The court got this obviously, tragically, very wrong. Her comments were grounded in the historical record, commonly accepted religious tradition, and a dictionary definition of pedophilia. This is...
The court got this obviously, tragically, very wrong.
it found that the woman's comments were not objective
Her comments were grounded in the historical record, commonly accepted religious tradition, and a dictionary definition of pedophilia. This is as objective as any person needs to be.
The applicant's comments "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship"
No one worships Muhammad. Believers in Islam worship Allah.
She also argued they were [...] not designed to defame the Prophet of Islam
Impossible. Defamation is the communication of false statements. You cannot defame anyone with true facts.
She wasn't commenting because she was interested in an academic discussion of theological issues, she was just spreading hate, and incitement of religious hatred is not - and shouldn't be -...
She wasn't commenting because she was interested in an academic discussion of theological issues, she was just spreading hate, and incitement of religious hatred is not - and shouldn't be - protected speech.
Are the only debates permitted in Austria academic debates of theology? Perhaps she wanted to debate the worthiness of Islam as a religion that people dedicate much of their lives to. If she...
Are the only debates permitted in Austria academic debates of theology? Perhaps she wanted to debate the worthiness of Islam as a religion that people dedicate much of their lives to.
If she thinks Islam is a bad idea, and wants to persuade people to stop following it, pointing out Mohammed's child rape seems like a fine path to me. I mean, isn't it a bit odd that such a divine figure, meant to be an example to adherents, is raping a nine year old girl?
Perhaps unicorns do exist and I've just been unlucky to have never seen one. Or perhaps this woman's political and religious affiliations paint a pretty clear picture of her motivations. You are...
Perhaps she wanted to debate the worthiness of Islam as a religion that people dedicate much of their lives to.
Perhaps unicorns do exist and I've just been unlucky to have never seen one. Or perhaps this woman's political and religious affiliations paint a pretty clear picture of her motivations.
pointing out Mohammed's child rape
such a divine figure, meant to be an example to adherents, is raping a nine year old girl
You are expressing opinions not based in fact. The ECHR ruling addresses this pretty clearly:
The Court of Appeal stated that the reason for the applicant’s conviction had not been that the events had purportedly taken place more than a thousand years ago and similar conduct would no longer be tolerable under today’s criminal law and contemporary moral and value concepts, but because the applicant had accused Muhammad of paedophilia by using the plural form “children”, “child sex”, “what do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?” without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty. Moreover, there were no reliable sources for that allegation, as no documentary evidence existed to suggest that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. On the contrary, his first wife had been fifteen years older than him, as could be seen from the documents submitted by the applicant herself. Even if the applicant had had the right to criticise others’ attempts to imitate Muhammad, her statements showed her intention to unnecessarily disparage and deride Muslims.
The ECHR ruling is obvious double speak that does nothing but betray the authors as cowards and poor liars. Arguing that you can't call a child rapist a pedophile because you only know of one...
The ECHR ruling is obvious double speak that does nothing but betray the authors as cowards and poor liars.
Arguing that you can't call a child rapist a pedophile because you only know of one specific 9 year old girl he raped is splitting hairs at a ludicrous and offensive level. Perhaps you can't be certain Mohammed was a pedophile. Perhaps he didn't enjoy raping Aisha. We'll never know, but we obviously have a very good guess. The idea that you can't describe people if there is some insane hypothetical technicality by which your description would be debatable ("You don't know he's a pedophile because he didn't rape other children") is not a standard that would apply to any one who didn't falsely claim magic powers. Why do we need extend courtesies to people who are, objectively, terrible human beings like Mohammed?
The other point, that in the past child rape was tolerable legally and morally, is also facile. Okay, ancient civilisations "tolerated" child rape - does that make it less wrong? Was Aisha the 9 year old not crying while 56 year old Mohammed raped her?
In addition to being facile this argument is morally abhorrent because it asserts that the problem with child rape is how society thinks of it. No, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that it hurts and violates children and that it damages them psychologically and physiologically. Writing that argument, that child rape is okay because society tolerated it, is bereft of all moral virtue. I'm appalled that people so evil live, let alone have the authority to afflict large numbers of people with their vile and depraved opinions on morality.
While rape of any kind is disgusting and abhorrent, the problem with anything is how society think of it. Do you think morality comes from some divine commandment so it exists outside society?...
this argument is morally abhorrent because it asserts that the problem with [...] is how society thinks of it
While rape of any kind is disgusting and abhorrent, the problem with anything is how society think of it. Do you think morality comes from some divine commandment so it exists outside society? People define what is and isn't ok. Being gay wasn't ok, now it is; religious wars were ok, now they aren't etc etc. This is so trivially provable, I'm wondering if you are deliberately ignoring facts and laws, trying to appeal to emotion.
When you find yourself on the "Is child rape really that bad?" Side of the argument, you should stop to rethink things to make sure you're not making a horrible mistake. In this case you are. As I...
When you find yourself on the "Is child rape really that bad?" Side of the argument, you should stop to rethink things to make sure you're not making a horrible mistake. In this case you are.
As I mentioned earlier, the view that things are right or wrong based on society's opinions is morally abhorrent. For one thing, this view inhibits progress - why should we stop slavery, racism, misogyny, whatever - I mean, society thinks it's okay? For another, this morally bankrupt position denies the reality of morals.
Morals are based on the concept of promoting well being and preventing suffering. At different times in history and in different places humans have had different ideas about how to do this. Over time, in general, we've gotten better at it. That's why, if child rape wasn't such a big deal in ancient times, it is now, we are realizing how to be better.
Plenty of things are morally complex. Lots of behaviors depend on social preferences and circumstances that differ in different times and places. The existence of complicated scenarios doesn't mean that simple scenarios don't exist. This is a simple scenario - child rape is wrong. Wrong then, even if people were more permissive of it, and wrong now.
Not the person you're replying to but I want to give you some extra context: It's highly unlikely GP means what you summarized. Rather, it's a way of looking at the world in terms of strong...
you should stop to rethink things to make sure you're not making a horrible mistake
Not the person you're replying to but I want to give you some extra context: It's highly unlikely GP means what you summarized. Rather, it's a way of looking at the world in terms of strong absolutes. So it's not specifically this case that matters, but the implications of its precedent, which can be used for cases where it's not so clear cut, and where the morals of today can differ from the morals of tomorrow. Let's say polygamy for example.
It's definitely worth thinking about, though IMO absolutism is what leads to the consequences as well. My views on this are here.
I'm not on that side argument, in fact I say so literally the first thing in my comment. You are deliberately putting words into my mouth, which tells me you are not interested in a discussion and...
When you find yourself on the "Is child rape really that bad?"
I'm not on that side argument, in fact I say so literally the first thing in my comment. You are deliberately putting words into my mouth, which tells me you are not interested in a discussion and all you want to is a soapbox.
You literally are on the "Child rape isn't that bad" side. You say that the problem with anything is what society thinks of it. Child rape is a part of "anything". Your position is that the...
You literally are on the "Child rape isn't that bad" side.
You say that the problem with anything is what society thinks of it. Child rape is a part of "anything". Your position is that the problem with child rape is what society thinks of it. Therefore, in societies that don't think child rape is bad, by your reasoning, it's not that bad.
The reason your views sound horrible and repellent when I restate them is not that I'm ranting on a soapbox or distorting them, but that I'm repeating them accurately.
No, they're not. That is an extremely wrong interpretation of @calcifer's argument. They're making the point that all morality comes from society. Whatever society decides is good, is good;...
You literally are on the "Child rape isn't that bad" side.
No, they're not. That is an extremely wrong interpretation of @calcifer's argument.
They're making the point that all morality comes from society. Whatever society decides is good, is good; whatever society decides is bad, is bad. It's called moral relativism, and it's a valid philosophical position to take.
Explaining that morals in general come from society is not the same as condoning (or condemning) any particular act as moral (or immoral).
It is extremely unfair of you to twist their argument in that way.
As you explain, the moral relativist's position is that society decides morality. Thus, there is nothing inherently wrong about child rape, it's only the case that some societies think child rape...
No, they're not. That is an extremely wrong interpretation of @calcifer's argument.
As you explain, the moral relativist's position is that society decides morality. Thus, there is nothing inherently wrong about child rape, it's only the case that some societies think child rape is wrong and others don't. If you are a moral relativist then you think nothing is inherently wrong with child rape, thus, child rape isn't that bad. I don't get why you would claim I'm misinterpreting or twisting the argument. It's extremely simple and a completely obvious and direct interpretation.
it's a valid philosophical position to take.
I disagree. Moral relativism stands in direct opposition to the meaning of the word "morality". Morality typically means differentiating good from bad, and promoting well being and happiness while preventing needless suffering. If you change the definition of morality to whatever most people think at a certain time then you are talking about a different thing from most people when most people discuss morals - you're talking about some kind of popular opinion survey.
Let me recap - I'm not distorting anything at all when I characterize moral relativists as believing there isn't really anything bad about child rape. A moral relativist cannot say that anything is objectively bad, and that includes the rape of children. If you cannot say that child rape is bad, then you are by definition in the "Child rape is not that bad" camp. That's an ugly place to be.
