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

[Salus Maior]

...Which he got completely off the hook for?

The point was still that someone got charged for it, not that Ireland realized it was dumb as hell

So he got charged under a de-facto defunct law.

Obviously that's not what this is going to be.

[Dazchan]

The interesting thing is that one of the countries marked as red on that map is the country his own family is from, which has a law banning blasphemy against Christianity specifically and exclusively.

Yep. Now I guess my next question is, what exactly qualifies as blasphemy?

That would depend on the country, but in the case of Greece:

1. One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years.
2. Except for cases under paragraph 1, one who by blasphemy publicly manifests a lack of respect for the divinity shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months.

One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes the Greek Orthodox Church or any other religion tolerable in Greece shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years

Or if you prefer a real-world example, author Gerhard Haderer, his publisher and four booksellers, were all charged in 2003 because they wrote, published and sold a satirical book about Jesus, where he was depicted as a hippie.

For further information about other European countries, refer to my previous post where I linked to various cases from around Europe of people running afoul of blasphemy laws. The German one might interest you - apparently having an atheistic bumper sticker is enough to break the law there.

[Salus Maior]

Yep. Now I guess my next question is, what exactly qualifies as blasphemy?

That would depend on the country, but in the case of Greece:

1. One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years.
2. Except for cases under paragraph 1, one who by blasphemy publicly manifests a lack of respect for the divinity shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months.

One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes the Greek Orthodox Church or any other religion tolerable in Greece shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years

Or if you prefer a real-world example, author Gerhard Haderer, his publisher and four booksellers, were all charged in 2003 because they wrote, published and sold a satirical book about Jesus, where he was depicted as a hippie.

For further information about other European countries, refer to my previous post where I linked to various cases from around Europe of people running afoul of blasphemy laws. The German one might interest you - apparently having an atheistic bumper sticker is enough to break the law there.

Alright, so because liberals hate blasphemy laws they want to double down on them and make more religions illegal to criticize?

[Dazchan]

That would depend on the country, but in the case of Greece:




Or if you prefer a real-world example, author Gerhard Haderer, his publisher and four booksellers, were all charged in 2003 because they wrote, published and sold a satirical book about Jesus, where he was depicted as a hippie.

For further information about other European countries, refer to my previous post where I linked to various cases from around Europe of people running afoul of blasphemy laws. The German one might interest you - apparently having an atheistic bumper sticker is enough to break the law there.

Alright, so because liberals hate blasphemy laws they want to double down on them and make more religions illegal to criticize?

If you say so, but would you mind not quoting me if you’re going to post things that have no connection to what I’ve said.

[Frievolk]

Irrelevant to the discussion but relevant to the "Blasphemy laws" part. Any news from the Irish referendum?

[Lord Dominator]

That would depend on the country, but in the case of Greece:




Or if you prefer a real-world example, author Gerhard Haderer, his publisher and four booksellers, were all charged in 2003 because they wrote, published and sold a satirical book about Jesus, where he was depicted as a hippie.

For further information about other European countries, refer to my previous post where I linked to various cases from around Europe of people running afoul of blasphemy laws. The German one might interest you - apparently having an atheistic bumper sticker is enough to break the law there.

Alright, so because liberals hate blasphemy laws they want to double down on them and make more religions illegal to criticize?

As far as I know no one in this thread as yet suggested blasphemy laws are a good thing

Irrelevant to the discussion but relevant to the "Blasphemy laws" part. Any news from the Irish referendum?

I think there's a thread for that actually

The point was still that someone got charged for it, not that Ireland realized it was dumb as hell

So he got charged under a de-facto defunct law.

Obviously that's not what this is going to be.

I mean, the fine already happened so obviously not

Edit; Irish Blasphemy thread, slightly aged: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=450913

[Shofercia]

She was from Vienna, found guilty by the Vienna Regional Court, meaning that she probably held the seminars in Vienna, rather than an Austrian City that was a war zone less than two decades ago. Thus the analogous Russian cities could be Moscow, the current capital, or St. Petersburg, the previous capital, or Novgorod, Russia's first capital, or Kazan, Russia's Cultural Islamic capital. But you knew that none of those cities would fit the bill for your poorly thought out comparison, so you threw in Grozny, which has no analogies in Austria, since Austria doesn't have cities that were war zones less than two decades ago. Your failure to grasp this or your deliberate attempt at deviousness, tells me what to expect from your future posts.

