I think this falls under the heading "De Facto becomes De Jure." If this was the US, would the ruling have been the same?

Link (FOX News)

The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.”

The court’s decision comes after it rejected an Austrian woman’s claim that her previous conviction for calling Muhammad a pedophile, due to his marriage to a 6-year-old girl, violated her freedom of speech.

The ECHR ruled Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman, in her late 40s and identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.”

According to Islamic tradition, the marriage between Muhammad and a 6-year-old girl was consummated when she was 9 years old and he was about 50.

The Austrian woman stated in her seminars that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a 6-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”

A Vienna court convicted her in 2011 of disparaging religious doctrines, ordering her to pay a $547 fine, plus legal costs. The ruling was later upheld by an Austrian appeals court.

The woman argued her comments fell within her right of freedom of expression and that religious groups must tolerate criticism. She also argued her comments were intended to contribute to public debate and not designed to defame Muhammad.

The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

The court also said the woman’s comments were not objective, failed to provide historical background and had no intention of promoting public debate.

Circling the bowl...

This is easy to evaluate

- Call Muhammad a false prophet, record results
- Call Christ a false prophet, record results
- Call Moses a false prophet, record results

Compare and contrast.

What laws apply?

No Constitution, no Bill of Rights in Europe.

This may illustrate why ours is so critically important.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
This may illustrate why ours is so critically important.

Absolutely. Every time I think to myself that the BS Media should be reined in due to their huge influence on most people and their stunningly obvious bias, I then remind myself, “Yeah, but ….”

We must never forget that there are strong forces at work that would restrict our rights in a moment if they could.

quote:

I think this falls under the heading "De Facto becomes De Jure." If this was the US, would the ruling have been the same?

No it would be different here.
Over there they are just scared of getting 'blowed up' plus it is illegal to defend yourself pretty much everywhere else.

quote:

The woman, in her late 40s and identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.”

According to Islamic tradition, the marriage between Muhammad and a 6-year-old girl was consummated when she was 9 years old and he was about 50

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
If this was the US, would the ruling have been the same?

Of course not. This 1984 nonsense would never fly here. At least not yet or in the near future. God Bless our Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
I think this falls under the heading "De Facto becomes De Jure." If this was the US, would the ruling have been the same?

Of course not. They don't have a 1st amendment. That decision is allowed under the laws of most European countries. It may not be the wisest policy, but it is theirs.

This is why the USA is the greatest Nation ever founded by men.

quote:

The ECHR ruled Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

that's a new one - protecting feelings. Not rights. Not the right to assemble, speak, express ideas, protect oneself. Now they are protecting feelings.

The European court wouldn't have even HAD to rule on it, if their pedophile-worshipping population hadn't been allowed to reach critical mass.

AND, this is what a great deal of our Leaders want for the United States. Sort of explains why the media is in such a tizzy.

quote:

could...put at risk religious peace

Do none of them find it puzzling that that's the only religious figure for which that's the case?

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:

quote:

could...put at risk religious peace

Do none of them find it puzzling that that's the only religious figure for which that's the case?

No. They remember their history, filled with wars over religious beliefs, back and forth, every combination imaginable. ~1500 years worth, maybe more.

Had she substituted Jesus Christ for Mohammad, would the Vienna court even prosecute her originally in 2011?

Doubtful.

Whatever the motivation, the result is insane. She said nothing that Muslims themselves have not documented and presented as the truth, and I'll be damned if the reputation of someone who's been dead for centuries needs to be absolutely protected on the basis of mere speculation that something bad might possibly occur.

Come to think of it, what in the hell is "religious peace" anyway, and what are the parameters by which the Commission is supposed to determine that it has been broken?

That's crazy.

I need to go ahead and get those Charlie Hedbo covers framed and up on the walls.

I wouldn't be surprised that they rewrite history in order to appease certain individuals.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What laws apply?

No Constitution, no Bill of Rights in Europe.

This may illustrate why ours is so critically important.

And why the Left wants to cut it into pieces.



.