←back to thread

313 points rntn | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.718s | source
Show context
rockemsockem ◴[] No.44608323[source]
I'm surprised that most of the comments here are siding with Europe blindly?

Am I the only one who assumes by default that European regulation will be heavy-handed and ill conceived?

replies(12): >>44608340 #>>44608348 #>>44608365 #>>44608370 #>>44608610 #>>44608665 #>>44610625 #>>44610726 #>>44610798 #>>44612923 #>>44612936 #>>44614160 #
notyourwork ◴[] No.44610625[source]
What is bad about heavy handed regulation to protect citizens?
replies(12): >>44610680 #>>44610707 #>>44611218 #>>44611228 #>>44611391 #>>44611511 #>>44611793 #>>44612262 #>>44614109 #>>44614142 #>>44614972 #>>44618703 #
terminalshort ◴[] No.44611793[source]
This is the same entity that has literally ruled that you can be charged with blasphemy for insulting religious figures, so intent to protect citizens is not a motive I ascribe to them.
replies(2): >>44614606 #>>44615721 #
1. computer ◴[] No.44614606[source]
What entity specifically?
replies(1): >>44615461 #
2. terminalshort ◴[] No.44615461[source]
The EU Court of Human Rights upheld a blasphemy conviction for calling Muhammad (who married a 9 year old) a pedophile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v._Austria_(2018)
replies(1): >>44618600 #
3. gretch ◴[] No.44618600[source]
Dang that's a crazy outcome.

>Even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.

Although the expression of this opinion is otherwise acceptable, it was packed with "incriminating statements". But the subject of these incriminating statements is 2000 year old mythical figure.