What does being warzones have to do with the legal system in 2018?

When comparing countries, one should strive to make good comparisons. Comparing a capital of one country to a war zone of another country is not as good as comparing a capital of one country to a capital of another country. I thought that was obvious to anyone who's not oblivious.

[Shofercia]

She was from Vienna, found guilty by the Vienna Regional Court, meaning that she probably held the seminars in Vienna, rather than an Austrian City that was a war zone less than two decades ago. Thus the analogous Russian cities could be Moscow, the current capital, or St. Petersburg, the previous capital, or Novgorod, Russia's first capital, or Kazan, Russia's Cultural Islamic capital. But you knew that none of those cities would fit the bill for your poorly thought out comparison, so you threw in Grozny, which has no analogies in Austria, since Austria doesn't have cities that were war zones less than two decades ago. Your failure to grasp this or your deliberate attempt at deviousness, tells me what to expect from your future posts.

I never suggested that Grozny is to Russia what Vienna is to Austria, that's just some weird interpretation of my argument that seemingly only you have drawn. I was disabusing the notion that after this ruling Russia is somehow freer than Western Europe. Not Moscow, St Petersburg, Novgorod or Kazan - but Russia in its entirety. Which is plainly nonsense as in Chechnya, which as you are well aware is still part of Russia, I strongly doubt this would be considered acceptable by the authorities there.

Your quote:

The idea that the actions that saw this woman prosecuted would be better received in Russia is quite amusing though. Try holding a seminar in Grozny accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile and see what happens to you

An action depends on one's location. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is bad. Yelling "FIRE!" on a paintball field is acceptable. Having provocative religious discussions in a war zone is bad. Having provocative religious discussions in a capital is acceptable. I cannot believe that I actually have to explain these basic concepts.

Her actions included speaking in the capital. She did not go and seek out a former war zone to make trouble; she wanted to be heard in an area that was best suited for the debate. You're comparing that to a person who chooses a location that was a war zone less than two decades ago to hold the discussion. That is simply asinine bullshit, no matter how pathetically you attempt to spin it, Neoliberal Vampires.

If I want to yell "FIRE!" I go and play paintball. I don't go to crowded theaters and yell "FIRE!" nor do I pretend that the two are the same. They might both be legal, or they might not, but in one case, the person yelling "FIRE!" is acting like a total douche. So if this lady decided to seek out a forum for discussion in Russia, such as a capital, and proceeded to discuss Muhammad there, she, most likely, wouldn't have been fined.

Does this single act mean that Russia is freer than the West? No. And I never argued otherwise. However, if you take her actions in the context of reality where they occurred, rather than in the limited context you're attempting to use, where her location, the place where she acted, isn't somehow related to her actions, you'd realize that she probably wouldn't have been punished in Russia, for speaking out against Muhammad, in a capital city.

And now you're desperately attempting to shift goal posts, much to the amusement of several NSG posters. Your original quote, the one that stands by itself, the one that I responded to, said absolutely nothing about overall freedom in Russia or the West. You specifically talk about this case. And now you desperately attempt to shift the debate. You were wrong, just as Neoliberals were wrong to support Iraq, the Arab Spring, and mass migration to Europe. Admit it, and move on. Or not. But in that case, don't whine about having your posts compared to Hillary Clinton's actions. She still has issues with admitting something that happened in 2016, much to the amusement of several NSG posters.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Irrelevant to the discussion but relevant to the "Blasphemy laws" part. Any news from the Irish referendum?

Exit polls from RTE suggest it will pass by a very comfortable margin.

[Olerand]

What does being warzones have to do with the legal system in 2018?

When comparing countries, one should strive to make good comparisons. Comparing a capital of one country to a war zone of another country is not as good as comparing a capital of one country to a capital of another country. I thought that was obvious to anyone who's not oblivious.

Oh. I had no idea Grozny was still a warzone. You're right, that's not a fair comparison.

[Astoriya]

So what? It still changes nothing

[Olerand]

So what? It still changes nothing

Indeed it doesn't. The Court upheld Austrian law, in Austria.

[Baltenstein]

On that matter, let's not conveniently forget that people are in fact being prosecuted for violating blasphemy laws in Russia - even in places that weren't "war zones less than 20 years ago" (why this should matter on wether or not blasphemy laws are in effect remains a mystery).

