Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.