The European Court of Human Rights has issued a judgement in the case of E.S. v. Austria, and it's a ruling that should outrage our friends in Europe, and, as a potential harbinger of things to come here in the states, should concern us as well. 1/
I'll include relevant excerpts as we continue along, though. 3/
• The applicant, identified as E.S., gave a series of seminars on Islam from 2008 to 2009.
• One of these seminars had an undercover journalist in attendance, who subsequently requested an investigation into E.S. 4/
• E.S. appealed the ruling, arguing that her statements were factual, not judgmental. The appeal was rejected.
• And now, E.S. v. Austria has upheld the lower court's ruling. 7/
But, hoo boy, the details are something else. 8/
Next, we have to look at the details of the initial ruling by the regional court. 9/
Yes, really. This was the prevailing argument in a damned court of law. 11/
the bigger issue was that, because society frowns upon child marriages, pointing this out was "capable of causing indignation". And, well, we can't have that. 12/
In the particular, this ruling deals with whether or not E.S. was subjected to an Article 10 violation, but in a broader sense, it signals whether or not criticisms of the Prophet Muhammed are protected speech in Europe. 16/
Especially for those of us in the states, this may seem a remote and abstract threat, but it certainly wouldn't be the first thing to jump the pond. 19/
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." /fin