Case in point:
Example One, example Two.

And in both cases, far harsher potential penalties than the one in the Austrian case were on the table.

So even if we ignore the fact that Kadyrov is running a horrible Sharia theocracy on Russian soil, on the Russian government's watch, because "warzone", it's not as if the situation regarding blasphemy laws and their potential punitive consequences "elsewhere in Russia" is somehow remarkably more free than in Austria, as the OP originally claimed.

[Estanglia]

It is entirely without a factual basis.

THAT is a lie. Case Law matters, especially when international courts feed off each other's precedents for justification in revolutionary rulings.

The legal situation in Europe today is the exact same as it was a week ago. Nothing is now legal that was not legal a week ago, nothing is now illegal that was not illegal a week ago. It can only be a lie to describe that as a Europe-wide blasphemy law being imposed on you.

YOU are LYING because the ECHR has just created doctrine. For itself and for others.

You may want to ignore that because you are biased but it doesn't change the FACT that this decision matters and not just for Austria.

Just out of curiosity, were you also one of those that mocked Trump for the Sweden remarks? Just wondering.
Are you sure these comments of yours will age well?

If you want to call the title exageration, I am ok with that but to accuse me of lying reveals disingenuous bad faith.

It's not decreeing Europe wide blasphemy law, it's not imposing one. It's just upholding Austria's blasphemy laws. It's not forcing countries without blasphemy laws to have one, it's just letting Austria keep its one.

You are aware the ECHR is not an Austrian court right?

Yup. But in this case, it's ruling on Austrian law, so only Austria's law will be affected.

ECHR decisions are not meant to govern states individually.

They upheld Austria's blasphemy laws without imposing them on other countries. That seems a lot like governing states individually.

This patently lying player is a problem. Misinformers spread lies that spread like wildfire among the ignorant.

Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi ... fss_papers

"Reception processes have, in turn,
provoked deep changes in European Government, through the accumulation of
incremental, step-by-step adjustments to the demands of the Strasbourg Court.
National officials are, gradually but inexorably, being socialized into a Europe of
rights, a unique transnational legal space now seeking to develop its own logic of
political and juridical legitimacy. "

Yes, the rulings are binding. Olerand's not lying though. The courts upheld Austria's law. It's not saying that countries have to have blasphemy laws.

So, are you more of a mendacious ignorant for believing that future criticism of Islam will NOT be attacked more often in blasphemy law states?

It might. That's not the point. You're saying this ruling imposes Europe-wide blasphemy laws, which is false.

Are you more of a mendacious ignorant for believing that the ECHR will in the future contradict itself and allow people to remark the worst aspects of Islamic history?

It can. There isn't precedent in civil law.

Are you more of a mendacious ignorant for attacking someone who will expose the problem this ruling creates?

What problems does the court upholding Austria's law create? 'Europe wide blasphemy laws'? The 'problems' you've 'exposed' aren't happening.

[Risottia]

Defaming Prophet Muhammed not free expression: ECHR
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defamin ... D2eVvxfdrk


Defaming the Prophet Muhammed “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate" and "could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday, upholding a lower court decision.
The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009, entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage.
According to a statement released by the court on Thursday, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had pedophilic tendencies, and in February 2011 convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.
She was fined €480 (aprox. $547) and the costs of the proceedings.
“Mrs. S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming, in essence, the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013,” it said.
“Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs. S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.”
On today’s ruling, the ECHR said it “found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”
The court held “that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”

So, I woke up this morning and realised judges in Strasbourg, had imposed a unilateral blasphemy law on me.

1984 is now, I am not free, Russia is now officially freer than western Europe.

You are free. The problem with you is that you ignore what the ECHR is and how it works. Russia is part of the CoE which means ECHR rulings apply to Russia, too. Also ECHR ruling DON'T create laws, and they're specific to the case being discussed, although they can be used as precedent in similar cases.

So, try harder.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Based on some of the replies from the OP to comments proving him wrong on the stuff they have been saying, i think you would be wasting your time Ris asking him to try harder.

[Tahar Joblis]

You are free. The problem with you is that you ignore what the ECHR is and how it works. Russia is part of the CoE which means ECHR rulings apply to Russia, too. Also ECHR ruling DON'T create laws, and they're specific to the case being discussed, although they can be used as precedent in similar cases.

