Insulting prophet Mohammed (scw) not free speech European court rules

[Hatredfree]

First of all, if you read my post I explicitly said that I wouldn't be happy with someone insulting the prophet. If you think a piece of ruling is gonna stop Islamaphobes then you are crazy, matter of fact it will only make it worst.

Second of all, I think that if you are gonna have freedom of speech then have freedom of speech.

and what do you mean pick a side, I think I've made my point very clear.

The ruling is based on a court of law so yes any bandit, anti peace extremist would face the wrath of the law if they intend to incite extremism islamophobe views. So it's big win for Muslims and problematic for islamophobes. Just so you know free speech has limits, there's no such thing limitless free speech.

 

[Life]

The ruling is based on a court of law so yes any bandit, anti peace extremist would face the wrath of the law if they intend to incite extremism islamophobe views. So it's big win for Muslims and problematic for islamophobes. Just so you know free speech has limits, there's no such thing limitless free speech.

What I meant is that this ruling is only going to perpetuate this notion that Muslims are sensitive cry babies. And it's only going to add more fuel to the fire, cuz it's only going to anger them more.

The whole point of Free Speech is that it's supposed to be free. The only limits that should exist are if it's speech that hurts the country.

And let them hate so we can collect their danbi.

 

[Hatredfree]

What I meant is that this ruling is only going to perpetuate this notion that Muslims are sensitive cry babies. And it's only going to add more fuel to the fire, cuz it's only going to anger them more.

The whole point of Free Speech is that it's supposed to be free. The only limits that should exist are if it's speech that hurts the country.

And let them hate so we can collect their danbi.

LOL. The biggest cry babies are those who mourn when told insulting religious figures is also an attack against religious people and peaceful coexistence. You have to understand the people doing the most are Already high ranking Islamaphobes so there is no love lost, don't worry whether they will hate us more when their hate is what we discussing here in the first place.

 

[Life]

LOL. The biggest cry babies are those who mourn when told insulting religious figures is also an attack against religious people and peaceful coexistence. You have to understand the people doing the most are Already high ranking Islamaphobes so there is no love lost, don't worry weather they will hate us more when their hate is what we discussing here in the first place.

I don't care if they hate us or not, at the end they are the ones going to hell anyway. and the more they hate us the more reward we get from Allah (saw).

my main point was that freedom of speech should be freedom of speech.

 

[Kratos]

They're just scared of terrorism.

 

[Hatredfree]

I don't care if they hate us or not, at the end they are the ones going to hell anyway. and the more they hate us the more reward we get from Allah (saw).

my main point was that freedom of speech should be freedom of speech.

I suggest you read the Article and the reasoning given for this ruling. It would make a lot of sense why freedom of speech cannot be left unregulated.

You yourself agreed freedom of speech has to have limit if it hurts the country. Which in this case within reasonable calculation it does. The far right lady in question has not attacked the prophet Mohammed but she uses the prophet as pretext to dehumanize Muslims. Saying something like the prophet is bad so Muslims are bad let's close mosques, deport, attack Muslims. That's why this Islamophobes can't be left unregulated, otherwise we'd have Nazi Germany part 2.

 

[Life]

I suggest you read the Article and the reasoning given for this ruling. It would make a lot of sense why freedom of speech cannot be left unregulated.

You yourself agreed freedom of speech has to have limit if it hurts the country. Which in this case within reasonable calculation it does. The far right lady in question has not attacked the prophet Mohammed but she uses the prophet as pretext to dehumanize Muslims. Saying something like the prophet is bad so Muslims are bad let's close mosques, deport, attack Muslims. That's why this Islamophobes can't be left unregulated, otherwise we'd have Nazi Germany part 2.

Do you really think that regulation will stop this mofos cuz it won't? If someone wants to hate someone they are going to hate that person regardless. And the problem with the regulated free speech is, when is it an insult and when is it pure criticism.

I had a situation in my school last year where we had an islamophobic teacher. He wrote all kinds of thing, how Islam was evil and how it shouldn't be a religion etc. now, I live in a country where we do have regulated free speech. My friends reported him to the principal, and a couple of days later my principal came to us and defended this pig and said that we live in a society where we are allowed to have freedom of speech, I, of course, said he insulted our religion and the principal said, no and that it was only criticism.

With regulated free speech, people can choose when they want to deem something as an insult and or criticism. So to avoid that we should just have full freedom of speech (except if it is a threat to the country) were if someone insults you, then you have the right to insult them back. If we had full free speech then than I would have insulted the shit of stupid religion without risking getting in trouble.

 

[Hatredfree]

Do you really think that regulation will stop this mofos cuz it won't? If someone wants to hate someone they are going t
o hate that person regardless. And the problem with the regulated free speech is, when is it an insult and when is it pure criticism.

I had a situation in my school last year where we had an islamophobic teacher. He wrote all kinds of thing, how Islam was evil and how it shouldn't be a religion etc. now, I live in a country where we do have regulated free speech. My friends reported him to the principal, and a couple of days later my principal came to us and defended this pig and said that we live in a society where we are allowed to have freedom of speech, I, of course, said he insulted our religion and the principal said, no and that it was only criticism.

With regulated free speech, people can choose when they want to deem something as an insult and or criticism. So to avoid that we should just have full freedom of speech (except if it is a threat to the country) were if someone insults you, then you have the right to insult them back. If we had full free speech then than I would have insulted the shit of stupid religion without risking getting in trouble.

