Under very specific conditions?

Sure.

laws against even preaching

Conditions hardly anyone will meet, ever?

Sure.

one person meeting the condition for "Defaming" a prophet of a religion is too much

"Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false" If it was a UK Court, not the ECHR I'd argue that the onus would be on the court to prove the claim to be false, not that the claim did not have enough proof. But considering it is in Europe, good luck getting a fair trial on that.

Under the conditions in which it happened, it was fine.

That is another thing slen

"As for the context of the impugned statements, the seminars had been widely advertised to the public on the Internet and via leaflets, sent out by the head of the right-wing Freedom Party, addressing them especially to young voters and praising them as “top seminars” in the framework of a “free education package”. The title of the seminar had given the – in hindsight misleading – impression that it would include objective information on Islam."

The legal system of the UK and the USA is simply better on the "Innocent until proven guilty" front.

"The applicant had described herself as an expert in the field of Islamic doctrine, already having held seminars of that kind for a while, thus she had to have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse (justified) indignation in others."

You cannot provide objective seminars on things in magical religion books

ljust point at the grooming gangs, they believe he was a pedo enough to try and imitate him

You can provide the studies of said books in the most well understood way.

You can

She didn't.

🙂

and it is understood...that mohammed was a pedo

Yet she couldn't prove that claim

Well, she did. Its just the Court disagreed.

Understood does not mean objective.

You see thats the difference, she had to prove she was innocent.

In places that actually have sensible legal systems, they would had to prove she was wrong.

just dont object to islam and you're fine, stay in your place peasant

Shouldn't have made false claims @Joshu

Simple.

They wernt false though were they?

She just didnt provide the evidence...or enough of it

It relies on interpretation. And to class as defamation, a court as to positively prove the crime, which would mean they would have to prove her claims to be false. Which they can't.

Claims she couldn't support.

thing is whether she was an expert or not, whether it was a lecture containing lies or biased explanations or not, she was prosecuted for *defaming a long dead religious figure* - which is a blasphemy judgement no matter how you try to interpret it

a claim that was supported

and therefore isnt defamation

No it wasn't supported

The claim itself is supported

maybe not in that seminar...to the court's disgression

However it isnt an untruth

If he were a paedophile then why continue living with his wife after she turned 18?

If this were true.

Thats a silly argument

whether it was supported or not is irrelevant