So, try harder.

A point to consider in terms of being concerned about the ruling:

It does not just say that Article 10 rights are not violated. It also held that the blasphemy law in question, in spite of the fact that the European parliament has resolved that blasphemy laws generally infringe on both freedom of religion and freedom of speech, was a type of law required to protect Article 9 religious rights:

43. As paragraph 2 of Article 10 recognises, however, the exercise of the freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities. Amongst them, in the context of religious beliefs, is the general requirement to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of such beliefs including a duty to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to objects of veneration, gratuitously offensive to others and profane (see Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania, no. 69317/14, § 74, 30 January 2018, with further references). Where such expressions go beyond the limits of a critical denial of other people’s religious beliefs and are likely to incite religious intolerance, for example in the event of an improper or even abusive attack on an object of religious veneration, a State may legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures (see for example, mutatis mutandis, Otto‑Preminger‑Institut, § 47, and İ.A. v. Turkey, § 29, both cited above). In addition, expressions that seek to spread, incite or justify hatred based on intolerance, including religious intolerance, do not enjoy the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Gündüz, cited above, § 51).

Emphasis added. The italicized portion is the standard "hate speech" exemption - i.e., if speech is incitement of violence, it is not protected. Mind you, I do consider hate speech law a troublesome area because it is very easy to go too far stretching the justification. In bold, however, we have the reasoning laid out for why the blasphemy law is a law that functions correctly to protect Article 9 rights, logically implying that other European countries should have laws serving a comparable function: European citizens have a duty to avoid "offensive and profane" statements, including in this case what amounts to taking what are generally considered to be facts about Mohammad (including many Muslims - this material is taken from the hadiths) and contrasting them with modern morality. That does lead me to repeat my incidental point earlier that court rulings by the Austrian courts and this court affirm materially false claims about pedophilia, namely, that someone with "pedophilic tendencies" cannot be also sexually attracted to adults. This is a harmful myth and the court should not be affirming it.

We can take this same reasoning and apply it to Danish cartoonists, Charlie Hebdo, et cetera. Ultimately, this logic is an affirmation of censorship, blasphemy law, and can be used to support double standards (using the Charlie Hebdo attacks themselves as evidence that criticism of Mohammad or Islam are more likely to lead to religious violence than criticism of other religious figures and religions).

[Neoliberal Vampires]

I never suggested that Grozny is to Russia what Vienna is to Austria, that's just some weird interpretation of my argument that seemingly only you have drawn. I was disabusing the notion that after this ruling Russia is somehow freer than Western Europe. Not Moscow, St Petersburg, Novgorod or Kazan - but Russia in its entirety. Which is plainly nonsense as in Chechnya, which as you are well aware is still part of Russia, I strongly doubt this would be considered acceptable by the authorities there.

Your quote:

The idea that the actions that saw this woman prosecuted would be better received in Russia is quite amusing though. Try holding a seminar in Grozny accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile and see what happens to you

An action depends on one's location. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is bad. Yelling "FIRE!" on a paintball field is acceptable. Having provocative religious discussions in a war zone is bad. Having provocative religious discussions in a capital is acceptable. I cannot believe that I actually have to explain these basic concepts.

Her actions included speaking in the capital. She did not go and seek out a former war zone to make trouble; she wanted to be heard in an area that was best suited for the debate. You're comparing that to a person who chooses a location that was a war zone less than two decades ago to hold the discussion. That is simply asinine bullshit, no matter how pathetically you attempt to spin it, Neoliberal Vampires.

If I want to yell "FIRE!" I go and play paintball. I don't go to crowded theaters and yell "FIRE!" nor do I pretend that the two are the same. They might both be legal, or they might not, but in one case, the person yelling "FIRE!" is acting like a total douche. So if this lady decided to seek out a forum for discussion in Russia, such as a capital, and proceeded to discuss Muhammad there, she, most likely, wouldn't have been fined.

Does this single act mean that Russia is freer than the West? No. And I never argued otherwise. However, if you take her actions in the context of reality where they occurred, rather than in the limited context you're attempting to use, where her location, the place where she acted, isn't somehow related to her actions, you'd realize that she probably wouldn't have been punished in Russia, for speaking out against Muhammad, in a capital city.

