Member-only story
Why protecting freedom of speech cannot mean allowing hate speech
In the case of E.S. v. Austria (2018), the European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision of an Austrian court to fine a woman who gave seminars for the far-right Austrian Freedom Party, in which she called the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile and suggested that all Muslim men were encouraged to emulate his example.
The ECHR did not uphold the decision because she had defamed Muhammed, but because her words were likely to encourage prejudice and potentially incite violence towards Muslims generally. Nevertheless, writing for Middle East Monitor, Lukman Harees suggests that the ECHR decision was that blasphemy towards Muhammed was not permissible. What the article says is this:
“Around two years ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled upholding an Austrian court’s decision that: “Defaming the Prophet Muhammad exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression.”
This quote looks like it’s from the court’s decision, but it’s not. It’s from a headline in Daily Sabah, the pro-Turkish government newspaper, which is linked to in the article. Daily Sabah also misrepresents the court’s ruling.
