ECHR rules that defamation of Mohammed doesn't count as free expression

[Energize]

That's the problem that I say E.S. ran into. Resulting in falling on her face twice because it's hard to make a claim of fact over 1000 years into the past before a court.

My opinion is that the court put a great deal of weight on deception and making claims without enough proof. So, remove any illusion of impartiality and add the words "in my opinion" and you're set yes?

The same recipe is used by rent-a-gobs who get regular spots in publications to add flavour between factual articles. Casually defame persons various and derate its value to whatever anyone thinks your opinion is worth.

What you're talking about is defamation and is not a criminal offence, this is a situation where someone was prosecuted criminally, completely different scenario. And there is also a massive difference between making claims about historical, practically mythological figures and real living people, the latter actually damages an individual, the former doesn't.

 

[Hotwired]

What you're talking about is defamation and is not a criminal offence, this is a situation where someone was prosecuted criminally, completely different scenario. And there is also a massive difference between making claims about historical, practically mythological figures and real living people, the latter actually damages an individual, the former doesn't.

I'm saying the ruling is such that the specially mentioned deception and making claims without enough proof were important issues for it breaching the local Austrian law (held up by the ECHR) to protect the right of people to be religious in peace.

I'm obviously not against a judgement or even a law which demands that you clarify your position if seeking to be a public speaker.

Make it clear you are an agitator or make it clear you are an unbiased religious educator not present an illusion of one and the words of another. Is false advertising in anyones best interest?

And that's also where claims without enough proof comes in, the claim cannot be made as a fact so if you find it essential to say it should be packaged as opinion.

These are not especially unreasonable things in principle or practice.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Thus when taken to court and forced to prove it I have a problem since what me and my mate think of Bob Smith is completely worthless as evidence of the actual claim I was making.

That's the problem that I say E.S. ran into. Resulting in falling on her face twice because it's hard to make a claim of fact over 1000 years into the past before a court.

600AD was very little like 0AD. Mohammed lived in a time with plenty of literate people about, his life and his words were meticulously recorded, the hadiths originated during the lifetimes of people who knew him and it is regarded as blasphemy to alter the words of the holy books by Muslims. His recorded behaviour is more than plausible for a person in his position in that time and place and his marriage and consummation to the girl is held to be historical fact not simply by his detractors, but by Muslims themselves. You don't mess around with the Koran or Hadiths or pick and choose. The way people compare knowledge of Mohammed and Islam to knowledge of Jesus and Christianity is the most simplistic of thinking that runs "we don't have good historical evidence about what Jesus did, Mohammed = Jesus, we don't know what Mohammed did". The balance of evidence strongly suggests he raped a girl of around nine years old. Some people rush to say we must assume it isn't true until we invent a time machine and can go back with a camera and check. I don't know why they do this. Perhaps they should go to their local mosque and tell the Imams there that their holy books are incorrect, if they're so determined they know better than everyone else about Mohammed's life instead of just making claims on these forums. I'm sure the Imams would be fascinated to learn how some random Internet poster (e.g. yourself, Hotwired) can correct them.

Muslims say that he had sex with a nine year old. Critics of Islam say he had sex with a nine year old. The only individuals who try to claim he didn't are non-Muslims who want to speak on Muslim's behalf!

 

[h4rm0ny]

Make it clear you are an agitator or make it clear you are an unbiased religious educator not present an illusion of one and the words of another.

So get your government sanctioned certificate of religious education if you wish to criticise a religion. I see where you're going with this.

 

[Hotwired]

@h4rm0ny

Cut the lies.

Lack of honesty in presenting information is what I see E.S. getting shut down for.

The wording of the ruling is such that I can see her being able to say the same thing within the law as long as the deceptive issues are resolved.

The applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation given that they had not been made in an objective manner aimed at contributing to a debate of public interest, but could only have been understood as aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship. The applicant had described herself as an expert in the field of Islamic doctrine, already having held seminars of that kind for a while, thus she had to have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse (justified) indignation in others. 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 applicant had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, while failing to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue, and had thus made a value judgement without sufficient factual basis. Even if they were to be classified as factual statements, she had failed to adduce any evidence to that end. As to the applicant’s argument that a few individual statements had to be tolerated during a lively discussion, it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and deduce that this would render the statements, exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression, passable. Moreover, the applicant had been wrong to assume that improper attacks on religious groups had to be tolerated even if they were based on untrue facts. On the contrary, the Court had held that statements which were based on (manifestly) untrue facts did not enjoy the protection of Article 10.