Give in. Admit that raping children is morally wrong in an objective sense. It's not that hard a position to take, and even better - it's the correct position.
I know you can't help yourself, but please stop putting words into my mouth. Even a moral relativist is part of a society and therefore has values. I've repeatedly said rape of any kind is wrong....
If you are a moral relativist then you think nothing is inherently wrong with child rape
I know you can't help yourself, but please stop putting words into my mouth. Even a moral relativist is part of a society and therefore has values. I've repeatedly said rape of any kind is wrong. I shouldn't have to defend myself against imaginary grievances. Be better.
Please explain how a moral relativist can hold there is something inherently wrong about child rape. "Inherent" means that a property is an essential characteristic - e.g. I believe child rape is...
Please explain how a moral relativist can hold there is something inherently wrong about child rape. "Inherent" means that a property is an essential characteristic - e.g. I believe child rape is inherently wrong. A moral relativist believes, by definition, that morality is determined by the social context and therefore nothing can be inherently wrong.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm using the basic definitions of the terms you are using to show you why you are wrong.
OK, this is my final attempt to explain this to you. I'm saying rape is and should be wrong. You are also saying rape is and should be wrong. The fact that we disagree on the "why" in no way...
OK, this is my final attempt to explain this to you. I'm saying rape is and should be wrong. You are also saying rape is and should be wrong. The fact that we disagree on the "why" in no way implies I'm "on the child rape isn't bad side".
You think child rape is bad only because societies think it is. If a society didn't think child rape was bad you would be forced to abandon moral relativism or say that, for that specific society,...
You think child rape is bad only because societies think it is. If a society didn't think child rape was bad you would be forced to abandon moral relativism or say that, for that specific society, child rape was okay.
My position is extremely different from yours. I think rape, of all kinds, is bad because it makes people suffer. I think it's bad even in places and times where the majority thinks it's okay. That's a major reason why my view on morality is better than yours.
I realize you probably feel attacked and that's why you are not capable of responding politely but if you take some time to cool off and then reread you'll see I'm actually making an important point. Moral relativism is a silly and evil idea. It doesn't capture what people mean by morality. You'd be better served by abandoning it.
To take your description of your moral system to it's logical conclusion you do not believe sex with children is inherently wrong if the child does not suffer. So assuming the 9 year old wife in...
To take your description of your moral system to it's logical conclusion you do not believe sex with children is inherently wrong if the child does not suffer. So assuming the 9 year old wife in the OP was sufficiently happy with their lot it was not in your opinion wrong?
The whole reason sex with underage people is wrong is because they always suffer. They may not say so at the time, but it virtually always causes lasting psychological damage.
The whole reason sex with underage people is wrong is because they always suffer. They may not say so at the time, but it virtually always causes lasting psychological damage.
Surely you can imagine hypothetical edge cases where the child does not suffer, especially when we're considering thousands of years of history, radically different societies and the whole worlds...
Surely you can imagine hypothetical edge cases where the child does not suffer, especially when we're considering thousands of years of history, radically different societies and the whole worlds population.
I would argue that even if a specific instance did not cause suffering it would still be wrong. But this is really a discussion about the basis of morality. It's probably much better to stick with the classic of pushing fat people under out of control trolly carts rather than such an inflammatory topic as this.
That's a non sequitur. Child rape could be objectively wrong, but a society could decide otherwise when forming its own customs and making its own laws. That's a false dichotomy. In colloquial...
the moral relativist's position is that society decides morality. Thus, there is nothing inherently wrong about child rape
That's a non sequitur.
Child rape could be objectively wrong, but a society could decide otherwise when forming its own customs and making its own laws.
If you cannot say that child rape is bad, then you are by definition in the "Child rape is not that bad" camp.
That's a false dichotomy. In colloquial terms, it's like the "if you're not with us, you're against us" argument. There are other options than not saying child rape is bad, and saying that child rape is not that bad. There are more shades in this world than black and white.
Admit that raping children is morally wrong in an objective sense.
I don't have to admit this: I agree with it wholeheartedly. I'll even type it out: raping children is wrong.
And, yet, despite my statement, child rape is still not considered wrong in some societies. And, neither you nor I can make the rules for other societies. That's moral relativism at work.
There's more to making an argument than incorrectly identifying things as logical fallacies. On reading your comment I'm really not sure what point you're attempting to make, so I'm just going to...
There's more to making an argument than incorrectly identifying things as logical fallacies.
On reading your comment I'm really not sure what point you're attempting to make, so I'm just going to ignore this unless you'd like to clarify it for me.
If you agree that morals are objective and not relative then I can't even see what we disagree about. Of course I realize that some societies think of child rape as acceptable - I've referenced that fact before. The point is that those cultures are wrong. The second point is that a moral relativist cannot asset those cultures are wrong.
I'm disagreeing with your flawed interpretation of someone else's statements here. But, somehow, you twisted the discussion and made it about me and my beliefs instead the argument - just like you...
If you agree that morals are objective and not relative then I can't even see what we disagree about.
I'm disagreeing with your flawed interpretation of someone else's statements here.
But, somehow, you twisted the discussion and made it about me and my beliefs instead the argument - just like you did with @calcifer. You seem to be unable to separate an argument from the person making that argument. It's like if I said that some people believe in a flat Earth, and tried to explain their reasoning - and you then attacked me for my personal belief in a flat Earth, even though I made no such claim for myself.
I agree with you on one point, though: it's probably best to leave this discussion. We're just wasting our time, arguing at cross-purposes.
Does the validity of comment hinge on its intent? Should it? Even when it is factual? I'm not trolling, I'm interested in your view - I'm currently trying to square this off against the argument...
Does the validity of comment hinge on its intent?
Should it?
Even when it is factual?
I'm not trolling, I'm interested in your view - I'm currently trying to square this off against the argument that you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded room just because you have freedom of speech.
I don't think validity is relevant here. It's exactly like that fire analogy: your freedom of speech ends when it endangers other people. This woman said the things she said because she wants to...
Does the validity of comment hinge on its intent?
I don't think validity is relevant here. It's exactly like that fire analogy: your freedom of speech ends when it endangers other people. This woman said the things she said because she wants to incite hatred against Muslims. Simply, I don't think that should be allowed.
You are allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is actually a fire though, and Mohammed was actually a pedophile so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Holding up a child raping,...
It's exactly like that fire analogy: your freedom of speech ends when it endangers other people.
You are allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is actually a fire though, and Mohammed was actually a pedophile so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Holding up a child raping, murderous, homophobic, misogynistic liar as an example for people in your religion to follow is also a danger, like a fire in a theater - so talking about it seems entirely appropriate.
Plus, of course, in the "fire in a crowded theater" example the risk is that people will be trampled as they run from a fire that doesn't exist. There is no analogous risk to talking about the evil things that Mohammed did. She's not calling for people to go kill Muslims or attack them - merely pointing out some true problems with the religion. If people hate your religion because of true things about it, that strikes me as a problem with the religion, not with the people saying the truth about it.
Have a look at the link @cfabbro posted. It looks like they took issue with the way she approached the topic, using it as a spring board to criticize people who venerate Mohamed rather then...
It held that the applicant had not intended to approach the topic in an objective manner, but had directly aimed to degrade Muhammad.
It looks like they took issue with the way she approached the topic, using it as a spring board to criticize people who venerate Mohamed rather then discussing child marriages, which they say 'used to be widespread among the European ruling dynasties'
This kind of sums it up, also address your third point.
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.
As to the second point, this is happening in German. They first refer to it as 'veneration', only later use 'worship'. I don't speak german, but if I had to guess it's a poor translation.
The court found her guilty of publicly disparaging an object of veneration [...]
But really read the ruling, it is interesting.
Kind of long but, it explains why you can't take it as fact that he was a podophile without more evidence.
The Court of Appeal stated that the reason for the applicant’s conviction had not been that the events had purportedly taken place more than a thousand years ago and similar conduct would no longer be tolerable under today’s criminal law and contemporary moral and value concepts, but because the applicant had accused Muhammad of paedophilia by using the plural form “children”, “child sex”, “what do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?” without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty. Moreover, there were no reliable sources for that allegation, as no documentary evidence existed to suggest that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. On the contrary, his first wife had been fifteen years older than him, as could be seen from the documents submitted by the applicant herself. Even if the applicant had had the right to criticise others’ attempts to imitate Muhammad, her statements showed her intention to unnecessarily disparage and deride Muslims.
The phrase in question (§188) reads "eine Person […], die den Gegenstand der Verehrung […] bildet". The noun Verehrung derives from verehren. I don't speak German natively, but Linguee suggests...
They first refer to it as 'veneration', only later use 'worship'.
The phrase in question (§188) reads "eine Person […], die den Gegenstand der Verehrung […] bildet". The noun Verehrung derives from verehren.
I don't speak German natively, but Linguee suggests that the word strongly carries the sense of "adore" and "admire", like an alternative form of ehren, "to honour". Duden separates the religious sense from the secular sense in 1a and 1b.
It doesn't me... we have had well enforced Hate Propaganda laws in Canada since 1970 and all the cases prosecuted under it were fair game and resolved appropriately using well reasoned argument,...
I have to say that this ruling makes me uneasy.
