Slash Boxes

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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.