You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
One of the things the US continues to do better than most countries - way better than Western Europe - is protect free speech. The European Court of Human Rights just upheld *criminal* fines imposed on an Austrian woman for "defaming" Muhammad, saying that's not free expression.pic.twitter.com/OfANNXtUZ5
When I was in college, Sinead O'Connor became a hero for liberals and free speech crusaders - rightfully so - when she tore up a picture of the Pope on Saturday Night Live. Under the monoric ruling of the EU court, that could've been criminalized http://diffuser.fm/sinead-o-connor-pope-snl/ …pic.twitter.com/L7yxGmtY1p
Now, a generation later, EU states & judges - in the name of liberalism - rule the state can legitimately *prosecute* someone as a criminal for saying offensive things about religious leaders. Full ruling is here: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-6234980-8105265 …
Here's my full argument from 2013 about why liberals and leftists are acting immorally, unethically, tyranically and - most of all - stupidly and counter-productively by cheering for the suppression of ideas they find offensive or "hateful"https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/02/free-speech-twitter-france …
You're only selectively posting part of the judgement. The key thing is not defamation (or blasphemy). The Court is saying Austrian courts properly applied Austrian law. It's not saying you can't defame or criticise the Prophet per se, only in narrow circumstances.pic.twitter.com/feLpPS2cQc
I linked to the whole decision. The crux of the ruling is that the Austrian court's criminal conviction of her for her words does not violate the Article 10 guarantee of free expression.
That is correct. But your initial summary tweet does not accurately reflect the reasoning or context of the judgement. The case is not about "defamation" or blasphemy or simply allowing prosecution of religious leaders. It's much more nuanced and narrow than that.
His point is that one of the things the U.S. still does better on is free speech. In the U.S. there would be no "nuance". That's the point
That's just like, his opinion, man. Sure, some European states have more restrictions on freedom of expression than the US, but that's mostly the exception, not the norm. The ECHR gives those states a margin of appreciation and respects their laws, within certain limits.
Did this feel like continued disagreement when you wrote it?
Glenn, your framing of this story is utter, utterly deceitful. You should be embarrassed. I say this as someone who was a huge fan of yours.
That's a pointless thing to say without specifics. I read the entire ruling. I 100% stand behind my description of it:https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/25/european-court-womans-defamation-muhamma …
http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2018/10/26/freedom-of-expression-or-criminal-blasphemy-es-v-austria/ … The problem, if it is assumed there is a problem (which I do) lies in Austria and not the ECHR.
“It’s high time to remember that our first allegiance is to the human race. And the human race broke away from the animal world through thought and speech. It is natural that these should be free. And if they are shackled we return to our animal state.” #Solzhenitsyn
To say that everybody has some "right" to have their "religious feelings protected" is terrifying. It opens society to totally arbitrary enforcement of the laws. What are "feelings"? Where is the line drawn?
No, it's not. The whole point of the European Court of Human Rights' case law is that any restrictions are not arbitrary and the line must be drawn as clearly as possible in the law. Which is the case here, for better or worse. See here for more: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf …
Anytime speech and “feelings” are involved, of course it will be enforced arbitrarily. The line should be physical violence - touching another person against their will. That is a violation of life, liberty, property (self ownership). Speech is not. Period.
Read the judgement. It’s not arbitrary. If it were arbitrary, it would be a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. And the line isn’t physical violence anywhere. Period. It hasn’t been so in the US since the 1942 fighting words doctrine emerged in Chapinsky.
In the USA, if your free speech infringes the profits of a major corporation, you're FAR more likely to go to prison than in Western Europe. There's much more private terrorism against blacks in the US for exercising free speech, than there is in the EU. US isn't more free
Ask Colin Kaepernick about his free speech, compared with black soccer players in the EU
Yeah, the US protects free speech so much it allows billionaires to purchase our politics & most of our media infrastructure. Your Koch-libertarian roots are showing...
You think that corporate media is better in Europe?
Most European nations have a stronger public media than in the US & media regulations of private media are tighter. The unleashing of the 1st Amendment as a corporate & right-wing tool was not foreseen by the US founders..we have an antiquated Constitution in some regards.
That depends on whether a European ox is being gored, or not.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