So lets go through where she fell flat on her face in this.

As for the context of the impugned statements, the seminars had been widely advertised to the public on the Internet and via leaflets, sent out by the head of the right-wing Freedom Party, addressing them especially to young voters and praising them as “top seminars” in the framework of a “free education package”. The title of the seminar had given the – in hindsight misleading – impression that it would include objective information on Islam.

Remove the illusion of objectivity and there is no issue to be raised. False advertising is well understood.

Facts – The applicant held seminars with the title “Basic information on Islam” at the right-wing Freedom Party Education Institute. At one such seminar, referring to a marriage which Muhammad had concluded with Aisha, a six-year old, and consummated when she had been nine, she stated inter alia “[Muhammad] liked to do it with children”, “the thing with Aisha and child sex” and “a 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”

In 2011, as a result of these statements, the applicant was convicted of disparagement of religious precepts pursuant to Article 188 of the Criminal Code. She was sentenced to pay a fine of EUR 480, or serve 60 days of imprisonment in the event of default. The domestic courts made a distinction between child marriages and paedophilia. In their opinion, by accusing Muhammad of paedophilia, the applicant had merely sought to defame him, without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty or that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. In particular, the applicant had disregarded the fact that the marriage with Aisha had continued until the Prophet’s death, when she had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty.

A claim is made which falls foul of objectivity and available facts. Rephrase as her interpretation and as above, do not advertise as objective.

Job done.

Advertise as objective and be objective.

Advertise as biased and be clear where you are adding your interpretation.

At no point does the ECHR say you cannot have a debate on any of the involved topics. They do say its entirely fine to demand that speakers do not bait and switch with objectivity and interpretation.

 

[dowie]

This is just silly, why does it have to be objective? So what if it arouses indignation? It seems so silly to defend a ruling like this.

If momentum organise a talk on conservative politics do you think they'd be completely objective or do you think they'd give such a talk in a rather critical way and from their perspective?

 

[Hotwired]

There is logic behind it.

It does not appear to be a massive hurdle for people wishing to demonstrate the failures of religion as I explain how it can all be bypassed even to make the same claims.

The result however is that you're forced to think harder as you are obstructed from covertly blending fact with fiction with interpretation.

Is that a better or worse framework for public speaking than none?

The downside for honest debate isn't very apparent. It could be called an anti-troll law as you are obliged to set your stall seriously or not at all.

 

[dowie]

It is nonsense, I really hope this is appealed and overturned, it is so silly to just accept that sort of thing.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I see you're @'ing me, happy to respond. What is not "objective" about the statement? Mainstream Islam says that Mohammed consummated a relationship with a nine year old girl (I.e. child molestation and rape). Historical accounts support it. You say "objective" but you seem to mean "uncritical". The two are very different things. You've accused me of lying. I take that seriously - show me anywhere I have lied.

You are arguing that only approved people be allowed to criticise Islam and comment upon it. Authoritarian censorship. Furthermore read your own quotes and consider, please, what is actually being argued. That the relationship continuing until the girl was over eighteen is a mitigating factor, that his other wives and mistresses were older matters. How can you look yourself in the mirror when you side with such arguments? We would call a man who rapes a nine year old a paedophile today - Her statement is accurate. And she has been punished for saying it. Would you have a different position at all if she had called Mohammed a Child Molester?
​

 

[Dis86]

I see you're @'ing me, happy to respond. What is not "objective" about the statement? Mainstream Islam says that Mohammed consummated a relationship with a nine year old girl (I.e. child molestation and rape). Historical accounts support it. You say "objective" but you seem to mean "uncritical". The two are very different things. You've accused me of lying. I take that seriously - show me anywhere I have lied.

