Hate Speech Public Consultation

What do you mean by 'proven right'?

If there is a singular person questioned under the legislation, or indeed prosecuted and later it comes out that that shouldn't have happened, does that mean that the concern was right and the legislation should not have been enacted?

Because we have such cases about pretty much all criminal legislation on the books do we not, does that mean the legislation was incorrect, or poorly constructed?

As I referred to earlier, the same arguments being used to undermine this particular legislation could also (and has been in some ways) be used to argue against legislation to criminalise sexual harassment or assault and yet what we see there is that even with the legislation in place, most perpetrators of such crimes are not prosecuted for doing so.

You could give examples from the 1989 law

Do you think it is ok to publish material that calls to "promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait"

Tom I dont think the ECHR agreed that was a factual statement.

Clearly that is not ok.

But what if I make a statement that says "kn........... babies are more likely than settled people to grow up and become thieves", does that mean I've committed a crime under this proposed legislation? The problem is that the legislation is so open to personal interpretation, nobody can answer that question.

If that the case then it's even more dangerous, as it is a statement of fact. If you read the report there's a lot of "weasel" words with little substance:

Do better than these courts Robbie, show me how what was said was untruthful? Regardless, truth itself shouldn't be that relevant. Should people be allowed to say that Jesus is gay? Of course they should even if it's false. Unless it falls under slander or libel, it should still fall under freedom of expression.

The ruling is even worse than I though too as it wasn't even implied incitement to violence, it was incitement to intolerance. Which makes it look like they are making it up as they go along.

Islamic "religious feelings" are clearly above our rights to freedom of expression according to the EU:

The whole case is a great example of the lack of clarity, and the dangerous midfield that such policies will bring us, as they've given themselves enough width to make extremely subjective judgments, based on the community it's applied to. Every sane person here knows this wouldn't even be near a court if something similar was said about any Christian figures.

I don't think you understand what the ECHR's involvement with this case was.

The woman in this case was charged under Austrian law and was found guilty under Austrian law she appealed that decision to the ECHR under EU Article 10 rights

"Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression and information, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas."

Her case was not successful.

Do better than these courts Robbie, show me how what was said was untruthful? Regardless, truth itself shouldn't be that relevant. Should people be allowed to say that Jesus is gay? Of course they should even if it's false. Unless it falls under slander or libel, it should still fall under freedom of expression.

🤣🤣

Would you GTFO are you trying to get me banned from this thread for going off topic?

I haven't seen all the evidence presented nor do I pretend to have any understanding of Austrian law in regard to this matter.

How about you, have you read all the evidence presented in this case and do you have a good enough understanding of Austrian law to declare the verdict true or false?

Note: I am not asking you if the law was correctly applied or not, but rather whether that law should exist in the first place or not.

What law though. What Austrian law was the woman in this case tried under?

PS: You linked to a wiki article on the ECHR case which provides no additional background information, but eh thanks anyway.

The English translation of the wording  Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf was found guilty under Austrian Law I can find is:

And seeing as this is just anti blasphemy legislation and not hate speech related it is really going off the topic of this thread.

I am going to leave this line of discussion here TQM, seeing as this thread is on hate speech and you are trying to take it off into debating blasphemy legislation and I don't want any more infractions or to create any more work for the mod team deleting posts that are off topic.

https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/europe/austria/

The biggest issue will be the legislation being weaponised by various self anointed activists ,like what we seen in the UK not just with the miller case but several others involving people disagreeing over Twitter and suddenly one party going to the police to report they have been a victim of a hate crime , rapidly followed by the victim being given protections similar to rape and sexual assaults ,ie police protection and life long amonimity ,mean while the other person gets dragged through the mud and careers get ruined ,

All for a difference of opinion on Twitter,

There is nothing racist in saying that a 56 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old is a pedophile. This resulted in charges being brought against a person under hate crime legislation.

I didn't say there was TQM. I replied to another poster and said people should not be racist on twitter.

So the woman in Austria was found guilty under hate crime legislation was she?