It doesn't me... we have had well enforced Hate Propaganda laws in Canada since 1970 and all the cases prosecuted under it were fair game and resolved appropriately using well reasoned argument, IMO.
This case honestly doesn't strike me as any different and I entirely agree with the ECHR's ruling. It's one thing to criticize a religion and religious figures in a constructive, well informed manner, but it's another entirely to intentionally attempt to incite hatred against that religion, which this person was seemingly trying to.
This case is different from the ones in the Wikipedia link. Those cases look to be far more straightforward examples of hatred and abuse of power (Keegstra). She makes statements that are going to...
This case is different from the ones in the Wikipedia link. Those cases look to be far more straightforward examples of hatred and abuse of power (Keegstra).
She makes statements that are going to offend people, maybe they're correct, maybe false, maybe it's not possible to prove either way. It doesn't really matter, from my reading of her statements she does not make any calls for violence/hatred/abuse against Muslims. She disparages their prophet but that's about it.
I don't think the courts should be involved in what seems like a debate of religious principles, however uninformed the participants might be .
Free speech doesn't give someone the right to cause 'indignation'. They found she was not debating the religion but rather looking for an angle of attack against it's followers. It was not a...
Free speech doesn't give someone the right to cause 'indignation'. They found she was not debating the religion but rather looking for an angle of attack against it's followers. It was not a debate about principles, she didn't do the necessary legwork for it to qualify as a debate, or serious discussion.
Read the actual judgement I linked. The court discusses this:
Exemplary
Read the actual judgement I linked. The court discusses this:
The court concluded that the applicant had intended to wrongfully accuse Muhammad of having paedophilic tendencies. Even though criticising child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having a primary sexual interest in children’s bodies, which she had deduced from his marriage with a child, disregarding the notion that the marriage had continued until the Prophet’s death, when Aisha had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty.
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 Regional Court had based its findings on the facts as submitted by the applicant, that Muhammad had married Aisha when she had been six years old, and consummated the marriage when she had been nine. It had rightfully made a distinction between child marriages and paedophilia. It had not based its findings on an unpredictable definition of the term “paedophilia” but on a common definition which was comparable to that used by the World Health Organisation.
The Court of Appeal stated that the reason for the applicant’s conviction had not been that the events had purportedly taken place more than a thousand years ago and similar conduct would no longer be tolerable under today’s criminal law and contemporary moral and value concepts, but because the applicant had accused Muhammad of paedophilia by using the plural form “children”, “child sex”, “what do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?” without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty. Moreover, there were no reliable sources for that allegation, as no documentary evidence existed to suggest that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. On the contrary, his first wife had been fifteen years older than him, as could be seen from the documents submitted by the applicant herself. Even if the applicant had had the right to criticise others’ attempts to imitate Muhammad, her statements showed her intention to unnecessarily disparage and deride Muslims. Harsh criticism of churches or religious societies (Religionsgesellschaften) and religious traditions and practices were lawful. However, the permissible limits were exceeded where criticism ended and insults or mockery of a religious belief or person of worship (Beschimpfung oder Verspottung einer Religion oder von ihr verehrten Personen) began.
Applying the above considerations to the applicant’s case, the Supreme Court held that she had not aimed to contribute to a serious debate about Islam or the phenomenon of child marriage, but merely to defame Muhammad by accusing him of a specific sexual preference, based on the assumption that he had had sexual intercourse with a prepubescent child, in order to show that he was not a worthy subject of worship. Not misjudging the importance of the debate about sexual contact between adults and children, the applicant had not contributed to a debate of general interest, because she had made her allegation primarily in order to defame Muhammad. On the basis of the Regional Court’s findings that the applicant’s statements qualified as value judgments, the Supreme Court held that they had no longer been a contribution to a serious debate.
The ECHR recognized that freedom of religion did not exempt people from expecting criticism or denial of their religion.
However, it found that the woman's comments were not objective, failed to provide historical background and had no intention of promoting public debate.
The applicant's comments "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship," the court said, adding that the statements were not based on facts and were intended to denigrate Islam.
This seems very unreasonable to me. The implication is that Mohammed being worthy of worship is above the public's permission to debate. Why?
The applicant's comments "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship," the court said, adding that the statements were not based on facts and were intended to denigrate Islam.
This seems very unreasonable to me. The implication is that Mohammed being worthy of worship is above the public's permission to debate. Why?
Right or wrong, religious beliefs form a protected class in most (all?) western democracies and the law doesn't allow one group to denigrate another by inciting hatred against them. Even if...
Right or wrong, religious beliefs form a protected class in most (all?) western democracies and the law doesn't allow one group to denigrate another by inciting hatred against them. Even if everything this woman said was 100% factual, intent matters and she was clearly doing it to spread hatred.
In the EU, sure, but in the US her speech absolutely would have been considered protected. You can denigrate religions and their followers here all you want. Hate speech is allowed. This only came...
In the EU, sure, but in the US her speech absolutely would have been considered protected. You can denigrate religions and their followers here all you want. Hate speech is allowed.
This only came out this way because Austria doesn't have as strong of free speech protections and does have blasphemy laws (which the US doesn't have). I disagree with those laws, but if you have them it does seem only fair to apply them to this case.
I love the US's extreme stance on freedom of speech and it saddens me that the public is starting to chip away at it as of late.
You don't have to convince me, after all I had to read it before I could quote it :) I just wanted to help people who tend to check comments before clicking the link, if ever.
You don't have to convince me, after all I had to read it before I could quote it :) I just wanted to help people who tend to check comments before clicking the link, if ever.
If you don't read news 6 days a week to avoid getting anxious, then maybe you shouldn't read summaries of the news either - those summaries will create the same anxiety as the longer articles.
If you don't read news 6 days a week to avoid getting anxious, then maybe you shouldn't read summaries of the news either - those summaries will create the same anxiety as the longer articles.
Why such hostility towards people who browse news differently than you? On a website with high quality comments, reading comments before the article, or even solely reading comments, is perfectly...
Why such hostility towards people who browse news differently than you? On a website with high quality comments, reading comments before the article, or even solely reading comments, is perfectly reasonable.
Because catering to people like that creates noise in these threads for the rest of us. So many threads have comments that consist of nothing more than chunks of quotations from articles, which...
Because catering to people like that creates noise in these threads for the rest of us. So many threads have comments that consist of nothing more than chunks of quotations from articles, which clutters things up. Just read the article if you want to know what it's about.
Your attitude is incredibly entitled. You created far more off-topic noise with your tirade than @calcifer did, picking three paragraphs to summarize the article which in and of itself is a useful...
Your attitude is incredibly entitled. You created far more off-topic noise with your tirade than @calcifer did, picking three paragraphs to summarize the article which in and of itself is a useful thing even if you've read the article. Being able to summarize something you've read (or at least picking the important parts) is an exercise in proving you understand it.
What about the attitude of people who expect to have summaries provided for them, instead of reading the actual articles? My initial "tirade" was only a couple of sentences. Everything since then...
Your attitude is incredibly entitled.
What about the attitude of people who expect to have summaries provided for them, instead of reading the actual articles?
You created far more off-topic noise with your tirade
My initial "tirade" was only a couple of sentences. Everything since then has been engaging with people like you, who are questioning and challenging me. Would you prefer that I just ignore you and not reply to you?
picking three paragraphs to summarize the article which in and of itself is a useful thing
Useful to whom?
Being able to summarize something you've read (or at least picking the important parts) is an exercise in proving you understand it.
Why does anyone need to post a comment that does nothing more than prove they understood an article?
As a Christian I’m thankful I live in a country were anyone is able to deride, impugn, and hurt the feelings of religious people. People say awful unjustified things about my religion everyday,...
As a Christian I’m thankful I live in a country were anyone is able to deride, impugn, and hurt the feelings of religious people. People say awful unjustified things about my religion everyday, but freedom is far more valuable than comfort and feelings.
Thought and speech laws will destroy a society faster than anything. If people are afraid to criticize and shame bad ideas, bad people, and bad historical figures then those ideas breed and grow destroying the good things in society.
China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Germany had a bad stretch but recovered we will see how it goes. I’m assuming you meant more in the direction of the hate speech type laws though, I think...
China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Germany had a bad stretch but recovered we will see how it goes.
I’m assuming you meant more in the direction of the hate speech type laws though, I think the jury is still out as many of those laws are more recent. Probably destroy was a bit over the top but I expect that in Canada, Australia, the Uk and other western nations with speech laws we will see a greater negative impact than we will see a positive impact.
Depending on how the negative impacts are handled it could certainly lead to poor outcomes for many societies.
We manage to have quite robust discussions and debates here in Australia, despite the presence of laws against hate speech, and despite any explicit protection of free speech. Our federal...
Probably destroy was a bit over the top but I expect that in Canada, Australia, the Uk and other western nations with speech laws we will see a greater negative impact than we will see a positive impact.
We manage to have quite robust discussions and debates here in Australia, despite the presence of laws against hate speech, and despite any explicit protection of free speech. Our federal anti-hate speech laws (which are part of a Racial Discrimination Act) prevent acts which are "likely [...] to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people", where "the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group". In other words, you can't stand up in public and use racial epithets, or rely on racist stereotypes, or make racist attacks, in your speech. I'm pretty sure there are other legal restrictions against inciting violence towards people, but I can't seem to find them right now.