You are arguing that only approved people be allowed to criticise Islam and comment upon it. Authoritarian censorship. Furthermore read your own quotes and consider, please, what is actually being argued. That the relationship continuing until the girl was over eighteen is a mitigating factor, that his other wives and mistresses were older matters. How can you look yourself in the mirror when you side with such arguments? We would call a man who rapes a nine year old a paedophile today - Her statement is accurate. And she has been punished for saying it.
​

Precisely my point earlier. The same source that supports he did those things is the same source that justifies his religious existence. If one is taken as being true so must the other.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Precisely my point earlier. The same source that supports he did those things is the same source that justifies his religious existence. If one is taken as being true so must the other.

Correct. I seriously doubt that Hotwired, if he or she found himself amidst a group of Muslims who believe (on balance of probability accurately) that Mohammed raped a nine year old girl, would be actively criticising Mohammed. Probably put it down to "it was acceptable then" or similar. But I look forward to Hotwired clarifying the accuracy of my suggestion or not in a moment.

 

[B&W]

600AD was very little like 0AD. Mohammed lived in a time with plenty of literate people about, his life and his words were meticulously recorded, the hadiths originated during the lifetimes of people who knew him and it is regarded as blasphemy to alter the words of the holy books by Muslims. His recorded behaviour is more than plausible for a person in his position in that time and place and his marriage and consummation to the girl is held to be historical fact not simply by his detractors, but by Muslims themselves. You don't mess around with the Koran or Hadiths or pick and choose. The way people compare knowledge of Mohammed and Islam to knowledge of Jesus and Christianity is the most simplistic of thinking that runs "we don't have good historical evidence about what Jesus did, Mohammed = Jesus, we don't know what Mohammed did". The balance of evidence strongly suggests he raped a girl of around nine years old. Some people rush to say we must assume it isn't true until we invent a time machine and can go back with a camera and check. I don't know why they do this. Perhaps they should go to their local mosque and tell the Imams there that their holy books are incorrect, if they're so determined they know better than everyone else about Mohammed's life instead of just making claims on these forums. I'm sure the Imams would be fascinated to learn how some random Internet poster (e.g. yourself, Hotwired) can correct them.

Muslims say that he had sex with a nine year old. Critics of Islam say he had sex with a nine year old. The only individuals who try to claim he didn't are non-Muslims who want to speak on Muslim's behalf!

You know what, I'm a Muslim not particularly religious but I know a lot more then you. And there are some hadiths that are considered weak and are not accepted as genuine. So yes, there is pick and choose...

But what do I know compared to the likes of yourselves who think they can Google it and know about a whole religion and it's people.

 

[Energize]

I'm saying the ruling is such that the specially mentioned deception and making claims without enough proof were important issues for it breaching the local Austrian law (held up by the ECHR) to protect the right of people to be religious in peace.

I'm obviously not against a judgement or even a law which demands that you clarify your position if seeking to be a public speaker.

Make it clear you are an agitator or make it clear you are an unbiased religious educator not present an illusion of one and the words of another. Is false advertising in anyones best interest?

And that's also where claims without enough proof comes in, the claim cannot be made as a fact so if you find it essential to say it should be packaged as opinion.

These are not especially unreasonable things in principle or practice.

There is no such thing as an unbiased religious educator lol.

She wasn't making claims without proof, she was using evidence such as the Quran, evidence that certainly would satisfy the claim on the balance of probability which is the standard for defamation.

 

[Hotwired]

So get your government sanctioned certificate of religious education if you wish to criticise a religion. I see where you're going with this.

Hence you are a liar.

There really is nothing more to be said about the same people claiming offence. #198 covers that. Not a single post in sight to meaningfully discuss how the ECHR got to the ruling. No references to the ruling text. Not even when its literally pasted on the page.

I know you're gagging for my approval of the label of paedophile but this has been done to death. It has a genuine meaning which you don't care for and which was used in the case. This is called a brick wall and it's your face smacking it repeatedly, along with like minded posters.

The ECHR justified itself and I don't have a problem with their working especially since as I explained, it implicitly says that you can say exactly what she did with the right context.

You have read it fully yes? I have substantial doubts.

She wasn't making claims without proof

The irony is that this quote is a claim without proof.

There probably isn't such a thing as an unbiased religious educator but presenting the illusion of objectivity was a major point in the case. Probably the most important one since it was basically two points in the end and without any deception she would have been fine giving her interpretation.

 

[dowie]

She didn’t deceive anyone, she gave a talk from a particular perspective. If a cleric was to give a talk “basic information on Islam” then he’d be likely presenting it in a very positive light. It’s just a different perspective, it is really silly to try and ban some, restrict speech in this way.

