Pointing out that someone venerated as a perfect example is believed (by those same people) to have been a child molester may be a common criticism of Islam. I don't believe that makes it generic. Nor, more importantly, less valid a criticism. Besides, what is at issue here is not actually that criticism, but that courts are ruling that people are not allowed to make it. And that is a very dangerous and wrong thing.
I am not obliged to argue in the opposite direction to anything. No matter how much you load the outcome of this ruling with foreboding the outcome was not shocking considering relevant local laws and international laws.
No I just disagree with your statement, free speech does exist as already explained. It is both pointless and silly to claim otherwise or to attempt to make some non-point where you define free speech to include absolutely everything with no restrictions. It shouldn't even need to be explained that there are some limits to free speech, even in the US, it is a complete waste of time and detracts from the discussion but that is seemingly what you want to achieve.
I pointed out the legal restrictions on free speech in this two replies ago and you decide to say it back to me now for the second time as if you didn't understand the words and you were having an original thought.
Yet you're using words like pointless and silly not to mention wasting time and detracting from discussion? Raising the bar for such words as you type.
The only interference in the lives of others here is with respect to the woman being fined, which you still seem to rather foolishly support.
You don't know that she had no motive of productive debate, you need to distinguish between someone holding a view you don't like and then making up silly assertions like that.
hmmm that's debatable, you're still defending this nonsense, shutting down criticism of religion with fines etc.. is ridiculous it is rather sad to see people so far gone that they defend it, especailly when using mental gymnastics to claim otherwise. I believe she still has a possible angle for appeal left, we'll have to see whether the ECHR can redeem itself.
Intellectual dishonesty from
@dowie because, who knows, when he says too far gone it sounds like a projection. The woman was very far from innocent and dishonestly broke local rules. If it was online it would be filed under trolling.
E.S. promoted an educational seminar of objectivity on religion and proceeded to pitch an anti-islamic agenda including claims she couldn't substantiate.
If we strip out the lies of promoting an objective seminar and stick to claims that can be substantiated she's on legal ground to agitate. But that wasn't how it happened so there we are, deception and reaching for slurs are not a basis for productive debate.
I have no sympathy for her stunt failing and do not believe criticism is prevented in any meaningful way as a result.
The mental gymnastics going on are your desperate attempts to pigeonhole unappealing views as dismissable. Meanwhile I not only understand your view, I say I neither care for it or buy into taking pro or anti religious sides on this.
A major difference is that I recognised communication on this as being circular several posts ago but you see value in keeping it rolling, can you describe why you care for something you don't want to hear.
Lets hear the stale repetition again as if you think you're saying something new.
