They're jumping through mental hoops with the ruling.
The way I understand it, it's not what was said that was illegal, but the fact that it was said with "divisive intent," or some shit.
Basically, you're not allowed to say things that hurt people's feelings or things that might make people not like a shitty religion, and somehow that restriction does not infringe on your freedom of speech or expression.
In other words, it's the arbitrary rule of hurt feelings that governs now. As if that's anything new in Eurabia.
Like in germany you can smoke all the weed you want, you just not allowed to posses, produce, buy, sell store, im- or export it, because you know prohibiting you from smoking it would be infringement of your rights to individualism/free expression.
The European Court of Human Rights upheld her conviction stating that what she said
could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship
She wasn't convicted for breaking the law. Instead she was convicted of something that could only be...... understood as..... being aimed at...... demonstrating that..... she broke the law.
I wanted you to be wrong so badly. But it really seems that's the… decision? Rationale seems too strong, but even decision is misleading here. Judicial Feeling has to be an oxymoron though, right?
Someone up for making an image of the judge as The Feeler? Maybe split contrast with Bush: 2001, The Decider?
The intellectual collapse here is infuriating. Will this be energizing domestic opposition, and maybe worldwide contempt? Who is proud of this cowardice?!
view the rest of the comments →
Hayashimo ago
They're jumping through mental hoops with the ruling.
The way I understand it, it's not what was said that was illegal, but the fact that it was said with "divisive intent," or some shit.
Basically, you're not allowed to say things that hurt people's feelings or things that might make people not like a shitty religion, and somehow that restriction does not infringe on your freedom of speech or expression.
In other words, it's the arbitrary rule of hurt feelings that governs now. As if that's anything new in Eurabia.
HeavyBrain ago
Its not just the speech.
Like in germany you can smoke all the weed you want, you just not allowed to posses, produce, buy, sell store, im- or export it, because you know prohibiting you from smoking it would be infringement of your rights to individualism/free expression.
birds_sing ago
The European Court of Human Rights upheld her conviction stating that what she said
She wasn't convicted for breaking the law. Instead she was convicted of something that could only be...... understood as..... being aimed at...... demonstrating that..... she broke the law.
HeavyBrain ago
Basically "We are afraid that muds may sperge about it and give in to terroists"
Pwning4Ever ago
It's intense mental gymnastics, go to Europe and say Jesus was insane and married a whore. The European fuckers won't pay you any mind.
PapShamir ago
Right. It's relative to an implicit group threat.
PapShamir ago
I wanted you to be wrong so badly. But it really seems that's the… decision? Rationale seems too strong, but even decision is misleading here. Judicial Feeling has to be an oxymoron though, right?
Someone up for making an image of the judge as The Feeler? Maybe split contrast with Bush: 2001, The Decider?
The intellectual collapse here is infuriating. Will this be energizing domestic opposition, and maybe worldwide contempt? Who is proud of this cowardice?!
Saufsoldat ago
Yeah, Austria has some wacky laws.
think- ago
Yep. Hurt Muslim feelings to be more precise.