However, not being able to call Aboriginals "drunken boongs" and not being able to say that all Chinese people are "slant-eyed crims" somehow doesn't stop us from holding discussions about topics. Sure, there are some people who are upset that they don't get to say racist things in public, but most of the rest of us don't want to say or listen to those sorts of things anyway. Keep in mind: 25% of Australians were born overseas, and another 25% of Australians have at least one parent who was born overseas. We're a country of immigrants. We really can't afford to be slinging racist insults at each other if we hope to keep the peace.
In fact, Australia is often recognised as one of the successes of multiculturalism around the world - and part of that is because we recognise the need to refrain from insulting each other.
Well that’s a convincing argument for the particular system Australia has implemented. I suppose you are forcin to think a bit more about this. It seems like it might be theoretically possible to...
Well that’s a convincing argument for the particular system Australia has implemented. I suppose you are forcin to think a bit more about this. It seems like it might be theoretically possible to have some tight well defined and narrow laws that stop certain kinds of useless speech.
However I worry a lot about the slippery slope. And we definitely need a much longer leash with which to criticize religions and groups claiming to be religious. Being a certain ethnicity doesn’t carry much baggage in terms of the spread of ideas but religions purpose is to spread ideas and philosophy.
Exactly. There is a strong case to be made for some restrictions on some types of speech. I'm always bemused by the idea that speech should be entirely unfettered. I'm a strong believer in...
It seems like it might be theoretically possible to have some tight well defined and narrow laws that stop certain kinds of useless speech.
Exactly. There is a strong case to be made for some restrictions on some types of speech. I'm always bemused by the idea that speech should be entirely unfettered. I'm a strong believer in civility and politeness, and shouting insults at the people you're talking to just doesn't cut it in my opinion.
we definitely need a much longer leash with which to criticize religions and groups claiming to be religious. [...] religions purpose is to spread ideas and philosophy.
There are people who want to extend our anti-racism speech laws to include laws against religious hate speech. These laws would outlaws attacks against the people who follow a religion, but not attacks against the religion itself. To borrow a sporting metaphor: play the ball, not the player. It's okay to criticise the precepts of a religion, but it's not okay to insult a person who follows a religion just for because they are a follower of that religion. I support this idea.
I'm sure the proposed legislation around protecting religion is more complex than your synopsis, but I will take it as I understand from your explanation. I think in word this sounds nice, but in...
I'm sure the proposed legislation around protecting religion is more complex than your synopsis, but I will take it as I understand from your explanation.
it's not okay to insult a person who follows a religion just for because they are a follower of that religion.
I think in word this sounds nice, but in practice it's a bad idea. What if someone is following a miserable awful religion. Hypothetically we could say a new sect has popped up that's an off shoot of "Christianity" and one of their core beliefs is populating the earth with believers and they believe that taking wives of any age is permissible to move that goal forward. Like they honestly believe that this is what god wants them to do. Would it be against the law to tell someone that following this cult is awful and they are a terrible person for participating? Would it be illegal to disparage a political opponent who has had involvement in or support such a group?
How would the government be stopped from expanding this regulation to the "play the ball" part of this where one is criticizing a religion instead of a person. Or if someone criticizes a particular practice of a religion and the person in front of them is practicing that thing, would that be considered attacking the person for a being a part of that religion. How do we ensure this type of legislation will be evenly applied? Will Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and others get equal protection?
This is really my issue against this type of legislation it's so broad and open to interpretation that it gives the government way too much power and offers a path to expand this sort of thing. As a person living under the Donald Trump administration I desperately desire for the government to have as little power over my life as humanly possible. Can you imagine what trump would do with legislation like this ? Or what if someone worse than trump comes next? People often think it's silly to be afraid of the governments intrusion on our lives but the current administration should be reason enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom This is quite interesting based on the Wikipedia page about UK Hate speech laws it would seem the UK had much stricter speech...
In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.
This is quite interesting based on the Wikipedia page about UK Hate speech laws it would seem the UK had much stricter speech laws and then dialed them back a bit. So this i far less strict than I thought they were. Thanks for challenging my bad assumptions! I guess the slippery slope can slide two ways...
Once again my opinion is shifting a bit do this conversation, it seems a society can have some carefully defined speech laws without causing too many problems. But it still frightens me that governments have access to such broad and impactful legislation. I don't trust governments.
Offhand, there was that blogger in Singapore who was arrested and fined for accusing the government of corruption, and that UK guy who went to jail for teaching his cat to heil Hitler. In the US...
Offhand, there was that blogger in Singapore who was arrested and fined for accusing the government of corruption, and that UK guy who went to jail for teaching his cat to heil Hitler.
In the US we've also had to deal with Scientology which is a horrible, litigious cult, and I believe they would do a lot more damage if our free speech laws were weaker.
It was his girlfriends dog. I believe he was mainly prosecuted for repeatedly shouting "gas the Jews" as that was one of the phrases he'd trained the dog to react to.
It was his girlfriends dog. I believe he was mainly prosecuted for repeatedly shouting "gas the Jews" as that was one of the phrases he'd trained the dog to react to.
I dislike this. Calling a person who has sex with children anything other than a paedophile is disingenuous, and a lie at best. I'm not personally anti-Islam (admittedly, I'm not pro-Islam,...
I dislike this. Calling a person who has sex with children anything other than a paedophile is disingenuous, and a lie at best.
I'm not personally anti-Islam (admittedly, I'm not pro-Islam, either), and tend to be pro-hate speech protections, but this is just bizarre. It'd be like banning a person who wanted to (factually) call Lot an incestuous child-sex-trafficker from doing so.
Banning the truth is bad. Why give preferential treatment to religion? It's just a system of beliefs, and if you replace "Islam" with "Naziism" I'd imagine the popular opinion here would be a 180.
Mike Masnick of Techdirt's thoughts on this decision: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181026/02034540916/another-terrible-court-decision-europe-insulting-religion-is-not-free-speech.shtml
I find this a reasonable line. But I find I need more context then the quotes in the judgement. Would be interesting to read a transcript of the seminars and/or the court proceedings.
However, the permissible limits were exceeded where criticism ended and insults or mockery of a religious belief or person of worship (Beschimpfung oder Verspottung einer Religion oder von ihr verehrten Personen) began.
I find this a reasonable line. But I find I need more context then the quotes in the judgement. Would be interesting to read a transcript of the seminars and/or the court proceedings.
Section 13: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22tabview%22:%5B%22document%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-187188%22%5D%7D Personally, I'm surprised that those statements were ruled to fall outside...
Personally, I'm surprised that those statements were ruled to fall outside legitimate criticism. I don't like the way the statements generalise, but they do genuinely appear to be discussing attitudes and events rather than insulting or name-calling.
Yeah I read that too. This specific case definitely seems more an intent issue, which I feel I would need to be in the room so to speak to really comment on.
Yeah I read that too. This specific case definitely seems more an intent issue, which I feel I would need to be in the room so to speak to really comment on.
Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of the argument of "free speech" when it comes to organized religion, particularly one like Islam where followers can be quick to violently defend their religion...
Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of the argument of "free speech" when it comes to organized religion, particularly one like Islam where followers can be quick to violently defend their religion and deities. I think the woman who gave this speech, even if her intent wasn't inherently malicious, should've been more aware of how using a term like "pedophile" towards a religious figure would've come across. Even if it was intended to be pure scholarly discussion, pedophile is a word with an extremely negative connotation. There is virtually no way that word is anything but negative when used in relation to someone.
Another user referred to the argument being similar to "You can't yell fire in a crowded building and claim free speech"
I'll admit to being biased though. I live near Garland TX and a relative is a police officer who was working the Curtis Culwell Center when the two terrorists attacked. It was a damn miracle no innocents were hurt but the police knew full well the event had caught ISILs attention and that someone was going to try to do something.
What's always irritated me, though, is that the event is protected under free speech and was organized by an anti Islam group. It was put on specifically to deride and insult the Prophet Mohammed and anger Islamists yet is protected. A lot of people could've died that day and it was big damn miracle no one but the attackers did. Especially considering the event was letting out and most of the people were outside the building when the attack began
There is a certain point when free speech shouldn't defend those who are intentionally trying to stir the pot
To my mind, when one person or group is loudly being shitty, and another person or group decides to commit mass murder in response, the root problem does not lie with the loud assholes, however...
There is a certain point when free speech shouldn't defend
To my mind, when one person or group is loudly being shitty, and another person or group decides to commit mass murder in response, the root problem does not lie with the loud assholes, however obnoxious and hateful they may be.
Whether it's South Park, Charlie Hebdo, or the Culwell Center, I will always believe that it's the people who aren't trying to commit murder that should be defended.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be defended in the strictest term. No one deserves to lose their life for what they say/print/draw. But when people continue to "poke the bear" knowing it can get a...
I'm not saying they shouldn't be defended in the strictest term. No one deserves to lose their life for what they say/print/draw. But when people continue to "poke the bear" knowing it can get a deadly reaction, they should be held accountable for it, especially when innocent people are caught in the crossfire.
