"The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that Austrian courts carefully balanced the applicant's "right to freedom of...

>>Nothing -you- can do particularly
Exactly. If there's nothing I can do about it, I'm not willing to spend a second more in a shithole that I absolutely hate.
>How do you think great countries got to where they are? By fleeing the moment things got bad?
By importing freedom-loving immigrants from European shitholes.

>meanwhile in Brazil

Attached: image.jpg (1360x864, 266K)

Do European countries have to obey the ruling? Who enforces it? What happens if countries just ignore it?

>Do European countries have to obey the ruling?
Yes
>Who enforces it?
The country itself has to enforce it, if they don't EU will step in..
>What happens if countries just ignore it?
..and apply sanctions, ranging from fining them to even block the country from being allowed to have a voting right in European affairs (via EC etc)
See also Poland and Hungary as to what happens when EU Jews get pissed at member countries

Actually disregard that post
I was thinking of the ECJ but that decision was from ECHR
In that case it depends on the country, but yes, Austria will comply

OK so according to this article she said about Muhammed
>The court cited the Austrian women stating during the seminar thatMuhammad "liked to do it with children"and "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"

While she claimed that this can be seen as a way of contributing to public debate and was in no way meant to defame the prophet. The court thinks that this is not an objective comment and that the comment failed to provide historical background.
But what constitutes as a comment that contributes to public discussion? I don't get this ruling, I hope that this article is satire. Seems like she should not say that this can be seen as pedophilia?

we are under islamic law now

The ECHR is not an EU body. Please educate yourself.

Why would king leaf apologize for something that he had nothing to do with?

Based. Bolsonaro cleansing Brazil of all variety of filth.

god I hate europeans so much

based and halaalpilled

>feelings
LMAO

riddle me this, how do i get banned for 2 days for calling moscovites savages but this little bitch polfag will continue to shit up the board with his retarded "opinions"
fucking die

the EU human right court is not part of the EU government. Nobody has any obligation to follow what it says.

>Burgers pls give me a home.
Oh look, this guy doesn't know America's "muh constitution" has an obscenity clause.

The European Court of Human Rights is entirely disconnected from the EU. Countries that otherwise have nothing to do with the EU, like Russia and I think Turkey too, are members of the European Treaty of Human Rights. The ECHR oversees that treaty and its violations. Therefore, the signatory countries (all European countries, including Russia but excluding Belarus) are all held to its judgements and they supercede national laws in the same way all treaties do. The only way to get away from this ruling is to abandon the European Treaty of Human Rights, which you can understand would be an incredibly controversial move.

In effect it means Europe has formalized part of Sharia law. But I wouldn't laugh too loudly just yet, my American friend. Remember the obscenity clause!

based Bolsonaro carrying out the will of Allah

Old news.
In short:
>Austria has dumb blasphemy law
>EU court rules that the law stands
I blame catholics and their dumb laws.

But that's wrong. The ECHR's reasoning specifically refers to "preserving the religious peace". I'm sorry, but when was the last time Catholics shot journalists for making anti-Catholic cartoons?

Correction not EU court, European court.

IRA was a thing,
based Ireland removed their dumb blasphemy law, so now they're good in my book

Does this mean I can start suing atheists?

IRA was a marxist, nationalist organization. None of their attacks were explicitly religious in motive, though Catholic-Protestant tensions were used to rile everyone up.

There is no god

This was an Austrian law that the ECHR was lawful. It doesn’t apply to any other EU country but nice sensationalism.

that the ECHR ruled was lawful*

>IRA
>marxist
got a source on that senpai?

Attached: soros.png (640x480, 180K)

However, like all judgements made by higher bodies, a general rule can be distilled from it. That rule is, namely, that "preserving the religious peace" is a legitimate border to freedom of speech. If in Belgium some muzzy feels hurt because someone drew a cartoon of his pedophile prophet, he can go to court and use this judgement -which has legal force- as an argument. The judge is then forced to use this judgement as it supercedes national law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army

Checked into it and I see where the confusion comes from. The "Irish Republican Army" was barely unified and actually consisted of multiple factions. One of these was the "Official Irish Republican Army", which was a Marxist organization that sought to create a unified Irish worker's republic.

Will europe ever recover?

Attached: laughing pepe.jpg (125x118, 2K)

>what constitutes as a comment that contributes to public discussion?
Something that toes the party line. What, is this your first run-in with a totalitarian regime?

russian janny, simple as
How is saying the truth about a pedophile, "obscenity"?

Look at the definition of the obscenity clause. It has existed as long as the First Amendment itself, but in Miller v. California the "Miller Test" was introduced.
>(a) . . . ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . . (b) . . . the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) . . . the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[162]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Obscenity

Especially the first part is interesting: "contemporary community standards". The US population is currently 2% Muslim. What happens when it hits Sweden levels and becomes 8% Muslim? SOMETHING tells me that what the average American would consider obscene would suddenly shift. Hard.

Furthermore, this puts a lot of subjective power in the hands of judges to simply dismiss the First Amendment. The Miller Test may refer to the average person's standards, but obviously not every case in which this comes up will be followed by a poll. Instead, the US judge will apply what he "feels" the average American thinks about the issue.

Despite American exceptionalists constantly jacking off over it, the US Constitution's protection of freedom of speech is incredibly weak.

Come to America

>right to have their religious feelings protected
No such thing.

>europoors are atheists and not allowed to criticize the religion of foreign occupiers
I lol'd

Attached: 1540352524837.jpg (623x702, 177K)

This is it, this is the end of europe, it's glorious, whites are over, brings a tear to my eye.

Attached: 1536607794092.jpg (1024x1017, 83K)

Muh porn

Doesn't apply to political speech dummy

>Furthermore, this puts a lot of subjective power in the hands of judges to simply dismiss the First Amendment. The Miller Test may refer to the average person's standards, but obviously not every case in which this comes up will be followed by a poll. Instead, the US judge will apply what he "feels" the average American thinks about the issue.
>Despite American exceptionalists constantly jacking off over it, the US Constitution's protection of freedom of speech is incredibly weak.
Lmao I'm not even going to reply

just been informed that the muslim prophet muhammad was in fact a nonce, a slot badger, a two-pin-din-plug

Attached: pepe dev.jpg (470x595, 201K)

>Doesn't apply to political speech dummy
Says who?