29AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:29AM (#761616)

            Speech cannot magically force someone to physically assault someone else. If you hear something offensive, you can choose how to respond to it. If you respond with physical violence, then that is entirely on you. That was the point.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:44PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:44PM (#761502)

          You probably do not have kids.

          Polarization is real. Actions have consequences and the the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

          It does not matter who is "right" here, if I call someone ugly because this someone IS ugly, I can still expect a slap in the face.

          There is nothing absurd about that. Its how the world works.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:27AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:27AM (#761613)

            You probably do not have kids.

            Irrelevant. In fact, it's a complete non sequitur.

            Actions have consequences

            Yeah, like physically assaulting someone because you were offended by their speech.

            It does not matter who is "right" here, if I call someone ugly because this someone IS ugly, I can still expect a slap in the face.

            And the one who physically assaulted you can expect to go to jail, which is exactly what should happen.

            There is nothing absurd about that. Its how the world works.

            It's absurd and barbaric. If that's how the world works, then you need to get to changing it instead of defending the status quo. Instead, you, in all your authoritarian wisdom, decide to support restrictions on speech that some deem offensive because some people could respond to the speech with violence.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:12PM (#761398)

      if you let a handful of priests in black robes quell your speech you deserve to be a slave. why don't you go kill that motherfucker in front of his family while they are eating their fancy supper like aristocracy?

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:15PM (#761373)

    Note that the ECHR is not an EU institution.

    It does not get to impose its rulings upon states; they can be ignored.

    So it is hardly a nail in the coffin for free speech in EU (or any other European) States.

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Sulla on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:17PM (4 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:17PM (#761402) Journal

    Europe appears to be having some trouble dealing with its want to protect and uphold the ability of women to consent and also allow some of the migrants to feel welcomed in their country. Between Sweden, Germany, and France there are troves of articles on this. France had a pretty well known case regarding a migrant doing an 11 year old and claiming it was consensual because she didn't tell him no in Arabic. In the states we have issues because the police told some women to wear more cloths to avoid the bad men out there and the response was the slut walk. At the same time a 10 year old boy got raped in Sweden for dressing "provocatively" by a migrant and the consensus seemed to be that he should have been wearing more than his swimming suit in the pool.

    We in the west have come to accept the problems with the Christians, we need to be just as critical of Islam. The west seems to fall into the trap of hating itself so anything that comes from the west is inherently bad, the west needs to realize that other places have bad stuff too.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:13AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:13AM (#761521)

      Nah, it isn't about hating ourselves it is about not wanting bigotry to govern our nation.

      You prejudiced jackasses always point to problems that occur all over and then apply the labels to entire populations. THAT is the problem. No one is saying Muslim immigrants are all pure hearted and shouldn't be punished according to Western laws. No one that isn't insane anyway.

      I know it is a nuanced topic that requires you to use your brain, but too bad. That is just how most human topics are, either use the old noodle and react properly or use the old feelz and probably react like an jerk.

      • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 14 2018, @01:48AM (1 child)

        by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @01:48AM (#761542) Journal

        You prejudiced jackasses always point to problems that occur all within certain populations and then apply the labels to that entire population

        ftfy

        It wouldn't be as big a problem if this were occurring all over. The west has been getting far better in recent decades in regards to its treatment of women, and now in places taking influxes of refugees crime is once again on the rise.

        I don't want my community to be overrun by a large amount of people that lack a high school education and follow a backwards religion, I don't care of they are from the middle east or if they are white mobile home people. When you bring in people who cannot and will not conform to your culture you will have massive issues, especially when their beliefs are so fundamentally different from the host culture.

        Fortunately here in the US we mostly get people from SE Asia or Central/South America who are pretty compatible with us, but Buddhism and Catholicism aren't too problematic. The Hmong I worked with in Alaska never caused any problems, and with the exception of a few individuals I have never had any issue with my Mexican neighbors.

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:18AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:18AM (#761685)

          I don't want my community to be overrun by a large amount of people that lack a high school education and follow a backwards religion,

          Yeah! No more Italian immigrants! America for Americans! (No Irish, or Polacks, either! And no damn German draft-dodgers named Drumpf!!!)

    • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:47AM

      by crafoo (6639) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:47AM (#761570)

      If you import 10s of thousands of fighting age males from a violent and regressive culture, who refuse to integrate, who instead push their own laws and beliefs, and who victimize your native population. You are going to have a bad time. Violence in Europe is inevitable at this point.

  • (Score: 2, Redundant) by darkfeline on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:38PM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:38PM (#761438) Homepage

    Oh, what irony, that they are sentencing this woman with "a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance". Their own "spirit of tolerance" for technically correct facts seems a bit lacking.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
1 (2)