Because we live in an age where saying the wrong thing to the wrong person can get you killed. It's not right but it is the reality. And to make matters worse, it can get other people killed....
Because we live in an age where saying the wrong thing to the wrong person can get you killed. It's not right but it is the reality. And to make matters worse, it can get other people killed. People who had little to nothing to do with what was said. That's probably my biggest issue with it. Do you think the terrorists responsible for Charlie Hebdo cared about who did or didn't have anything to actually do with what was initially printed? If people were willing to keep their grievances strictly between themselves, I'd care a lot less. But when those offended to the point of violence by certain types of speech show little care for who ends up at the end of their guns or knives or bombs.....
We should absolutely defend free speech. But we also need to acknowledge when the collateral damage may be too much
You realize that that's the exact point of why these attacks happen, right? It's not to stop the specific person that wrote the thing from continuing to write it. It's to make other people afraid....
You realize that that's the exact point of why these attacks happen, right? It's not to stop the specific person that wrote the thing from continuing to write it. It's to make other people afraid. When the whole world says "Alright, enough is enough, you're no longer allowed to criticize Islam", then Islamists win. Not only that, the message you send to anyone who has a stake in protecting literally anything from criticism, is that all you need is a few guys with guns to kill people who dare question you.
I think the key difference is that the pope hasn't done anything to suggest he is a pedophile (apart from protecting them as part of the Catholic Church) whereas Mohammed raped a 9 year old girl....
I think the key difference is that the pope hasn't done anything to suggest he is a pedophile (apart from protecting them as part of the Catholic Church) whereas Mohammed raped a 9 year old girl. There's a bit stronger claim for calling Mohammed a pedophile, though I believe you should be able to call either one a pedophile if you feel like it.
I don't understand why we have to be sensitive to child rapists of history, like Mohammed, just because he also lied about being magic.
Would this somehow be different if I claimed that Joseph Smith was a polygamist charlatan or L. Ron Hubbard was a treasonous kidnapper/brainwasher. You think the followers of these "religions"...
Would this somehow be different if I claimed that Joseph Smith was a polygamist charlatan or L. Ron Hubbard was a treasonous kidnapper/brainwasher. You think the followers of these "religions" wouldn't have their feelings hurt by this information being spread to the public? What of it?
Is it the power of the word pedophile that gets people here? That the person who spreads the information is part of a "hate group"? What if the person spreading the information is a Richard Dawkins type who has made it clear that the destruction of all religion is his end goal? Does it come down to how the message is delivered?
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.
It gets less and less frequent, but stuff like this makes me glad I live in the US. The "Rights of others to have their religious feelings protected"? What the hell is that garbage?
It gets less and less frequent, but stuff like this makes me glad I live in the US.
The "Rights of others to have their religious feelings protected"? What the hell is that garbage?
It's a symptom of our non-absolutist mindset on freedom of speech. That mindset is one of the reasons we don't have people shooting up synagogues here, saying "all jews need to die", which was...
Exemplary
It's a symptom of our non-absolutist mindset on freedom of speech. That mindset is one of the reasons we don't have people shooting up synagogues here, saying "all jews need to die", which was happening in the US exactly at the same time as you were writing this comment.
You couldn't have known, of course. And gun laws are obviously another part of the problem. So is mental health care. But also, all the fucking propaganda that is going on in the US that's creating nazis daily, that shit is free speech. We have lower tolerance for nazis.
I want to say ahead of time that I 100% understand the concept of absolute free speech and why it's good. I used to pretty fervently defend a lot of vile shit I didn't believe in, on the principle of free speech. Then over the years I realized that:
The limits of true free speech are far, far beyond anything even the United States offers. I was defending something that didn't exist.
American views on free speech have been, in practice, extremely damaging (that's what brought you Citizens United). I was defending something that hurt people.
Despite the philosophical differences between the US and Europe, it's the US that has the higher rate of practical censorship. We do not have "non-free speech"-related censorship incidents. I was defending it for reasons that weren't there.
Europe's take on free speech is heavily influenced by nuance and tolerance, whereas American views encourage absolutism. This is one of those cases where "your freedom ends where mine begins" and "Practicality beats Purity". Nuance on its own is a critical skill to learn and teach. I was rejecting a philosophy I myself believed in.
In practice, after closely following my home country's politics as well as US politics for a long time, I've come to believe our difference in positions on free speech are one of the key reasons we don't have Trump. So I changed my mind.
People have the right to practice their religion without being disparaged for it. It's called tolerance, you guys could try it sometime. If you want to criticize religion you need to do it in a...
People have the right to practice their religion without being disparaged for it. It's called tolerance, you guys could try it sometime. If you want to criticize religion you need to do it in a sensible, civil way, it's not that complicated.
Those who invoked their freedom of religion could not expect to be exempt from criticism, and even had to accept the negation of their beliefs. However, the manner in which religious views were attacked could invoke the State’s responsibility in order to guarantee the peaceful exercise of the rights under Article 9. 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. The court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression in the form of a criminal conviction had been justified as it had been based in law and had been necessary in a democratic society, namely in order to protect religious peace in Austria.
Does that mean that anti abortion activists can't be told that their beliefs are bullshit? Doesn't that hurt the feelings of fundamentalist Christians? Can we not point out that L. Ron Hubbard...
People have the right to practice their religion without being disparaged for it.
Does that mean that anti abortion activists can't be told that their beliefs are bullshit? Doesn't that hurt the feelings of fundamentalist Christians?
Can we not point out that L. Ron Hubbard beat his wives? Wouldn't that offend Scientologists? What's the difference between pointing that out and pointing out that Muhammad was a pedophile? They're both objectively true.
Going down the road of legally protecting people's feelings is beyond a slippery slope. Obviously I'd prefer people not be disparaged simply for peacefully practicing their religion, but there are certain cases where religion deserves to be disparaged. Religions and religious figures are responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against humanity ever perpetrated in history. Simply claiming that a belief, or historical figure, or custom is religious shouldn't mean it's above reproach, and certainly shouldn't mean it's even above criticism.
Yes, but why is religion a protected class to begin with? Why should we protect the feelings of people making absurd claims when it is a part of a religion and not people who are just misguided?
Yes, but why is religion a protected class to begin with? Why should we protect the feelings of people making absurd claims when it is a part of a religion and not people who are just misguided?
The "incriminating statements" listed in section 13 of the judgement seem fairly objective. I dislike the level of generalisation about Muslims that they show, but unless there was more to it than...
The "incriminating statements" listed in section 13 of the judgement seem fairly objective. I dislike the level of generalisation about Muslims that they show, but unless there was more to it than that, I find it very surprising that this is considered to stray beyond legitimate criticism.
Agreed. That's exactly why I went looking for the original quotes - honestly, I was fully expecting to see some thinly veiled racist tirade. I thought the snippets in the article might be missing...
Intent matters.
Agreed. That's exactly why I went looking for the original quotes - honestly, I was fully expecting to see some thinly veiled racist tirade. I thought the snippets in the article might be missing that context, potentially to paint the court as the bad guy.
The fact that the talks were apparently given under the banner of a right-wing populist party (something I didn't initially realise) definitely concerns me. This is almost certainly a person who I would vehemently disagree with on almost all topics. But I'm still deeply concerned about legally silencing them when the actual content of their speech appears broadly objective.
In theory I would agree with you, but this case went through many courts before reaching the ECHR and every single one of them rejected her "I wanted public debate" argument. Given that, I'm...
But I'm still deeply concerned about legally silencing them when the actual content of their speech appears broadly objective.
In theory I would agree with you, but this case went through many courts before reaching the ECHR and every single one of them rejected her "I wanted public debate" argument. Given that, I'm willing to believe that she was indeed spreading hatred, even though I don't have access to the full text of her speech.
The court got this obviously, tragically, very wrong.
Her comments were grounded in the historical record, commonly accepted religious tradition, and a dictionary definition of pedophilia. This is as objective as any person needs to be.
No one worships Muhammad. Believers in Islam worship Allah.
Impossible. Defamation is the communication of false statements. You cannot defame anyone with true facts.
She wasn't commenting because she was interested in an academic discussion of theological issues, she was just spreading hate, and incitement of religious hatred is not - and shouldn't be - protected speech.
Are the only debates permitted in Austria academic debates of theology? Perhaps she wanted to debate the worthiness of Islam as a religion that people dedicate much of their lives to.
If she thinks Islam is a bad idea, and wants to persuade people to stop following it, pointing out Mohammed's child rape seems like a fine path to me. I mean, isn't it a bit odd that such a divine figure, meant to be an example to adherents, is raping a nine year old girl?
Perhaps unicorns do exist and I've just been unlucky to have never seen one. Or perhaps this woman's political and religious affiliations paint a pretty clear picture of her motivations.
You are expressing opinions not based in fact. The ECHR ruling addresses this pretty clearly:
The ECHR ruling is obvious double speak that does nothing but betray the authors as cowards and poor liars.
Arguing that you can't call a child rapist a pedophile because you only know of one specific 9 year old girl he raped is splitting hairs at a ludicrous and offensive level. Perhaps you can't be certain Mohammed was a pedophile. Perhaps he didn't enjoy raping Aisha. We'll never know, but we obviously have a very good guess. The idea that you can't describe people if there is some insane hypothetical technicality by which your description would be debatable ("You don't know he's a pedophile because he didn't rape other children") is not a standard that would apply to any one who didn't falsely claim magic powers. Why do we need extend courtesies to people who are, objectively, terrible human beings like Mohammed?
