Thanks for posting the link to the actual ruling. You are right in pointing out that press reports can often give a misleading, simplistic impression of a complex legal issue.

However, the ruling still makes for chilling reading if you’re concerned about free speech – at least in Austria. The Austrian courts’ rulings reads as repeated “you have freedom of speech, but…” and then go on to put a lot of weight on religious people’s rights not to have their feelings hurt. As Stephen rightly alludes to in his post, stirring the indignation of Muslims is seen as such a threat to the ‘religious peace’ of the country, it comes across as a bigotry of low expectation (or, if a realistic assessment, all the more reason to promote critical debate of Islam). The ECHR may well have stayed within its brief, but it has nevertheless validated a judicial infringement of free speech in a Member state.

The fact that Austrian judges and a Freedom Party guest-speaker have to quibble over the sexual preferences and marriage history of a semi-mythical figure from 7th century Arabia, to say nothing of the absurdity of referring to ‘factual basis’ where all you have are Islamic myths and dogma, should have been reason enough for this case not to be worth any court’s time.

But it seems that the Prophet of Islam – whether paedophile or not – is kryptonite to secular values and common sense.

My point is just that you should be aiming all that criticism at Austria, not the ECHR.

Isn’t allowing countries the right to set their own laws what many people want? The ECHR just refused to intervene. They ruling had no other significance beyond that, except to confirm that existing international human rights law doesn’t define clearly enough how far states can go in limiting freedom of speech.

Very true where when it originated. Adopting to secular society, accepting the true real fact that we form a civil society where moeurs are totally opposite of contents of many books( all of EU had similar heavy weights on their necks until “reformation/renaissance”- after which the priests/churches were put on the side lines & new social contract developed)- is the price they have to pay for living in harmony, peace and yet thrive while all can practice privately whatever their books enjoin to be. I see much further progress in FREE civil societies- this black plague of intolerance, fascista/zionista period will wither away. Do not see that happening in close confines of monolithic mutually enhanced tyrannic social formations. Include gun toting WMD loaded US of A in this latter category.

The case couldn’t be more clear cut, hate facts have become illegal facts. Tropes are also facts. Now, when you make facts illegal are you not risking totalitarianism? This is the issue with the ruling. Religious feelings are trumping FACTS. Get your head around that. Extrapolate. Every time I see a mosque MY religious feelings are trampled on. Do I get justice from the ECHR? Should I? What if 5million people also complained? Would the ECHR call mosques illegal due to my hurt religious feelings?

Unfortunately you can’t revise the “perfect word of God” and remain a Muslim. This is confirmed by Islamic scholars the world over. Are you really telling Muslims how to Muslim while they tell you it cannot happen like that?
Maybe a new religion (Isn’tlam?) can come about, that doesn’t have the massive socioeconopolitical elements that Islam has, and can actually reform the teachings

I was initially staggered by this ruling. In all other cases I’ve looked into where the ECHR’s rulings have been criticised and, on the face of it, appeared wrong headed, once you look into the detail and context of the decisions they have always made a lot of sense. I couldn’t get my head around this decision – until I found an explanation on, of all places, Reddit.

https://amp.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9r9kht/insulting_prophet_muhammad_not_free_speech_ecthr/

“The actual judgment itself can be found here if you want to read it in full, rather than the press release:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188

The ECtHR didn’t say that insulting the Prophet Muhammad was not free speech. In fact, the opposite:

The Court considers, and this was common ground between the parties, that the criminal conviction giving rise to the instant case amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.
However, Article 10 does allow domestic states (in this case Austria) to curtail freedom of spreech where they have a “legitimate aim” that is “necessary to a democratic society”.

The Austrian state argued that they prohibit certain forms of expression in order to preserve the peace and prevent religious antagonism. The ECtHR was not overwhelmingly convinced by this, but stated:

In examining whether restrictions on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention can be considered “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court has frequently held that the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation…
In other words: we’re not going to interfere with the domestic Austrian legal system unless the case is much more clear cut than the one in front of us.

So don’t blame the ECtHR. They can’t overstep the domestic Austrian legal system on this issue.”

I’m deeply concerned at how this decision is being distorted and how noone is stopping to question whether the common interpretation of the decision is the correct one. It risks doing huge (further) damage to the credibility of human rights and Europe for no reason other than a lack of understanding and skepticism of press reports.