ECHR decrees Europe wide blasphemy law ...for Islam only

[Shofercia]

No, but again, the law was limited to entering religious buildings with the intent to troll. I disagree with that law, as I think one should be punished with community service, (not jail time, at least not until he/she commits multiple offenses,) when they enter any public building with the intent to troll, and said intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Entering a library a day before the exam, while everyone is studying for it, and blasting loud music to piss them off and rile them up, is just as bad as entering a Church with the intent to piss off and rile up the folks that are there to pray or rest.

I don't think anyone actually was aware that the guy was playing Pokemon Go in the church until later when he posted the video on YouTube, which is when the criminal prosecution started. I think this is important because the law must protect from media that insults religious belief and not just public incidents.

Posting "there is no God" online, would not be punished in Russia, (unless you did it under someone else's account, which is why I think there should be stricter laws against impersonating others online,)

I'm not sure I understand this one and unfortunately I can't read Russian so I don't really understand the article you linked. I get why he would be prosecuted for the insults he sent to other people about their religion, that makes sense to me, clearly that violates the law on insulting religious beliefs and I think they would have successfully prosecuted him for that if the witnesses hadn't refused to testify. But surely its a crime to insult someone's religious beliefs whether you do so under your own name or someone else's? I don't see how what he did would be ok if he had used his own name.

As you said, you have to insult someone. Generically writing "God ain't there" isn't insulting anyone, since it's a generic statement. Ergo, that wouldn't have been prosecuted. Also, when it comes to insulting believers, the average reasonable person test should apply. Trolling someone every single day on their social media account because they're Peyote, is wrong. Saying "Peyote people get high on that ganja" once in a while, is ok. He was engaging in reckless behavior, that could have led to SWATTING, under someone else's name, telling others to sue him. That's plenty to get into trouble in Russia. My issue with it was that HuffPo spun it as someone simply claiming "there's no God" and then getting into trouble for it.

[Frievolk]

The court in question operates under civil law, and civil law doesn't have much precedent at all, and certainly no binding precedent.

Try again

Not quite.

If a court passes a ruling, they will reference that ruling when deciding similar cases, civil law or not. If a murder is committed the killer will be treated as previous convicted killers were.

Besides that, it sets a political precedent. If the politicians that support this see that it is upheld in one place, it is most probable it applies elsewhere.

Whether formally utilized or not, precedent effects the courts, and the law, regardless of their type.

Dude that's just it. That doesn't happen in Civil Law.
Unlike Common Law where you only have "other similar cases" to refer to while making a decision, Civil Law has written rules. A Crime and its punishment have to be mentioned, in written law, usually in a "Penal Code" or something similar. They aren't going to refer to a case happening under Austrian Laws for an event that's happened in, say, France or Germany. Because Civil Law does not use precedent in the same way Common Law does. And really? "Political precedent"? Even though the general trend this last, what, 3 years has been "so you know about those blasphemy laws? let's abolish them" (the last country to do this literally did it in the last 3 days.)

[Second Empire of America]

So writing off an entire continent because of a blasphemy law in one country.

It's like writing off America based just on the redneck parts of Alabama.

The court has jurisdiction across the entire EU. Like any other court, every ruling means something universally across it's jurisdiction due to the principle of precedent.

The court just says that countries can enforce blasphemy laws if they are already on the books. It doesn't force them on countries that have greater free speech protections than the EU-mandated minimum.

[Mardla]

I think the term "cucked" is reasonable here.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I think the term "cucked" is reasonable here.

On the other hand I think the prevalence of hysterical blindness and wilful ignorance in this thread is becoming alarmingly epidemic.

[Mardla]

I think the term "cucked" is reasonable here.

On the other hand I think the prevalence of hysterical blindness and wilful ignorance in this thread is becoming alarmingly epidemic.

You have been here long enough to know that's commonplace.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

On the other hand I think the prevalence of hysterical blindness and wilful ignorance in this thread is becoming alarmingly epidemic.