The other point, that in the past child rape was tolerable legally and morally, is also facile. Okay, ancient civilisations "tolerated" child rape - does that make it less wrong? Was Aisha the 9 year old not crying while 56 year old Mohammed raped her?
In addition to being facile this argument is morally abhorrent because it asserts that the problem with child rape is how society thinks of it. No, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that it hurts and violates children and that it damages them psychologically and physiologically. Writing that argument, that child rape is okay because society tolerated it, is bereft of all moral virtue. I'm appalled that people so evil live, let alone have the authority to afflict large numbers of people with their vile and depraved opinions on morality.
While rape of any kind is disgusting and abhorrent, the problem with anything is how society think of it. Do you think morality comes from some divine commandment so it exists outside society? People define what is and isn't ok. Being gay wasn't ok, now it is; religious wars were ok, now they aren't etc etc. This is so trivially provable, I'm wondering if you are deliberately ignoring facts and laws, trying to appeal to emotion.
When you find yourself on the "Is child rape really that bad?" Side of the argument, you should stop to rethink things to make sure you're not making a horrible mistake. In this case you are.
As I mentioned earlier, the view that things are right or wrong based on society's opinions is morally abhorrent. For one thing, this view inhibits progress - why should we stop slavery, racism, misogyny, whatever - I mean, society thinks it's okay? For another, this morally bankrupt position denies the reality of morals.
Morals are based on the concept of promoting well being and preventing suffering. At different times in history and in different places humans have had different ideas about how to do this. Over time, in general, we've gotten better at it. That's why, if child rape wasn't such a big deal in ancient times, it is now, we are realizing how to be better.
Plenty of things are morally complex. Lots of behaviors depend on social preferences and circumstances that differ in different times and places. The existence of complicated scenarios doesn't mean that simple scenarios don't exist. This is a simple scenario - child rape is wrong. Wrong then, even if people were more permissive of it, and wrong now.
Not the person you're replying to but I want to give you some extra context: It's highly unlikely GP means what you summarized. Rather, it's a way of looking at the world in terms of strong absolutes. So it's not specifically this case that matters, but the implications of its precedent, which can be used for cases where it's not so clear cut, and where the morals of today can differ from the morals of tomorrow. Let's say polygamy for example.
It's definitely worth thinking about, though IMO absolutism is what leads to the consequences as well. My views on this are here.
I'm not on that side argument, in fact I say so literally the first thing in my comment. You are deliberately putting words into my mouth, which tells me you are not interested in a discussion and all you want to is a soapbox.
Well, have your soapbox then. I'm done.
You literally are on the "Child rape isn't that bad" side.
You say that the problem with anything is what society thinks of it. Child rape is a part of "anything". Your position is that the problem with child rape is what society thinks of it. Therefore, in societies that don't think child rape is bad, by your reasoning, it's not that bad.
The reason your views sound horrible and repellent when I restate them is not that I'm ranting on a soapbox or distorting them, but that I'm repeating them accurately.
No, they're not. That is an extremely wrong interpretation of @calcifer's argument.
They're making the point that all morality comes from society. Whatever society decides is good, is good; whatever society decides is bad, is bad. It's called moral relativism, and it's a valid philosophical position to take.
Explaining that morals in general come from society is not the same as condoning (or condemning) any particular act as moral (or immoral).
It is extremely unfair of you to twist their argument in that way.
As you explain, the moral relativist's position is that society decides morality. Thus, there is nothing inherently wrong about child rape, it's only the case that some societies think child rape is wrong and others don't. If you are a moral relativist then you think nothing is inherently wrong with child rape, thus, child rape isn't that bad. I don't get why you would claim I'm misinterpreting or twisting the argument. It's extremely simple and a completely obvious and direct interpretation.
I disagree. Moral relativism stands in direct opposition to the meaning of the word "morality". Morality typically means differentiating good from bad, and promoting well being and happiness while preventing needless suffering. If you change the definition of morality to whatever most people think at a certain time then you are talking about a different thing from most people when most people discuss morals - you're talking about some kind of popular opinion survey.
Speaking of surveys, of course, most professionals philosophers agree with me that moral relativism is an incorrect position to take. This reddit comment explains in a bit more detail.
Let me recap - I'm not distorting anything at all when I characterize moral relativists as believing there isn't really anything bad about child rape. A moral relativist cannot say that anything is objectively bad, and that includes the rape of children. If you cannot say that child rape is bad, then you are by definition in the "Child rape is not that bad" camp. That's an ugly place to be.
Give in. Admit that raping children is morally wrong in an objective sense. It's not that hard a position to take, and even better - it's the correct position.
I know you can't help yourself, but please stop putting words into my mouth. Even a moral relativist is part of a society and therefore has values. I've repeatedly said rape of any kind is wrong. I shouldn't have to defend myself against imaginary grievances. Be better.
Please explain how a moral relativist can hold there is something inherently wrong about child rape. "Inherent" means that a property is an essential characteristic - e.g. I believe child rape is inherently wrong. A moral relativist believes, by definition, that morality is determined by the social context and therefore nothing can be inherently wrong.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm using the basic definitions of the terms you are using to show you why you are wrong.
OK, this is my final attempt to explain this to you. I'm saying rape is and should be wrong. You are also saying rape is and should be wrong. The fact that we disagree on the "why" in no way implies I'm "on the child rape isn't bad side".
Got it? Enough.
You think child rape is bad only because societies think it is. If a society didn't think child rape was bad you would be forced to abandon moral relativism or say that, for that specific society, child rape was okay.
My position is extremely different from yours. I think rape, of all kinds, is bad because it makes people suffer. I think it's bad even in places and times where the majority thinks it's okay. That's a major reason why my view on morality is better than yours.
I realize you probably feel attacked and that's why you are not capable of responding politely but if you take some time to cool off and then reread you'll see I'm actually making an important point. Moral relativism is a silly and evil idea. It doesn't capture what people mean by morality. You'd be better served by abandoning it.
To take your description of your moral system to it's logical conclusion you do not believe sex with children is inherently wrong if the child does not suffer. So assuming the 9 year old wife in the OP was sufficiently happy with their lot it was not in your opinion wrong?
The whole reason sex with underage people is wrong is because they always suffer. They may not say so at the time, but it virtually always causes lasting psychological damage.
Surely you can imagine hypothetical edge cases where the child does not suffer, especially when we're considering thousands of years of history, radically different societies and the whole worlds population.
I would argue that even if a specific instance did not cause suffering it would still be wrong. But this is really a discussion about the basis of morality. It's probably much better to stick with the classic of pushing fat people under out of control trolly carts rather than such an inflammatory topic as this.
That's a non sequitur.
Child rape could be objectively wrong, but a society could decide otherwise when forming its own customs and making its own laws.
That's a false dichotomy. In colloquial terms, it's like the "if you're not with us, you're against us" argument. There are other options than not saying child rape is bad, and saying that child rape is not that bad. There are more shades in this world than black and white.
I don't have to admit this: I agree with it wholeheartedly. I'll even type it out: raping children is wrong.
And, yet, despite my statement, child rape is still not considered wrong in some societies. And, neither you nor I can make the rules for other societies. That's moral relativism at work.
There's more to making an argument than incorrectly identifying things as logical fallacies.
On reading your comment I'm really not sure what point you're attempting to make, so I'm just going to ignore this unless you'd like to clarify it for me.
If you agree that morals are objective and not relative then I can't even see what we disagree about. Of course I realize that some societies think of child rape as acceptable - I've referenced that fact before. The point is that those cultures are wrong. The second point is that a moral relativist cannot asset those cultures are wrong.
I'm disagreeing with your flawed interpretation of someone else's statements here.
But, somehow, you twisted the discussion and made it about me and my beliefs instead the argument - just like you did with @calcifer. You seem to be unable to separate an argument from the person making that argument. It's like if I said that some people believe in a flat Earth, and tried to explain their reasoning - and you then attacked me for my personal belief in a flat Earth, even though I made no such claim for myself.
I agree with you on one point, though: it's probably best to leave this discussion. We're just wasting our time, arguing at cross-purposes.
Does the validity of comment hinge on its intent?
Should it?
Even when it is factual?
I'm not trolling, I'm interested in your view - I'm currently trying to square this off against the argument that you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded room just because you have freedom of speech.
I don't think validity is relevant here. It's exactly like that fire analogy: your freedom of speech ends when it endangers other people. This woman said the things she said because she wants to incite hatred against Muslims. Simply, I don't think that should be allowed.
You are allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is actually a fire though, and Mohammed was actually a pedophile so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Holding up a child raping, murderous, homophobic, misogynistic liar as an example for people in your religion to follow is also a danger, like a fire in a theater - so talking about it seems entirely appropriate.
Plus, of course, in the "fire in a crowded theater" example the risk is that people will be trampled as they run from a fire that doesn't exist. There is no analogous risk to talking about the evil things that Mohammed did. She's not calling for people to go kill Muslims or attack them - merely pointing out some true problems with the religion. If people hate your religion because of true things about it, that strikes me as a problem with the religion, not with the people saying the truth about it.