And now you're desperately attempting to shift goal posts, much to the amusement of several NSG posters. Your original quote, the one that stands by itself, the one that I responded to, said absolutely nothing about overall freedom in Russia or the West. You specifically talk about this case. And now you desperately attempt to shift the debate. You were wrong, just as Neoliberals were wrong to support Iraq, the Arab Spring, and mass migration to Europe. Admit it, and move on. Or not. But in that case, don't whine about having your posts compared to Hillary Clinton's actions. She still has issues with admitting something that happened in 2016, much to the amusement of several NSG posters.

You can't disassociate this from the OP that I was responding to. My post that you originally responded to did not occur within a vacuum but within the context of the thread, where it was asserted that Russia is freer than Western Europe, with this incident being a supposed example of that. As you pointed out you disagree with that too. I gave a pretty clear example of how her punishment in the strictest part of Austria (I'm going on the basis here that she probably would be treated much the same in any other part of Austria) still pales in comparison to how she would be treated in the strictest part of Russia for these sort of things. In no way am I required to compare two capitals like you are suggesting on this bizarre tangent to the thread.

[Neoliberal Vampires]

You are free. The problem with you is that you ignore what the ECHR is and how it works. Russia is part of the CoE which means ECHR rulings apply to Russia, too. Also ECHR ruling DON'T create laws, and they're specific to the case being discussed, although they can be used as precedent in similar cases.

So, try harder.

A point to consider in terms of being concerned about the ruling:

It does not just say that Article 10 rights are not violated. It also held that the blasphemy law in question, in spite of the fact that the European parliament has resolved that blasphemy laws generally infringe on both freedom of religion and freedom of speech, was a type of law required to protect Article 9 religious rights:

43. As paragraph 2 of Article 10 recognises, however, the exercise of the freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities. Amongst them, in the context of religious beliefs, is the general requirement to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of such beliefs including a duty to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to objects of veneration, gratuitously offensive to others and profane (see Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania, no. 69317/14, § 74, 30 January 2018, with further references). Where such expressions go beyond the limits of a critical denial of other people’s religious beliefs and are likely to incite religious intolerance, for example in the event of an improper or even abusive attack on an object of religious veneration, a State may legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures (see for example, mutatis mutandis, Otto‑Preminger‑Institut, § 47, and İ.A. v. Turkey, § 29, both cited above). In addition, expressions that seek to spread, incite or justify hatred based on intolerance, including religious intolerance, do not enjoy the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Gündüz, cited above, § 51).

Emphasis added. The italicized portion is the standard "hate speech" exemption - i.e., if speech is incitement of violence, it is not protected. Mind you, I do consider hate speech law a troublesome area because it is very easy to go too far stretching the justification. In bold, however, we have the reasoning laid out for why the blasphemy law is a law that functions correctly to protect Article 9 rights, logically implying that other European countries should have laws serving a comparable function: European citizens have a duty to avoid "offensive and profane" statements, including in this case what amounts to taking what are generally considered to be facts about Mohammad (including many Muslims - this material is taken from the hadiths) and contrasting them with modern morality. That does lead me to repeat my incidental point earlier that court rulings by the Austrian courts and this court affirm materially false claims about pedophilia, namely, that someone with "pedophilic tendencies" cannot be also sexually attracted to adults. This is a harmful myth and the court should not be affirming it.

We can take this same reasoning and apply it to Danish cartoonists, Charlie Hebdo, et cetera. Ultimately, this logic is an affirmation of censorship, blasphemy law, and can be used to support double standards (using the Charlie Hebdo attacks themselves as evidence that criticism of Mohammad or Islam are more likely to lead to religious violence than criticism of other religious figures and religions).

Does the language chosen, specifically "a State may legitimately consider" rather than a more forceful "a State must consider" or something similar, give member states of the convention the leeway to have these sorts of law, rather than requiring their use to protect article 9 rights?

[Carl Hasty]

When comparing countries, one should strive to make good comparisons. Comparing a capital of one country to a war zone of another country is not as good as comparing a capital of one country to a capital of another country. I thought that was obvious to anyone who's not oblivious.

Oh. I had no idea Grozny was still a warzone. You're right, that's not a fair comparison.

Grozny switches from a masterfully rebuilt (always in comparison to “Iraq”) place with absolutely beautiful skyscrapers to a warzone on the whim of the poster’s argument.

