https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-12171%22]}

Looks like a nice bullshit explaination tbh

I can accept that

so its not pedo to sleep with a 9 year old as long as you stay with them. right.

She would have to prove that he was attracted to pre-pubescent children, she failed to do that

but the core problem is that the court is saying that it's not ok to defame historical religious figures, which means it is siding with a blasphemy ruling

If she was going label him as she did.

All the information we have about this dead cunt say he is

It is essentially a blasphemy law

The hadiths? <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

Written 50+ years after his death?

That evidence?

"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. Anyone interested in participating had been able to enrol and as such the applicant could therefore not have assumed that there would only be like-minded people in the room but also people who might be offended by her statements."

More context.

it doesnt matter if its true or not, its a blasphemy ruling. is it illegal to say that jesus was a known child murdered?

No

Click on the link I sent you

Not islam enough

And actually read it.

From that quote you postes

"The applicant had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, while failing to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue, and had thus made a value judgement without sufficient factual basis."

>Defamation

it seems to be based on the fact your cant have objective info on old as shit religious stuff

"Even if they were to be classified as factual statements, she had failed to adduce any evidence to that end."!

"Moreover, the applicant had been wrong to assume that improper attacks on religious groups had to be tolerated even if they were based on untrue facts. On the contrary, the Court had held that statements which were based on (manifestly) untrue facts did not enjoy the protection of Article 10."

So essentially, if I said God murdered thousands in in genesis

I could be charged with defamation

Even if I was preaching my relgion

God wasn't a living person

God was emboddied

numerous times in the bible

for the analogy you do have to pick a person who provably existed

"In addition, the impugned statements had not been phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages but rather amounted to a generalisation without factual basis."

<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

"Muh freedom of speech!"

"Thus, by considering them as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts had come to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained elements of incitement to religious intolerance. They had thereby put forward relevant and sufficient reasons and had not overstepped their – wide – margin of appreciation."

Here is a better one

That last one is where I draw the line.

Cain killed Abel

Im a criminal

an abusive attack on the prophet of islam. so, blasphemy then.