You have been here long enough to know that's commonplace.

Glad to know that you agree that your point of view is due to hysterical blindness and the wilful failure to inform yourself.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Not quite.

If a court passes a ruling, they will reference that ruling when deciding similar cases, civil law or not. If a murder is committed the killer will be treated as previous convicted killers were.

Besides that, it sets a political precedent. If the politicians that support this see that it is upheld in one place, it is most probable it applies elsewhere.

Whether formally utilized or not, precedent effects the courts, and the law, regardless of their type.

Dude that's just it. That doesn't happen in Civil Law.
Unlike Common Law where you only have "other similar cases" to refer to while making a decision, Civil Law has written rules. A Crime and its punishment have to be mentioned, in written law, usually in a "Penal Code" or something similar. They aren't going to refer to a case happening under Austrian Laws for an event that's happened in, say, France or Germany. Because Civil Law does not use precedent in the same way Common Law does. And really? "Political precedent"? Even though the general trend this last, what, 3 years has been "so you know about those blasphemy laws? let's abolish them" (the last country to do this literally did it in the last 3 days.)

To be fair, there is some use of jurisprudence in civil law, although not in the same way. While similar cases are not authoritative, the legal interpretation by the Supreme Courts are authoritative. In their case law, the European Court of Justice explains how certain provisions of law should be read and interpreted. These explanations have a lot of authority, and lower courts will generally follow this jurisprudence. Of course, in civil law, we have statutes and codes, but the precise interpretation is still down to the judges.

Of course, jurisprudence doesn't have the same weight in civil law as it has in common law, but to say that civil law nations don't use jurisprudence takes it a bit too far.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Dude that's just it. That doesn't happen in Civil Law.
Unlike Common Law where you only have "other similar cases" to refer to while making a decision, Civil Law has written rules. A Crime and its punishment have to be mentioned, in written law, usually in a "Penal Code" or something similar. They aren't going to refer to a case happening under Austrian Laws for an event that's happened in, say, France or Germany. Because Civil Law does not use precedent in the same way Common Law does. And really? "Political precedent"? Even though the general trend this last, what, 3 years has been "so you know about those blasphemy laws? let's abolish them" (the last country to do this literally did it in the last 3 days.)

To be fair, there is some use of jurisprudence in civil law, although not in the same way. While similar cases are not authoritative, the legal interpretation by the Supreme Courts are authoritative. In their case law, the European Court of Justice explains how certain provisions of law should be read and interpreted. These explanations have a lot of authority, and lower courts will generally follow this jurisprudence. Of course, in civil law, we have statutes and codes, but the precise interpretation is still down to the judges.

Of course, jurisprudence doesn't have the same weight in civil law as it has in common law, but to say that civil law nations don't use jurisprudence takes it a bit too far.

As far as I see it this case only established "precedence" in that laws passed should be applied to everybody without discrimination. It should be blindingly obvious that the ECtHR did not suddenly create blasphemy laws in all EU member states by one decision in one member state regarding one member state's application of their own law to one of their own citizens. But seeing and understanding is hard after all...

[Frievolk]

Dude that's just it. That doesn't happen in Civil Law.
Unlike Common Law where you only have "other similar cases" to refer to while making a decision, Civil Law has written rules. A Crime and its punishment have to be mentioned, in written law, usually in a "Penal Code" or something similar. They aren't going to refer to a case happening under Austrian Laws for an event that's happened in, say, France or Germany. Because Civil Law does not use precedent in the same way Common Law does. And really? "Political precedent"? Even though the general trend this last, what, 3 years has been "so you know about those blasphemy laws? let's abolish them" (the last country to do this literally did it in the last 3 days.)

To be fair, there is some use of jurisprudence in civil law, although not in the same way. While similar cases are not authoritative, the legal interpretation by the Supreme Courts are authoritative. In their case law, the European Court of Justice explains how certain provisions of law should be read and interpreted. These explanations have a lot of authority, and lower courts will generally follow this jurisprudence. Of course, in civil law, we have statutes and codes, but the precise interpretation is still down to the judges.