[Joohan]

The idea that the actions that saw this woman prosecuted would be better received in Russia is quite amusing though. Try holding a seminar in Grozny accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile and see what happens to you

You are 100% correct but this isn't the narrative Russian bots want to push on the west. Their narrative suggests that Russia is a bastion of Christianity and the "evil west" is being overrun by muslims. And therefore you must support Russia or get killed by the "evil immigrants".

In reality, islam in Russia is huge, just like Orthodoxy. And some of it's states have a muslim majority. But that's something all these concerned "europeans" and 'americans" conveniently forget to mention when making comparisons.

It's not the muslims overrunning the west who I am worried about, it's our own hedonists...

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I mean, if you're gonna do it for 1 religious figure, you might as well do it for all.

[Shofercia]

When comparing countries, one should strive to make good comparisons. Comparing a capital of one country to a war zone of another country is not as good as comparing a capital of one country to a capital of another country. I thought that was obvious to anyone who's not oblivious.

Oh. I had no idea Grozny was still a warzone. You're right, that's not a fair comparison.

It's not a war zone. It was a war zone less than two decades ago. Making jokes about Jews and pizza, in the US in 2018, isn't, (well at least it's highly unlikely,) going to start fights, or scare the shit out of someone. Making those jokes in Germany in the 1960s, would be extremely fucked up. People need time to heal. Again, I'm stunned that I have to explain these basic concepts.

[Shofercia]

Your quote:



An action depends on one's location. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is bad. Yelling "FIRE!" on a paintball field is acceptable. Having provocative religious discussions in a war zone is bad. Having provocative religious discussions in a capital is acceptable. I cannot believe that I actually have to explain these basic concepts.

Her actions included speaking in the capital. She did not go and seek out a former war zone to make trouble; she wanted to be heard in an area that was best suited for the debate. You're comparing that to a person who chooses a location that was a war zone less than two decades ago to hold the discussion. That is simply asinine bullshit, no matter how pathetically you attempt to spin it, Neoliberal Vampires.

If I want to yell "FIRE!" I go and play paintball. I don't go to crowded theaters and yell "FIRE!" nor do I pretend that the two are the same. They might both be legal, or they might not, but in one case, the person yelling "FIRE!" is acting like a total douche. So if this lady decided to seek out a forum for discussion in Russia, such as a capital, and proceeded to discuss Muhammad there, she, most likely, wouldn't have been fined.

Does this single act mean that Russia is freer than the West? No. And I never argued otherwise. However, if you take her actions in the context of reality where they occurred, rather than in the limited context you're attempting to use, where her location, the place where she acted, isn't somehow related to her actions, you'd realize that she probably wouldn't have been punished in Russia, for speaking out against Muhammad, in a capital city.

And now you're desperately attempting to shift goal posts, much to the amusement of several NSG posters. Your original quote, the one that stands by itself, the one that I responded to, said absolutely nothing about overall freedom in Russia or the West. You specifically talk about this case. And now you desperately attempt to shift the debate. You were wrong, just as Neoliberals were wrong to support Iraq, the Arab Spring, and mass migration to Europe. Admit it, and move on. Or not. But in that case, don't whine about having your posts compared to Hillary Clinton's actions. She still has issues with admitting something that happened in 2016, much to the amusement of several NSG posters.

You can't disassociate this from the OP that I was responding to. My post that you originally responded to did not occur within a vacuum but within the context of the thread, where it was asserted that Russia is freer than Western Europe, with this incident being a supposed example of that. As you pointed out you disagree with that too. I gave a pretty clear example of how her punishment in the strictest part of Austria (I'm going on the basis here that she probably would be treated much the same in any other part of Austria) still pales in comparison to how she would be treated in the strictest part of Russia for these sort of things. In no way am I required to compare two capitals like you are suggesting on this bizarre tangent to the thread.

When posters respond to the OP, they usually do it in their first post. If they do not, then they make some kind of reference to the OP. This was not your first post. You also admitted that you thought that the OP lied. After responding to the OP, you responded to several posters, and then decided to do a hit and run on Russia, for which you were called out. Now you're heroically whining about how every post you make that doesn't quote anyone, is a magical response to the OP, and everyone on NSG is supposed to know that.

