Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile does not fall within freedom of speech: European court

He was born to a Muslim father, so according to Islam he's Muslim (freedom of religion is not approved of by Allah, nor by the evil God of the Bible - he ordered Moses to have 3000 people slaughtered for believing in a different god.)

 

Alexa.....your reply?

 

And exactly how old was Mary when she gave birth to Jesus????

 

we make it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. My conjecture is because we judge that to be dangerous to the community. Perhaps the Europeans have reached a similar conclusion in this case

Fwiw, what Mohamed did was not considered Pedophilia when and wher he did it. Also, fwiw, many state laws 150 years ago in the USA also would have allowed similar behaviors.

(In the 1800s) IN FOUR STATES THE AGE OF CONSENT IS FIXED AT THE SHOCKINGLY LOW AGE OF TEN YEARS, in four others at twelve, in three at thirteen, and so on, increasing, except in DELAWARE, WHERE THE ORIGINAL STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE CRIME OF RAPE IS STILL UNREPEALED, FIXING THE AGE AT SEVEN YEARS. These so-called age of consent statutes, which discriminate against girlhood and favor immoral men, are a disgrace to the several States of the Union.

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/09/13/the-age-of-consent-laws-in-america-1800s/

​

As far as I know, the EU would still allow a historically accurate narrative in this case.

 

You not personally, but it does affect the website if it's available elsewhere.

The part after it says "First Amendment,"... it's a comma,.. not a period. The sentence goes on.
Lousy trolling.

 

It's an inevitability.

 

Can we agree that by today's standards Mohammad was immoral?

 

Sounds like leftists should be out tearing down statues of Mohammed then huh?

 

Sorry, why would any sane person automatically respect something just because it's a belief? Do you respect NAMBLA's 'beliefs'? How about Satanists?

 

OMG ... you're serious

 

Crazy, irrational, immoral stuff.

 

Last time I checked... it came with an exception.
And I pointed out you made a comma into a point and skipped that part.

 

Is the thread about NAMBLA or Satanists? You should try to stay within the context.

 

Was I responding to you? If so, explain why beliefs should be automatically respected, just because they're beliefs?

 

The restrictions on free speech in Europe are really scary to me. Had another debate on a global forum where I was discussing what typical Americans thought of "hate speech" and how laws should handle them. The biggest problem most people have is with the term itself as it is entirely dependent on how the laws are written.

Is calling someone a "cracker" hate speech? Can hate speech even be acted against a "White" person? All of these are important questions that make the debate a very difficult one to simply answer yes or no.

---

In the last couple years we have heard more and more people calling for similar restrictions to speech with regards to certain ideological or political groups. This has come with a massive pushback from the community against the college campuses where this effort seems to be based upon.

It is fascinating to look at the myriad of polls on "free speech", America as a whole has been fairly solid on how they feel about free speech issues for a loooong time. The new Millennial generation is by far the most similar to European ideals however, the following 2015 poll was interesting to me and was where our debate began.

FYI, I myself am a 35 YO "Millennial".

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...h-offensive-to-minorities/ft_15-11-19_speech/
"Statements that are offensive to minority groups (hate speech) should be censored."

Group --- Agree --- Disagree

Total --- 28% --- 67%

Millennials --- 40% --- 58%
Gen X --- 27% --- 70%
Boomer --- 24% --- 71%
Silent --- 12% --- 80%

Men --- 23% --- 73%
Women --- 33% --- 62%

Republican --- 18% --- 77%
Democrat --- 35% --- 60%
Independent --- 27% --- 68%

College --- 22% --- 75%
Some C --- 29% --- 66%
High School --- 31% --- 63%

Couple interesting things to look at IMO, Millennials (18-24) and Silent's (70-87) are the biggest outliers from the "totals'" average with a +12% and a -16% respectively. Guess it makes sense, it will be interesting to see what Generation Z thinks, I haven't found a poll on them but almost everything you read says they are far more Conservative than Millennials.

I was surprised that the more education someone has the more likely they are to support free speech. With how college is now days I expected the opposite.

The same poll also compares the feelings to that of the major EU nations for comparison.

US --- 28% --- 67%

Germany --- 70% --- 27%
Italy --- 62% --- 32%
Poland --- 50% --- 41%
France --- 48% --- 51%
Spain --- 40% --- 57%
UK --- 38% --- 54%

---

Unfortunately it is from 2015, I found a more recent poll/survey from the end of 2017 but it seems INCREDIBLY biased, however analyzed correctly still has some good info to study.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...he-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

A lot of info from this survey shows that the numbers are much more favorable to curbing free speech, however if you look at the data it is stated.

"Of the 1,500 respondents, 697 identified a Democrats, 261 as Republicans, and 431 as Independents."

Now, these are only college students so I am sure it is harder to find Republican people to answer considering the domination of Progressives on college campuses. But at the very least, this difference in people asked needs to be equated into any analysis.

So 47% of the respondents were Democrats and 17% Republican, almost 300% more Left leaning respondents than Right leaning and their final number of "should 'hate speech' be protected under the first amendment" was:

39 yes (47%)
44 no (53%)

Again, this poll is kinda hard to take any meaning out of as the statistics were based on some pretty biased data. However being that Millennials likely make up a larger percent of college students than in 2015, this maybe accurate to that grouping of people.

---

Whew!!! Sorry for being so long, just thought they were some fun numbers to look at, analyze and discuss.

 

By todays standards Thomas jefferson was immoral, and donald trump, along with large parts of the old testament, and very many of the popes... including many recent popes who have ignored and or protected child abusing priests

Much as we might imagine otherwise..., morality is not an absolute standard. Different times, different places, different situations....all provoke different attitudes about morality. Ad such it is ridiculous to try to apply our own standards of morality to different times and places. What we do know is that mohamed was not considered immoral in his own community

 

Yea. Mohammad's 9 year old wife had it coming because she dressed slutty.






Of course he was a pedophile. EU can kiss my rear.

 

Neither was Hitler

 

If Yandy.com had a "Slutty Aisha" costume we'd soon be in WWIII.

 

The Islamic texts force a woman to "cover" because it feels that if a woman is raped it's the WOMAN'S fault. That couldn't BE more wrong!

 

Incredible. Wow! You can't reply that Mohammad raping a 9-year-old is morally wrong. What is the world coming to!?

 

Let me clear you up on this - you seem confused:........WHEN 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT A PEDO IS THE #1 ROLE MODEL OF ALL TIME THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!

 

If they riot over a CARTOON (of Muhammad), then if that is "dangerous to the community", then they need to be condemned for having such thin skin, not condemn the person who draws the cartoon.

 

Can you imagine this country making it illegal to call Jesus an iron age con man?

I honestly cannot believe the number of people this themselves into little pretzels to defend this nonsense.

Resist...while you still can...