French teen who criticised Islam to move schools

DelaneyIn

A French teenager who criticised Islam on Instagram has moved to a new school after receiving death threats.

Education minister Gabriel Attal told broadcaster LCI on Monday that they had found a new school for Mila "to allow her to continue her life".

Mila, 16, sparked a national row over free speech when she called Islam a "religion of hate".

The teen's criticisms prompted fury but also drew support in France, where there are no laws against blasphemy.

Her comments about Islam came after she received homophobic abuse from a Muslim commenter. Supporters started the hashtag #JeSuisMila (I am Mila), while critics responded with #JeNeSuisPasMila.

She did not return to school after making the remarks. But on Monday Mr Attal said they had found her a "solution" and would be moving to another school which is not been made public to protect her safety.

France has a strictly secular constitution, but also a large Muslim population. There have been frequent clashes over policy in recent years, such as a government ban on full-face veils in public.

In October, French President Emmanuel Macron warned against "stigmatising" Muslims or linking Islam with the fight against terrorism.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51446519


Imagine if you received death threats and had to move schools because you criticised Santa Clause. As an atheist this is how ridiculous and infuriating I find stories like these. I hope the girl is going to be alright.

One eyed Jack

DelaneyIn wrote: »

Imagine if you received death threats and had to move schools because you criticised Santa Clause. As an atheist this is how ridiculous and infuriating I find stories like these. I hope the girl is going to be alright.

I don’t see what you being atheist has to do with anything?

The whole thing is ridiculous though and has been completely blown out of proportion.

AllForIt

Don't be nasty and associate Muslims with Islamic beliefs. That's just plain racism.

machaseh

AllForIt wrote: »

Don't be nasty and associate Muslims with Islamic beliefs. That's just plain racism.

are you kidding me?

is_that_so

Someone uses social media to criticise something and didn't expect consequences? The death threats are abhorrent but we seem to have been here before on people's so-called rights to say whatever they want.

Bikerman2019

AllForIt wrote: »

Don't be nasty and associate Muslims with Islamic beliefs. That's just plain racism.

If you don't associate Muslims with Islam, what do you associate them with?

Your Face

According to an article she was asked out by a Muslim and when she refused him he called her a racist and made derogatory remarks about her sexuality.
She responded angrily on twitter and got a mixed response.

So it's down to the individual who to see as the victim here.

WrenBoy

Your Face wrote: »

According to an article she was asked out by a Muslim and when she refused him he called her a racist and made derogatory remarks about her sexuality.
She responded angrily on twitter and got a mixed response.

So it's down to the individual who to see as the victim here.

If you (not specifically you YF) think anyone other than the girl is the victim here, you're a dog.
If you believe she is in the wrong you are agreeing with threatening and abusing someone because they don't believe in the same religion as you. Disgusting, and that applies to all religions as far as Im concerned.

_Brian

There repercussions for every act you do in life, it’s a great lesson learned.

Rufeo

This is what happens when you have Twitter and the likes.

Man, like anyone with sense wouldn't be on Twitter.

Blaze420

_Brian wrote: »

There repercussions for every act you do in life, it’s a great lesson learned.

What lesson did she learn from this? You can’t say bad things about unicorn riding pedophiles from a couple of thousand years ago or the cretins who believe in him will be very very angry with you? I think if any lesson is learned from this, it’s yet another lesson of “Islam is not compatible with modern society”.

nthclare

Blaze420 wrote: »

What lesson did she learn from this? You can’t say bad things about unicorn riding pedophiles from a couple of thousand years ago or the cretins who believe in him will be very very angry with you? I think if any lesson is learned from this, it’s yet another lesson of “Islam is not compatible with modern society”.

Try saying that to the bleeding heart liberals and they'd put it in their best interest to get you sacked from your job, ostracised and purged.

But I think these purple and pink haired blobs are disappearing lately, there's probably a few lurking around boards still, but they're not as prolific here as before.

Although I myself believe that the abrahamic god is a made up sand demon from the middle East who's, low in self esteem and has nothing to do with creation and moral teachings...

nthclare

AllForIt wrote: »

Don't be nasty and associate Muslims with Islamic beliefs. That's just plain racism.

So I see you've a degree in theological studies and have a masters in sociology.

They're both the same, Islam and Muslims are one.

I've friends who are Muslims and Christians but we just don't talk about religion because our beliefs don't define our friendship.

Being a Pagan I dislike dialogue about religion I just get on with it.

nthclare

nthclare wrote: »

So I see you've a degree in theological studies and have a masters in sociology.

They're both the same, Islam and Muslims are one.

I've friends who are Muslims and Christians but we just don't talk about religion because our beliefs don't define our friendship.

Being a Pagan I dislike dialogue about religion I just get on with it.

