Re:The EU Terrorist Content Regulation – a threat to the eco...
by cyphar on Wednesday November 21, 2018 @08:02AM
(#18502333)
From the first line in the article:
> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a woman convicted by an Austrian court of calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not have her freedom of speech rights infringed.
Now, I don't particularly like the Daily Mail, but given that you are expressing the exact opposite of the situation described in the article I would expect some sort of argument. It appears you misunderstood the article's title?
EDIT: It's the total opposite, I apologize. She was convicted for her speech, but the courts found her speech to disrupt the religious peace, and not freedom of opinion. Turns out disrupting religious peace is illegal in Austria, which is a stupid law.