Have a look at the link @cfabbro posted.
It looks like they took issue with the way she approached the topic, using it as a spring board to criticize people who venerate Mohamed rather then discussing child marriages, which they say 'used to be widespread among the European ruling dynasties'
This kind of sums it up, also address your third point.
As to the second point, this is happening in German. They first refer to it as 'veneration', only later use 'worship'. I don't speak german, but if I had to guess it's a poor translation.
But really read the ruling, it is interesting.
Kind of long but, it explains why you can't take it as fact that he was a podophile without more evidence.
The phrase in question (§188) reads "eine Person […], die den Gegenstand der Verehrung […] bildet". The noun Verehrung derives from verehren.
I don't speak German natively, but Linguee suggests that the word strongly carries the sense of "adore" and "admire", like an alternative form of ehren, "to honour". Duden separates the religious sense from the secular sense in 1a and 1b.
So this seems like a subtly bad translation.
Nice bit of research, yeah it's a pretty subtle difference.
Link to the full judgement. It's an interesting read IMO.
Thank you for linking to that. It's better to read the whole thing in this case.
I have to say that this ruling makes me uneasy.
It doesn't me... we have had well enforced Hate Propaganda laws in Canada since 1970 and all the cases prosecuted under it were fair game and resolved appropriately using well reasoned argument, IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cases_under_the_Criminal_Code
This case honestly doesn't strike me as any different and I entirely agree with the ECHR's ruling. It's one thing to criticize a religion and religious figures in a constructive, well informed manner, but it's another entirely to intentionally attempt to incite hatred against that religion, which this person was seemingly trying to.
This case is different from the ones in the Wikipedia link. Those cases look to be far more straightforward examples of hatred and abuse of power (Keegstra).
She makes statements that are going to offend people, maybe they're correct, maybe false, maybe it's not possible to prove either way. It doesn't really matter, from my reading of her statements she does not make any calls for violence/hatred/abuse against Muslims. She disparages their prophet but that's about it.
I don't think the courts should be involved in what seems like a debate of religious principles, however uninformed the participants might be .
Free speech doesn't give someone the right to cause 'indignation'. They found she was not debating the religion but rather looking for an angle of attack against it's followers. It was not a debate about principles, she didn't do the necessary legwork for it to qualify as a debate, or serious discussion.
What would she have to have done to legitimize her discussion? As far as I can tell from the article, she didn't attack Muslims in any direct way.
Read the actual judgement I linked. The court discusses this:
TLDR, which seems reasonable to me:
I mean... that's not the worst thing in the world to say, is it?
This seems very unreasonable to me. The implication is that Mohammed being worthy of worship is above the public's permission to debate. Why?
Right or wrong, religious beliefs form a protected class in most (all?) western democracies and the law doesn't allow one group to denigrate another by inciting hatred against them. Even if everything this woman said was 100% factual, intent matters and she was clearly doing it to spread hatred.
In the EU, sure, but in the US her speech absolutely would have been considered protected. You can denigrate religions and their followers here all you want. Hate speech is allowed.
This only came out this way because Austria doesn't have as strong of free speech protections and does have blasphemy laws (which the US doesn't have). I disagree with those laws, but if you have them it does seem only fair to apply them to this case.
I love the US's extreme stance on freedom of speech and it saddens me that the public is starting to chip away at it as of late.
Well, I'm not American and I strongly prefer the EU way, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Why? It causes immense harm and has little benefit.
I kinda count the ability to criticize a religious figure without worrying about being jailed for it as a benefit.
That's an interesting bit of context I wouldn't have thought of. Thanks!
It's not a long article - it's less than 400 words! Why does it need a TL;DR when it's that short?
You don't have to convince me, after all I had to read it before I could quote it :) I just wanted to help people who tend to check comments before clicking the link, if ever.
If someone's going to dive in to the comments on an article before they've even read the article for themselves... I see no reason to help them.
If you don't read news 6 days a week to avoid getting anxious, then maybe you shouldn't read summaries of the news either - those summaries will create the same anxiety as the longer articles.
Why such hostility towards people who browse news differently than you? On a website with high quality comments, reading comments before the article, or even solely reading comments, is perfectly reasonable.
Because catering to people like that creates noise in these threads for the rest of us. So many threads have comments that consist of nothing more than chunks of quotations from articles, which clutters things up. Just read the article if you want to know what it's about.
Your attitude is incredibly entitled. You created far more off-topic noise with your tirade than @calcifer did, picking three paragraphs to summarize the article which in and of itself is a useful thing even if you've read the article. Being able to summarize something you've read (or at least picking the important parts) is an exercise in proving you understand it.
Super inappropriate.
What about the attitude of people who expect to have summaries provided for them, instead of reading the actual articles?
My initial "tirade" was only a couple of sentences. Everything since then has been engaging with people like you, who are questioning and challenging me. Would you prefer that I just ignore you and not reply to you?
Useful to whom?
Why does anyone need to post a comment that does nothing more than prove they understood an article?
I normally do that when I see these summaries on other posts. In this case, however, someone added a summary to my post, not their own.
As a Christian I’m thankful I live in a country were anyone is able to deride, impugn, and hurt the feelings of religious people. People say awful unjustified things about my religion everyday, but freedom is far more valuable than comfort and feelings.
Thought and speech laws will destroy a society faster than anything. If people are afraid to criticize and shame bad ideas, bad people, and bad historical figures then those ideas breed and grow destroying the good things in society.
Since almost every other country has stricter speech laws than the US, which of them do you believe have been destroyed by those laws?
China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Germany had a bad stretch but recovered we will see how it goes.
I’m assuming you meant more in the direction of the hate speech type laws though, I think the jury is still out as many of those laws are more recent. Probably destroy was a bit over the top but I expect that in Canada, Australia, the Uk and other western nations with speech laws we will see a greater negative impact than we will see a positive impact.
Depending on how the negative impacts are handled it could certainly lead to poor outcomes for many societies.
We manage to have quite robust discussions and debates here in Australia, despite the presence of laws against hate speech, and despite any explicit protection of free speech. Our federal anti-hate speech laws (which are part of a Racial Discrimination Act) prevent acts which are "likely [...] to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people", where "the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group". In other words, you can't stand up in public and use racial epithets, or rely on racist stereotypes, or make racist attacks, in your speech. I'm pretty sure there are other legal restrictions against inciting violence towards people, but I can't seem to find them right now.
However, not being able to call Aboriginals "drunken boongs" and not being able to say that all Chinese people are "slant-eyed crims" somehow doesn't stop us from holding discussions about topics. Sure, there are some people who are upset that they don't get to say racist things in public, but most of the rest of us don't want to say or listen to those sorts of things anyway. Keep in mind: 25% of Australians were born overseas, and another 25% of Australians have at least one parent who was born overseas. We're a country of immigrants. We really can't afford to be slinging racist insults at each other if we hope to keep the peace.
In fact, Australia is often recognised as one of the successes of multiculturalism around the world - and part of that is because we recognise the need to refrain from insulting each other.
Well that’s a convincing argument for the particular system Australia has implemented. I suppose you are forcin to think a bit more about this. It seems like it might be theoretically possible to have some tight well defined and narrow laws that stop certain kinds of useless speech.
However I worry a lot about the slippery slope. And we definitely need a much longer leash with which to criticize religions and groups claiming to be religious. Being a certain ethnicity doesn’t carry much baggage in terms of the spread of ideas but religions purpose is to spread ideas and philosophy.
Exactly. There is a strong case to be made for some restrictions on some types of speech. I'm always bemused by the idea that speech should be entirely unfettered. I'm a strong believer in civility and politeness, and shouting insults at the people you're talking to just doesn't cut it in my opinion.
There are people who want to extend our anti-racism speech laws to include laws against religious hate speech. These laws would outlaws attacks against the people who follow a religion, but not attacks against the religion itself. To borrow a sporting metaphor: play the ball, not the player. It's okay to criticise the precepts of a religion, but it's not okay to insult a person who follows a religion just for because they are a follower of that religion. I support this idea.
I'm sure the proposed legislation around protecting religion is more complex than your synopsis, but I will take it as I understand from your explanation.
I think in word this sounds nice, but in practice it's a bad idea. What if someone is following a miserable awful religion. Hypothetically we could say a new sect has popped up that's an off shoot of "Christianity" and one of their core beliefs is populating the earth with believers and they believe that taking wives of any age is permissible to move that goal forward. Like they honestly believe that this is what god wants them to do. Would it be against the law to tell someone that following this cult is awful and they are a terrible person for participating? Would it be illegal to disparage a political opponent who has had involvement in or support such a group?
How would the government be stopped from expanding this regulation to the "play the ball" part of this where one is criticizing a religion instead of a person. Or if someone criticizes a particular practice of a religion and the person in front of them is practicing that thing, would that be considered attacking the person for a being a part of that religion. How do we ensure this type of legislation will be evenly applied? Will Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and others get equal protection?