 

[h4rm0ny]

You know what, I'm a Muslim not particularly religious but I know a lot more then you. And there are some hadiths that are considered weak and are not accepted as genuine. So yes, there is pick and choose...

But what do I know compared to the likes of yourselves who think they can Google it and know about a whole religion and it's people.

So what sort of Muslim are you? Sunni? Shia? To be clear, you believe the Koran is literally the direct dictation of God / Allah?

 

[h4rm0ny]

She didn’t deceive anyone, she gave a talk from a particular perspective. If a cleric was to give a talk “basic information on Islam” then he’d be likely presenting it in a very positive light. It’s just a different perspective, it is really silly to try and ban some, restrict speech in this way.

Well according to Hotwired, that Imam should be banned from speaking about Islam because they're not objective. Right, Hotwired? Right?

 

[h4rm0ny]

Hence you are a liar.

Show me anything I've said that is a lie or don't make accusations like that.

There really is nothing more to be said about the same people claiming offence. #198 covers that. Not a single post in sight to meaningfully discuss how the ECHR got to the ruling. No references to the ruling text. Not even when its literally pasted on the page.

See now that is a lie. If you scroll up you'll see me specifically referring to elements within the ruling such as them saying that Mohammed continuing to have sex with her till she was 18 is a mitigating factor. Don't pretend I haven't read the text or referenced it when anyone can scroll up a few posts and see me doing exactly that.

I know you're gagging for my approval of the label of paedophile but this has been done to death.

So what? Dodge a question enough times and it becomes irrelevant through repetition? Doesn't work like that.

It has a genuine meaning which you don't care for and which was used in the case. This is called a brick wall and it's your face smacking it repeatedly, along with like minded posters.

She said that a man who rapes a nine-year old today would be called a paedophile. This is a fact - he would be. No, I don't believe that your responses here are dictated by an outrage at not using the precise clinical definition hence my asking, very reasonably, if you would agree that Mohammed was a Child Molester (a precise and accurate term) and whether you would suddenly take a position that it would be fine for her to call him a Child Molester in her talk given the accuracy of the term. My contention is that you would not be. Now when I ask you that, you suddenly start talking about "brick walls". Answer those questions, please. Because unless you confirm that you would take these positions, we've evidenced that your faux outrage at someone using paedophile in a colloquial sense is not really your issue here.

The ECHR justified itself and I don't have a problem with their working especially since as I explained, it implicitly says that you can say exactly what she did with the right context.

The right context in this case, being by someone who isn't a critic of Islam or has some approved status to talk about it. And you really pretend not to see the problem with that?

 

[Hotwired]

@h4rm0ny

I gave you the exact quote of you giving a fanciful interpretation.

And no, there is no meaningful discussion going on here. Your next 3 paragraphs are the same theme which have all been answered by me within this thread yet it comes around again as if it is fresh and original thinking. Is it on me to read the thread for you? Or do you find value in padding the thread with repetition. I'm saying this while looking at your triple posts in a row.

Previously covered points most definitely include the legal value of misused words and what I would call the situation in a modern context. If I recall correctly neither point was a one liner so if it wasn't snippet worthy back then then I suggest you read it in full context.

Finally since this is literally the answer to your last point yet it was just said:

At no point does the ECHR say you cannot have a debate on any of the involved topics. They do say its entirely fine to demand that speakers do not bait and switch with objectivity and interpretation.

As it fell short of being fact (no matter your view on that, she failed to prove it to two separate courts) but can be factually described as grossly antagonistic it was inappropriate for the context of the implied objectivity of a public seminar under the title of “Basic information on Islam” in the form of “top seminars” and a “free education package”.

The only problem I see is that you exaggerate the censorship that exists. Have I not demonstrated how the same can be said again?

 

[Energize]

There probably isn't such a thing as an unbiased religious educator but presenting the illusion of objectivity was a major point in the case. Probably the most important one since it was basically two points in the end and without any deception she would have been fine giving her interpretation.

"Presenting the illusion of objectivity" are you serious? Objectivity is something that we all know doesn't exist, everyone has a bias or agenda therefore no such deception can ever be made. You basically have a ridiculous system where people are criminalised based on their level of objectivity.