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This discussion has been archived.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) 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]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.