This is really my issue against this type of legislation it's so broad and open to interpretation that it gives the government way too much power and offers a path to expand this sort of thing. As a person living under the Donald Trump administration I desperately desire for the government to have as little power over my life as humanly possible. Can you imagine what trump would do with legislation like this ? Or what if someone worse than trump comes next? People often think it's silly to be afraid of the governments intrusion on our lives but the current administration should be reason enough.
What do you think you're not allowed to say in the UK? Which laws do you think apply to that speech?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
This is quite interesting based on the Wikipedia page about UK Hate speech laws it would seem the UK had much stricter speech laws and then dialed them back a bit. So this i far less strict than I thought they were. Thanks for challenging my bad assumptions! I guess the slippery slope can slide two ways...
Once again my opinion is shifting a bit do this conversation, it seems a society can have some carefully defined speech laws without causing too many problems. But it still frightens me that governments have access to such broad and impactful legislation. I don't trust governments.
Offhand, there was that blogger in Singapore who was arrested and fined for accusing the government of corruption, and that UK guy who went to jail for teaching his cat to heil Hitler.
In the US we've also had to deal with Scientology which is a horrible, litigious cult, and I believe they would do a lot more damage if our free speech laws were weaker.
It was his girlfriends dog. I believe he was mainly prosecuted for repeatedly shouting "gas the Jews" as that was one of the phrases he'd trained the dog to react to.
I dislike this. Calling a person who has sex with children anything other than a paedophile is disingenuous, and a lie at best.
I'm not personally anti-Islam (admittedly, I'm not pro-Islam, either), and tend to be pro-hate speech protections, but this is just bizarre. It'd be like banning a person who wanted to (factually) call Lot an incestuous child-sex-trafficker from doing so.
Banning the truth is bad. Why give preferential treatment to religion? It's just a system of beliefs, and if you replace "Islam" with "Naziism" I'd imagine the popular opinion here would be a 180.
What can't be criticised can never improve.
Mike Masnick of Techdirt's thoughts on this decision: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181026/02034540916/another-terrible-court-decision-europe-insulting-religion-is-not-free-speech.shtml
I find this a reasonable line. But I find I need more context then the quotes in the judgement. Would be interesting to read a transcript of the seminars and/or the court proceedings.
Section 13: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22tabview%22:%5B%22document%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-187188%22%5D%7D
Personally, I'm surprised that those statements were ruled to fall outside legitimate criticism. I don't like the way the statements generalise, but they do genuinely appear to be discussing attitudes and events rather than insulting or name-calling.
Yeah I read that too. This specific case definitely seems more an intent issue, which I feel I would need to be in the room so to speak to really comment on.
Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of the argument of "free speech" when it comes to organized religion, particularly one like Islam where followers can be quick to violently defend their religion and deities. I think the woman who gave this speech, even if her intent wasn't inherently malicious, should've been more aware of how using a term like "pedophile" towards a religious figure would've come across. Even if it was intended to be pure scholarly discussion, pedophile is a word with an extremely negative connotation. There is virtually no way that word is anything but negative when used in relation to someone.
Another user referred to the argument being similar to "You can't yell fire in a crowded building and claim free speech"
I'll admit to being biased though. I live near Garland TX and a relative is a police officer who was working the Curtis Culwell Center when the two terrorists attacked. It was a damn miracle no innocents were hurt but the police knew full well the event had caught ISILs attention and that someone was going to try to do something.
What's always irritated me, though, is that the event is protected under free speech and was organized by an anti Islam group. It was put on specifically to deride and insult the Prophet Mohammed and anger Islamists yet is protected. A lot of people could've died that day and it was big damn miracle no one but the attackers did. Especially considering the event was letting out and most of the people were outside the building when the attack began
There is a certain point when free speech shouldn't defend those who are intentionally trying to stir the pot
For reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack
To my mind, when one person or group is loudly being shitty, and another person or group decides to commit mass murder in response, the root problem does not lie with the loud assholes, however obnoxious and hateful they may be.
Whether it's South Park, Charlie Hebdo, or the Culwell Center, I will always believe that it's the people who aren't trying to commit murder that should be defended.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be defended in the strictest term. No one deserves to lose their life for what they say/print/draw. But when people continue to "poke the bear" knowing it can get a deadly reaction, they should be held accountable for it, especially when innocent people are caught in the crossfire.
But doesn't this highlight the issue of having "unpokable bears"?
Why are such entities acceptable?
Because we live in an age where saying the wrong thing to the wrong person can get you killed. It's not right but it is the reality. And to make matters worse, it can get other people killed. People who had little to nothing to do with what was said. That's probably my biggest issue with it. Do you think the terrorists responsible for Charlie Hebdo cared about who did or didn't have anything to actually do with what was initially printed? If people were willing to keep their grievances strictly between themselves, I'd care a lot less. But when those offended to the point of violence by certain types of speech show little care for who ends up at the end of their guns or knives or bombs.....
We should absolutely defend free speech. But we also need to acknowledge when the collateral damage may be too much
Isn't this when free speech is needed the most?
Otherwise we're saying that if an entity becomes violent enough, then it is beyond reproach.
You realize that that's the exact point of why these attacks happen, right? It's not to stop the specific person that wrote the thing from continuing to write it. It's to make other people afraid. When the whole world says "Alright, enough is enough, you're no longer allowed to criticize Islam", then Islamists win. Not only that, the message you send to anyone who has a stake in protecting literally anything from criticism, is that all you need is a few guys with guns to kill people who dare question you.
Exactly like calling the pope a pedophile does not fall within freedom of speech.
I think the key difference is that the pope hasn't done anything to suggest he is a pedophile (apart from protecting them as part of the Catholic Church) whereas Mohammed raped a 9 year old girl. There's a bit stronger claim for calling Mohammed a pedophile, though I believe you should be able to call either one a pedophile if you feel like it.
I don't understand why we have to be sensitive to child rapists of history, like Mohammed, just because he also lied about being magic.
In the US that certainly would fall within freedom of speech.
Only if it's wrong. You have to have reasonable proof before saying something like that about someone.
Would this somehow be different if I claimed that Joseph Smith was a polygamist charlatan or L. Ron Hubbard was a treasonous kidnapper/brainwasher. You think the followers of these "religions" wouldn't have their feelings hurt by this information being spread to the public? What of it?
Is it the power of the word pedophile that gets people here? That the person who spreads the information is part of a "hate group"? What if the person spreading the information is a Richard Dawkins type who has made it clear that the destruction of all religion is his end goal? Does it come down to how the message is delivered?
Good.
It gets less and less frequent, but stuff like this makes me glad I live in the US.
The "Rights of others to have their religious feelings protected"? What the hell is that garbage?
It's a symptom of our non-absolutist mindset on freedom of speech. That mindset is one of the reasons we don't have people shooting up synagogues here, saying "all jews need to die", which was happening in the US exactly at the same time as you were writing this comment.
You couldn't have known, of course. And gun laws are obviously another part of the problem. So is mental health care. But also, all the fucking propaganda that is going on in the US that's creating nazis daily, that shit is free speech. We have lower tolerance for nazis.
I want to say ahead of time that I 100% understand the concept of absolute free speech and why it's good. I used to pretty fervently defend a lot of vile shit I didn't believe in, on the principle of free speech. Then over the years I realized that:
People have the right to practice their religion without being disparaged for it. It's called tolerance, you guys could try it sometime. If you want to criticize religion you need to do it in a sensible, civil way, it's not that complicated.
Does that mean that anti abortion activists can't be told that their beliefs are bullshit? Doesn't that hurt the feelings of fundamentalist Christians?
Can we not point out that L. Ron Hubbard beat his wives? Wouldn't that offend Scientologists? What's the difference between pointing that out and pointing out that Muhammad was a pedophile? They're both objectively true.
Going down the road of legally protecting people's feelings is beyond a slippery slope. Obviously I'd prefer people not be disparaged simply for peacefully practicing their religion, but there are certain cases where religion deserves to be disparaged. Religions and religious figures are responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against humanity ever perpetrated in history. Simply claiming that a belief, or historical figure, or custom is religious shouldn't mean it's above reproach, and certainly shouldn't mean it's even above criticism.
No.
Yes.
Yes, but why is religion a protected class to begin with? Why should we protect the feelings of people making absurd claims when it is a part of a religion and not people who are just misguided?
The "incriminating statements" listed in section 13 of the judgement seem fairly objective. I dislike the level of generalisation about Muslims that they show, but unless there was more to it than that, I find it very surprising that this is considered to stray beyond legitimate criticism.
Intent matters. Was she trying to have a level headed discussion on matters of theology or did she simply want to spread hatred against Muslims?
Agreed. That's exactly why I went looking for the original quotes - honestly, I was fully expecting to see some thinly veiled racist tirade. I thought the snippets in the article might be missing that context, potentially to paint the court as the bad guy.
The fact that the talks were apparently given under the banner of a right-wing populist party (something I didn't initially realise) definitely concerns me. This is almost certainly a person who I would vehemently disagree with on almost all topics. But I'm still deeply concerned about legally silencing them when the actual content of their speech appears broadly objective.
In theory I would agree with you, but this case went through many courts before reaching the ECHR and every single one of them rejected her "I wanted public debate" argument. Given that, I'm willing to believe that she was indeed spreading hatred, even though I don't have access to the full text of her speech.