当言论自由是有代价的——以E.S.诉奥地利案为例

Q3 Social Sciences
Rachael Taylor
{"title":"当言论自由是有代价的——以E.S.诉奥地利案为例","authors":"Rachael Taylor","doi":"10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In the fall of 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a decision upholding the criminal conviction of an Austrian national (E.S.) in violation of Austria's Criminal Code against the disparagement of religious doctrines. Her initial conviction in the Austrian court was based on statements she made about the Prophet Muhammad while teaching a series of seminars entitled \"Basic Information on Islam.\" In upholding her conviction, the ECtHR found that there had been no violation of the Austrian's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Convention), and therefore Austria's conviction was valid and did not impermissibly infringe on her right to freedom of expression. This case adds yet another dimension to the polarizing debate regarding freedom of expression and the permissible limitations that may be placed upon this freedom. In this article, I argue that this case can be viewed as a turning point in the free expression debate, and perhaps indicates an awareness that such restrictions on speech may be necessary in order to maintain public safety and order.","PeriodicalId":39188,"journal":{"name":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","volume":"27 1","pages":"431 - 450"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Freedom of Speech Comes at a Cost: A Case Study of E.S. v. Austria\",\"authors\":\"Rachael Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:In the fall of 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a decision upholding the criminal conviction of an Austrian national (E.S.) in violation of Austria's Criminal Code against the disparagement of religious doctrines. Her initial conviction in the Austrian court was based on statements she made about the Prophet Muhammad while teaching a series of seminars entitled \\\"Basic Information on Islam.\\\" In upholding her conviction, the ECtHR found that there had been no violation of the Austrian's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Convention), and therefore Austria's conviction was valid and did not impermissibly infringe on her right to freedom of expression. This case adds yet another dimension to the polarizing debate regarding freedom of expression and the permissible limitations that may be placed upon this freedom. In this article, I argue that this case can be viewed as a turning point in the free expression debate, and perhaps indicates an awareness that such restrictions on speech may be necessary in order to maintain public safety and order.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"431 - 450\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0431\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0431","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:2018年秋,欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)作出判决,维持对一名奥地利公民(E.S.)的刑事定罪,罪名是违反奥地利《刑法》,蔑视宗教教义。奥地利法院对她的最初定罪是基于她在讲授一系列题为“伊斯兰基本信息”的研讨会时对先知穆罕默德的陈述。欧洲人权法院在维持对她的定罪时发现,根据《欧洲保护人权公约》(《公约》)第10条,奥地利人的言论自由权没有受到侵犯,因此对奥地利的定罪是有效的,并没有不允许侵犯她的言论自由权。这个案例为关于言论自由和这种自由可能受到的限制的两极分化辩论增加了另一个维度。在这篇文章中,我认为这个案件可以被视为言论自由辩论的转折点,也许表明人们意识到,为了维护公共安全和秩序,这种言论限制可能是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When Freedom of Speech Comes at a Cost: A Case Study of E.S. v. Austria
Abstract:In the fall of 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a decision upholding the criminal conviction of an Austrian national (E.S.) in violation of Austria's Criminal Code against the disparagement of religious doctrines. Her initial conviction in the Austrian court was based on statements she made about the Prophet Muhammad while teaching a series of seminars entitled "Basic Information on Islam." In upholding her conviction, the ECtHR found that there had been no violation of the Austrian's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Convention), and therefore Austria's conviction was valid and did not impermissibly infringe on her right to freedom of expression. This case adds yet another dimension to the polarizing debate regarding freedom of expression and the permissible limitations that may be placed upon this freedom. In this article, I argue that this case can be viewed as a turning point in the free expression debate, and perhaps indicates an awareness that such restrictions on speech may be necessary in order to maintain public safety and order.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信