I read it Weez. They decided that because all the information we have about Allah wasnt good enough for them

she was a criminal

Or even better, even though she was right by that info

she didnt say it

so criminal

They assumed guilt and made her prove innocence

that is why that happened

Don't make unsupported claims and call them fact.

There is support

thats not illegal

that sounds like religion

lying is not illegal in most circumstances

If I said to you right now "Neil armstrong went to the moon"

Should I be expected to give you a citation?

Okay, let me ask you, could you unquestionably *prove* that she defamed him?

What i say is correct even though it;s uncited

I accept it based on the research I've done

If I knew nothing then I would ask for a citation and evidence

Just leave already!

But could I be accused of lying if I said it without citation

Then when asked to provide some, give it

And you won't have these issues

🙂

so in blasphemy cases, it is sufficient to not prove the claims are accurate. ok.

It is essentially criminalising someone for telling the best truith we know

but not backing it up

" for telling the best truth we know", ah but is it?

She got criminalised for lack of citation

That sounds like "The innocent have nothing to fear" when the KGB come knocking.

on a true statement

Yet she couldn't prove it to be a true statement

It does Slen

Like I said

And in this context, it's harmful.

They assumed guilt

she couldnt prove it wasnt blasphemy? right.

who really cares what the muslims believe anyways, we should just deport them to france and say fuck you

that means its ok to prosecute someone for blasphemy then

You really do need to look at the context

It makes all the world difference.

Weez, they assumed guilt