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

[dowie]

So who thinks Naude can sue whoever called him a paedophille (and expect the Echr to back him up) on the basis that:

If anything it just highlights how stupid the case in the OP is - I mean it is yet another example of exactly what we'd call someone who ****s a kid - we do indeed call them a paedo today without worrying about any technical definition - she was quite right to point that out...

 

[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?

 

[dowie]

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

 

[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.

 

[dowie]

This whole mohammad is a pedo argument is rather silly tbh.

Whether it is silly or not isn’t really the point though, the point is the protection or lack of for freedom of expression vs protecting religions after this dubious ruining by the ECHR.

 

[dowie]

People are free to express but to abuse perhaps not.

She didn’t abuse anyone, she gave a view on a bloke who lived hundreds of years ago.

 

[dowie]

It was fair game tbh.. it is a stupid decision by the court.

Worrying about hurting the feelings of religious people when their religion or religious figures are attacked is stupid.

You might as well fine monty python for making the life of Brian.

The mental gymnastics you’ve had to go through in order to support the decision are ridiculous.