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.
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.
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.
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"