Of course, jurisprudence doesn't have the same weight in civil law as it has in common law, but to say that civil law nations don't use jurisprudence takes it a bit too far.

I have, previously, mentioned that same exact point.
But in response to "That sets a dangerous precedent", "Civil Law does not use precedent" is the only answer that gets the idea across.

[Mardla]

You have been here long enough to know that's commonplace.

Glad to know that you agree that your point of view is due to hysterical blindness and the wilful failure to inform yourself.

Hysterical?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Glad to know that you agree that your point of view is due to hysterical blindness and the wilful failure to inform yourself.

Hysterical?

I mean why make an effort to understand what is actually happening or educate yourself when you can hysterically deride all beyond the United States as regnii barbarii?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

To be fair, there is some use of jurisprudence in civil law, although not in the same way. While similar cases are not authoritative, the legal interpretation by the Supreme Courts are authoritative. In their case law, the European Court of Justice explains how certain provisions of law should be read and interpreted. These explanations have a lot of authority, and lower courts will generally follow this jurisprudence. Of course, in civil law, we have statutes and codes, but the precise interpretation is still down to the judges.

Of course, jurisprudence doesn't have the same weight in civil law as it has in common law, but to say that civil law nations don't use jurisprudence takes it a bit too far.

I have, previously, mentioned that same exact point.
But in response to "That sets a dangerous precedent", "Civil Law does not use precedent" is the only answer that gets the idea across.

Yeah, but in this case, it might actually set a precedent. Not a dangerous precedent, mind, but the ECHR is a curious institution. Because of the vagueness of the Convention, the dictum in these cases can actually make a lot of difference. Cases like Öneryildiz and Soering are landmark cases that are used in court cases all over Europe. So, normally, I would say you are right, but in the specific case of the ECHR, cases actually do work more like precedent than they would in the national systems. We will see this interpretation of the freedom of speech return in future cases as well. The idea that, in cases of blasphemy, a lot of weight has to be put with the national judge and legislator, and that protection of religious sensibilities is something to consider when evaluating freedom of speech, will certainly return as case law.

[Frievolk]

I have, previously, mentioned that same exact point.
But in response to "That sets a dangerous precedent", "Civil Law does not use precedent" is the only answer that gets the idea across.

Yeah, but in this case, it might actually set a precedent. Not a dangerous precedent, mind, but the ECHR is a curious institution. Because of the vagueness of the Convention, the dictum in these cases can actually make a lot of difference. Cases like Öneryildiz and Soering are landmark cases that are used in court cases all over Europe. So, normally, I would say you are right, but in the specific case of the ECHR, cases actually do work more like precedent than they would in the national systems. We will see this interpretation of the freedom of speech return in future cases as well. The idea that, in cases of blasphemy, a lot of weight has to be put with the national judge and legislator, and that protection of religious sensibilities is something to consider when evaluating freedom of speech, will certainly return as case law.

It might, but not in the way that it would enforce countries to establish blasphemy laws, which is my point.
The Law, and the decision (well, this decision in particular), are only effective on countries with pre-established laws for blasphemy (i.e. countries that criminalize insulting religion). The idea that an ECHR decision will make every country criminalize blasphemy is the precedent I disagree with in this argument (I realize that's probably not your point, but it is the point many people who say "this sets a dangerous precedent" in this thread try to make)

Given the trend of European countries abolishing their blasphemy laws, I heavily doubt this will become more than just an affirmation of "His Country, His Law". Especially in this scenario.

[Arcturus Novus]

This OP made my eyes roll so far back into my head that the force sent my head flying into my ass, causing me to spin into the air and out of orbit. I'm writing this as a space ghost, as my body is currently frozen and rapidly depressurizing in space.

[Alvecia]

I wonder if we’ll see Austria add itself to the growing list of countries sorting out old blasphemy laws as a result of this.