He was taking the proverbial. One might as well accuse Catholics of being Christian.

granturismo

AllForIt wrote: »

Don't be nasty and associate Muslims with Islamic beliefs. That's just plain racism.

No, neither are a race. Religious bigotry is the term you're looking for.

Blaze420

granturismo wrote: »

No, neither are a race. Religious bigotry is the term you're looking for.

How can you be bigoted against something that has no proof of existence? That’s like saying anybody who tells a child Santa isn’t real is a bigot ffs

One eyed Jack

Blaze420 wrote: »

What lesson did she learn from this? You can’t say bad things about unicorn riding pedophiles from a couple of thousand years ago or the cretins who believe in him will be very very angry with you? I think if any lesson is learned from this, it’s yet another lesson of “Islam is not compatible with modern society”.

I think the lesson is that mouthy teenagers are not compatible with the Internet :pac:

Blaze420

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think the lesson is that mouthy teenagers are not compatible with the Internet :pac:

So it’s all her fault yeah? Better off not upsetting some dark age imbeciles, that’s a quality life lesson right there.Good stuff

LincolnsBeard

is_that_so wrote: »

Someone uses social media to criticise something and didn't expect consequences? The death threats are abhorrent but we seem to have been here before on people's so-called rights to say whatever they want.

Ask yourself this, if a teenage girl suffered homophobic abuse at the hands of a Christian and went on social media and designated Christianity a "religion of hate", would she be going through this?

Unlikely. She made the mistake of thinking she lived in a secular country where she was free to give her opinion on religion. That is no longer the case in parts of Europe.

One eyed Jack

Blaze420 wrote: »

So it’s all her fault yeah? Better off not upsetting some dark age imbeciles, that’s a quality life lesson right there.Good stuff

Oh grow up. I didn’t say the situation as it has turned out was all her fault. The other mouthy teenager is equally responsible for his actions as she is for hers. That’s why I joked that mouthy teenagers are not compatible with the Internet.

There’s plenty of evidence of kids losing their shìt on the Internet and threatening all sorts of violence, firing off all sorts of abuse at other kids, and this example is just more of the same, ergo - mouthy teenagers are not compatible with the Internet.

Blaze420

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh grow up. I didn’t say the situation as it has turned out was all her fault. The other mouthy teenager is equally responsible for his actions as she is for hers. That’s why I joked that mouthy teenagers are not compatible with the Internet.

There’s plenty of evidence of kids losing their shìt on the Internet and threatening all sorts of violence, firing off all sorts of abuse at other kids, and this example is just more of the same, ergo - mouthy teenagers are not compatible with the Internet.

Debasing it to “teenagers on the internet lol” is not addressing the issue of a religion thinking it is above criticism and the continued forcing of politically correct restrictions on a a population. No religion is immune from critical commentary and if they don’t like it to the extent of threatening a teenager, they can **** off back to whereever it’s illegal to say those things. Im guessing the fact they are not still in those countries (and living in the west which they hate so much) makes them ****ing hypocrites on top of being absolute cretins. What an unfortunate combo.

nthclare

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He was taking the proverbial. One might as well accuse Catholics of being Christian.

My bad I misread the post, I know what he means now.

My apologies

suicide_circus

_Brian wrote: »

There repercussions for every act you do in life, it’s a great lesson learned.

the specific lesson here is what? Fear muslims?

One eyed Jack

Blaze420 wrote: »

Debasing it to “teenagers on the internet lol” is not addressing the issue of a religion thinking it is above criticism and the continued forcing of politically correct restrictions on a a population. No religion is immune from critical commentary and if they don’t like it to the extent of threatening a teenager, they can **** off back to whereever it’s illegal to say those things. Im guessing the fact they are not still in those countries (and living in the west which they hate so much) makes them ****ing hypocrites on top of being absolute cretins. What an unfortunate combo.

A religion doesn’t have the required sentience to imagine anything, let alone imagine itself above criticism, but I’m guessing you meant people, and in that case then, we are simply at the level of teenagers spouting shìte on the internet. The real problem there is that some teenagers with inflated egos are protected from the world by their parents, and where their parents can’t protect them, is from other people on the Internet who could be anywhere in the world, even in those countries where it’s illegal to say these things!

Millicently

Blaze420 wrote: »

Debasing it to “teenagers on the internet lol” is not addressing the issue of a religion thinking it is above criticism and the continued forcing of politically correct restrictions on a a population. No religion is immune from critical commentary and if they don’t like it to the extent of threatening a teenager, they can **** off back to whereever it’s illegal to say those things. Im guessing the fact they are not still in those countries (and living in the west which they hate so much) makes them ****ing hypocrites on top of being absolute cretins. What an unfortunate combo.