If someone was to genuinely talk about freedom, when comparing countries, they probably wouldn't limit themselves to a single example, since that would be foolish, but you, Neoliberal Vampries, seem to disagree. You actually thought that when I said you shouldn't use a single example to compare two countries, was comparing two countries. Lolwut?

I didn't argue that Russia was freer than Austria, or that Austria was freer than Russia. What I said was that you cannot use a single act to compare freedom ratings of two countries. (Yes NSG, I'm aware that there are exceptions, but this act ain't it.) Let me requote that part for you:

Does this single act mean that Russia is freer than the West? No. And I never argued otherwise.

I'm not here to debate which country is freer, especially now with someone who's now claiming that every single post he makes in the thread that doesn't quote anyone is a response to the OP. Do you have evidence that Vienna is the strictest part of Austria? No, you do not. You even claim that she would've been treated that way in any other part of Austria, which I find idiotic, since a small farming village where people are struggling to survive, is probably not going to make a big deal out of her actions. Similarly, if you take the Graz Train Station, or other places where alleged economic migrants gathered, and preach about Muhammad being a pedophile, you might get a different treatment, perhaps a more physical one, than a mere fine. Areas with millions of people aren't monoliths. Damn, I have to explain several elementary school concepts in this thread.

But you are correct about one thing: you are not required to make factually correct posts, or even sane comparisons on NSG. You can make extremely ignorant posts, claim that every single post in the thread that doesn't quote anyone is a response to the OP, and misinterpret the very basic things that your fellow posters say.

[Neoliberal Vampires]

You can't disassociate this from the OP that I was responding to. My post that you originally responded to did not occur within a vacuum but within the context of the thread, where it was asserted that Russia is freer than Western Europe, with this incident being a supposed example of that. As you pointed out you disagree with that too. I gave a pretty clear example of how her punishment in the strictest part of Austria (I'm going on the basis here that she probably would be treated much the same in any other part of Austria) still pales in comparison to how she would be treated in the strictest part of Russia for these sort of things. In no way am I required to compare two capitals like you are suggesting on this bizarre tangent to the thread.

When posters respond to the OP, they usually do it in their first post. If they do not, then they make some kind of reference to the OP. This was not your first post. You also admitted that you thought that the OP lied. After responding to the OP, you responded to several posters, and then decided to do a hit and run on Russia, for which you were called out. Now you're heroically whining about how every post you make that doesn't quote anyone, is a magical response to the OP, and everyone on NSG is supposed to know that.

If someone was to genuinely talk about freedom, when comparing countries, they probably wouldn't limit themselves to a single example, since that would be foolish, but you, Neoliberal Vampries, seem to disagree. You actually thought that when I said you shouldn't use a single example to compare two countries, was comparing two countries. Lolwut?

I didn't argue that Russia was freer than Austria, or that Austria was freer than Russia. What I said was that you cannot use a single act to compare freedom ratings of two countries. (Yes NSG, I'm aware that there are exceptions, but this act ain't it.) Let me requote that part for you:

Does this single act mean that Russia is freer than the West? No. And I never argued otherwise.

I'm not here to debate which country is freer, especially now with someone who's now claiming that every single post he makes in the thread that doesn't quote anyone is a response to the OP. Do you have evidence that Vienna is the strictest part of Austria? No, you do not. You even claim that she would've been treated that way in any other part of Austria, which I find idiotic, since a small farming village where people are struggling to survive, is probably not going to make a big deal out of her actions. Similarly, if you take the Graz Train Station, or other places where alleged economic migrants gathered, and preach about Muhammad being a pedophile, you might get a different treatment, perhaps a more physical one, than a mere fine. Areas with millions of people aren't monoliths. Damn, I have to explain several elementary school concepts in this thread.

But you are correct about one thing: you are not required to make factually correct posts, or even sane comparisons on NSG. You can make extremely ignorant posts, claim that every single post in the thread that doesn't quote anyone is a response to the OP, and misinterpret the very basic things that your fellow posters say.

My post that you took issue with was made in such a way that to most readers it should have been clear that it was in reference to OP's claim about Russia. I accept that some people might not have understood that, although as far as I'm aware its just you so far but I will also accept the possibility that others didn't either. I'm not going to hold it against you, I'm sure you aren't misunderstanding on purpose, but please understand that this is a public forum and I aim to write in a way that is meant to be understood by most users, and on occasion you might not be within that group.