[Ifreann]

I wonder if we’ll see Austria add itself to the growing list of countries sorting out old blasphemy laws as a result of this.

It would certainly be amusing to see people lose their minds over a long-standing blasphemy law because it was used to prosecute blasphemy against Mohammed.

[Alvecia]

I wonder if we’ll see Austria add itself to the growing list of countries sorting out old blasphemy laws as a result of this.

It would certainly be amusing to see people lose their minds over a long-standing blasphemy law because it was used to prosecute blasphemy against Mohammed.

That does sound awfully plausible, doesn’t it.

[Panslavicland]

I don't think anyone actually was aware that the guy was playing Pokemon Go in the church until later when he posted the video on YouTube, which is when the criminal prosecution started. I think this is important because the law must protect from media that insults religious belief and not just public incidents.



I'm not sure I understand this one and unfortunately I can't read Russian so I don't really understand the article you linked. I get why he would be prosecuted for the insults he sent to other people about their religion, that makes sense to me, clearly that violates the law on insulting religious beliefs and I think they would have successfully prosecuted him for that if the witnesses hadn't refused to testify. But surely its a crime to insult someone's religious beliefs whether you do so under your own name or someone else's? I don't see how what he did would be ok if he had used his own name.

As you said, you have to insult someone. Generically writing "God ain't there" isn't insulting anyone, since it's a generic statement. Ergo, that wouldn't have been prosecuted. Also, when it comes to insulting believers, the average reasonable person test should apply. Trolling someone every single day on their social media account because they're Peyote, is wrong. Saying "Peyote people get high on that ganja" once in a while, is ok. He was engaging in reckless behavior, that could have led to SWATTING, under someone else's name, telling others to sue him. That's plenty to get into trouble in Russia. My issue with it was that HuffPo spun it as someone simply claiming "there's no God" and then getting into trouble for it.

"There is no God" is insulting to religious beliefs when it is said or written with the intent to insult religious belief, as this guy did. Although his use of a pseudonym provides extra reason to stop him doing this sort of thing, even if he had written his insults under his own name the prosecution would be justified. What he wrote was easily just as insulting as the Pokémon Go video, maybe even worse because he directed it at religious people on social media, whereas no one in the church saw what the Pokémon Go guy was doing at the time. Fortunately the psychiatric confinement and social ostracism this incident has resulted in means he didn't escape without punishment, albeit informal, even though he wasn't convicted.

[Estanglia]

>writing off an entire continent because the existence of a blasphemy law in one country was upheld for the the time being

When the entire continent is under this court's jurisdiction, I most certainly have justification to write it off.

No you don't when the ruling only applies to Austria.

So writing off an entire continent because of a blasphemy law in one country.

It's like writing off America based just on the redneck parts of Alabama.

The court has jurisdiction across the entire EU. Like any other court, every ruling means something universally across it's jurisdiction due to the principle of precedent.

precedent in civil law doesn't function in the same way as common law.

[Indo-Malaysia]

I have suddenly decided that the European Union no longer has any jurisdiction on my land. Fight me.

Inb4 edgy crusade

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I have suddenly decided that the European Union no longer has any jurisdiction on my land. Fight me.

Inb4 edgy crusade

Ok don't appeal any court cases to the ECtHR then.

[Indo-Malaysia]

I have suddenly decided that the European Union no longer has any jurisdiction on my land. Fight me.

Inb4 edgy crusade

Ok don't appeal any court cases to the ECtHR then.

I was taking the piss mate.

Who actually bothers about this stuff?

[Ifreann]

I have suddenly decided that the European Union no longer has any jurisdiction on my land. Fight me.

Inb4 edgy crusade

This has nothing to do with the EU though.

[Indo-Malaysia]

I have suddenly decided that the European Union no longer has any jurisdiction on my land. Fight me.

Inb4 edgy crusade

This has nothing to do with the EU though.

satire
/ˈsatʌɪə/Submit
noun
the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
"the crude satire seems to be directed at the fashionable protest singers of the time"
synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature; More