If you live in a country with a regulated free speech than there must be a reason why that is.

As for the principal agreeing with the bigot you should video type it in case it happeha to you next time because A teachers job is to teach not attack or bring up religion. And as I said it doesn't matter whether Islamophobes stop their hate regardless the law will held them accountable otherwise why do we have laws against stealing if we know robberies never end? Do you just argue for the sake of arguing because at this point you're not making any sense. Your reasoning is if its keeping happening why bother ? And I say that's not how the world works kiddo. At least come up with better reasoning.

 

[Life]

If you live in a country with a regulated free speech than there must be a reason why that is.

As for the principal agreeing with the bigot you should video type it in case it happeha to you next time because A teachers job is to teach not attack or bring up religion. And as I said it doesn't matter whether Islamophobes stop their hate regardless the law will held them accountable otherwise why do we have laws against stealing if we know robberies never end? Do you just argue for the sake of arguing because at this point you're not making any sense. Your reasoning is if its keeping happening why bother ? And I say that's not how the world works kiddo. At least come up with better reasoning.

He had an FB site where he was bashing Islam and the principal sided with him anyway. The teacher was a Christian Syrian and even said that he was only criticizing Islam and not insulting and he would continue because the law allowed him to.

and as for my arguments, it seems to me you are the one who doesn't understand my point. I never said that if it keeps happening to never bother. My whole point was more about what is the limit. When does it become an insult, opinion or criticism? perhaps you should read my post again to understand my point and then maybe you will see my reasoning.

 

[Hatredfree]

He had an FB site where he was bashing Islam and the principal sided with him anyway. The teacher was a Christian Syrian and even said that he was only criticizing Islam and not insulting and he would continue because the law allowed him to.

and as for my arguments, it seems to me you are the one who doesn't understand my point. I never said that if it keeps happening to never bother. My whole point was more about what is the limit. When does it become an insult, opinion or criticism? perhaps you should read my post again to understand my point and then maybe you will see my reasoning.

OK. So it was Facebook incident. And to answer your question where is the line drawn? I told you when the the motive involves dehumanizing entire group. For example like how your teacher said "Islam shouldn't be religion" is where it stops because that's crossing out religious tolerance or when attacking religious figures signifies how Muslims are evil because in the Islamophobe mind the only reason they criticize Islam is not for banter or genuine curiosity but to show Islam and Muslims as evil. Not good.

 

[Life]

OK. So it was Facebook incident. And to answer your question where is the line drawn? I told you when the the motive involves dehumanizing entire group. For example like how your teacher said "Islam shouldn't be religion" is where it stops because that's crossing out religious tolerance or when attacking religious figures signifies how Muslims are evil because in the Islamophobe mind the only reason they criticize Islam is not for banter or genuine curiosity but to show Islam and Muslims as evil. Not good.

But he got away with it by claiming that he was only criticizing Islam. which is another point that a brought up. With this kind of system in place, I can be biased and choose what an insult and whats not. In this case, my principle chose that what my teacher wrote on his FB was his opinion.

 

[Hatredfree]

But he got away with it by claiming that he was only criticizing Islam. which is another point that a brought up. With this kind of system in place, I can be biased and choose what an insult and whats not. In this case, my principle chose that what my teacher wrote on his FB was his opinion.

Ok. So you think it was his opinion well so be it.

And no one said the system would be perfect but in the case of this ruling it worked, the Islamophobe was inflicted with heavy defeat why can't you accept that?

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Problematic ruling. As much as I love the prophet and Islam dictating what free speech can and cannot be is wrong. If you are gonna have free speech it should be full out. I obviously wouldn't be happy with someone insulting the prophet.

The problem with the regulated free speech is when is it criticism and when is it an insult?

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that people should have the right to insult the Prophet (PBUH) ?

There's an obvious and simple reason why "free speech" has to be regulated, as not all free speech is good speech. The above case is a typical example of that, as the woman in question was advocating for the recognition of her "right to insult"as she believes that she's entitled to it under the freedom of expression act.

Given the statements from the court detailing the reasoning behind their decision, i don't get what was problematic with the ruling?

 

[Life]

Ok. So you think it was his opinion well so be it.

And no one said the system would be perfect but in the case of this ruling it worked, the Islamophobe was inflicted with heavy defeat why can't you accept that?

I never said that I thought that it was his opinion, I said he never got in trouble cuz the principal said it was an opinion and not an insult.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that people should have the right to insult the Prophet (PBUH) ?

There's an obvious and simple reason why "free speech" has to be regulated, as not all free speech is good speech. The above case is a typical example of that, as the woman in question was advocating for the recognition of her "right to insult"as she believes that she's entitled to it under the freedom of expression act.

Given the statements from the court detailing the reasoning behind their decision, i don't get what was problematic with the ruling?

I Love the prophet and wouldn't like if someone would insult him however this is my opinion on Free speech in general, not specific to this case.

It's not that I am saying that it was ok for her to say that I am just against regulated free speech in all. You said that the reason as to why regulated free speech is important is because not all speech is a good speech. Who chooses whats good and or a bad speech? When does it cross the line? That's why I gave the situation with my teacher as an example. My teacher was obviously insulting Islam, however, the principal deemed it as an opinion and not an insult. That's basically my point, with regulated free speech the line between good and bad speech is very vague. So instead why not just remove the line, the regulation, and next time my teacher says something I this time say something back.
Again, this is my opinion on free speech in general and not specifically in regards to this case.