Message from @Slen
Discord ID: 627656341254569994
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
Cain killed Abel
Im a criminal
an abusive attack on the prophet of islam. so, blasphemy then.
How?
"Capable of stirring up prejudice."
The bible isnt evidence
The context
I have defamed cain
moses killed the midianites
You're not holding a seminar, claiming to be an "expert" on the religion, where the wording of the title of said seminar implies fact.
That's the difference
Right so if I held a seminar, as an expert, say a priest.
its not actually illegal to misrepresent history in an essay or lesson
If you lied / defamed someone that would be against the law. Yes.
The seminar is typical religious BS like "God is truth" or something
and then read from the bible
Stating that Cain did in fact kill abel
Lying isn't against the law.
I can now be arrested for preaching the religion