Those places the can **** off from will soon be here if the government succeeds with introducing Hate Speech laws. You might remember that the government consulted the public on how we feel about the introduction of such laws and asked us to fill in a questioner on the matter? NO? Not to worry, most of the country didn't know either but you can be damned sure that every NGO with a snout in the trough filled in what they wanted to see happen.


Basically, if most people are just getting along with life and integrating and there are no race related problems then there's no money for your NGO's so they will always claim that there's a racism/discrimination problem, why wouldn't they when to claim otherwise puts them out of a job a nice office a company car and a nice expense account?

Blaze420

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A religion doesn’t have the required sentience to imagine anything, let alone imagine itself above criticism, but I’m guessing you meant people, and in that case then, we are simply at the level of teenagers spouting shìte on the internet. The real problem there is that some teenagers with inflated egos are protected from the world by their parents, and where their parents can’t protect them, is from other people on the Internet who could be anywhere in the world, even in those countries where it’s illegal to say these things!

You are simply waffling to deflect from the response she got - this is nothing to do with teenager mouths off on internet. This is about a specific religion which feels free to threaten death on teenage girls - do you not see a problem with that?

Blaze420

Millicently wrote: »

Those places the can **** off from will soon be here if the government succeeds with introducing Hate Speech laws. You might remember that the government consulted the public on how we feel about the introduction of such laws and asked us to fill in a questioner on the matter? NO? Not to worry, most of the country didn't know either but you can be damned sure that every NGO with a snout in the trough filled in what they wanted to see happen.


Basically, if most people are just getting along with life and integrating and there are no race related problems then there's no money for your NGO's so they will always claim that there's a racism/discrimination problem, why wouldn't they when to claim otherwise puts them out of a job a nice office a company car and a nice expense account?

I filled the consultation form on that and like you am completely opposed to it. Feelings don’t mean **** and they are not a get out of jail free card regardless of what you claim to be.

KaneToad

AllForIt wrote: »

Don't be nasty and associate Muslims with Islamic beliefs. That's just plain racism.

As Karl Spain once said:

We should all just get along. No need for racism. Its just ignorance really. Whether you're Protestant, Hindhu, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic or German...we should just all get along...racism...just ignorance, because when it all boils down, we're all Christians.

One eyed Jack

Blaze420 wrote: »

You are simply waffling to deflect from the response she got - this is nothing to do with teenager mouths off on internet. This is about a specific religion which feels free to threaten death on teenage girls - do you not see a problem with that?

I see a problem with how you’re choosing to frame an issue to suit your own prejudices. There are idiots of every flavour on the Internet, best not to get too worked up about them to the point where you think it’s ok to take out your anger on innocent people.

One eyed Jack

Blaze420 wrote: »

I filled the consultation form on that and like you am completely opposed to it. Feelings don’t mean **** and they are not a get out of jail free card regardless of what you claim to be.

By your own standards then, your feelings don’t mean shìt. Fortunately in a civil society, feelings do mean something, regardless of what you think, which is why people are prosecuted for hurting a teenage girls feelings.

Blaze420

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By your own standards then, your feelings don’t mean shìt. Fortunately in a civil society, feelings do mean something, regardless of what you think, which is why people are prosecuted for hurting a teenage girls feelings.

Feelings don’t mean anything, I couldn’t give a **** about your feelings and likewise I wouldn’t expect you to care about mine. This is why things like gender identity, hate speech legislation, or pandering to and attempting to integrate Islam will never ever work - it’s pointless to even try.

Urethral Buttercup

As bad as this is, I feel worse for the poor lad who got a suspended sentence for naming his wi-fi signal after something related to ISIS.

One eyed Jack

Blaze420 wrote: »

Feelings don’t mean anything, I couldn’t give a **** about your feelings and likewise I wouldn’t expect you to care about mine. This is why things like gender identity, hate speech legislation, or pandering to and attempting to integrate Islam will never ever work - it’s pointless to even try.

I gathered already that you wouldn’t expect me to care about your feelings, but I do, and not just your feelings but I care about other people’s feelings generally speaking. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother entertaining or engaging with them. I don’t think I’m at all unusual in caring about other people’s feelings, part of living in a modern civilised society and what separates us from the societies you condemn is that we do care about other people’s feelings.

A small minority of people in any society who don’t care about other people’s feelings are the type who shoot their mouth off and make death threats without thinking about the consequences of their actions for other people. That’s why we have human rights laws in Western society to limit the behaviour of those sorts of people who don’t care about the consequences of their actions for other people. It’s the essence of a democratic society.

If you want to live in a society where you aren’t obligated to care for the consequences of your actions or other people’s feelings, there are countries in the Middle East will be only too happy to accommodate you, though probably not for very long as they don’t care about your feelings and will have no issue with lobbing you off the top of a building in spite of your protests that you’d rather they didn’t :pac:

Blaze420

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I gathered already that you wouldn’t expect me to care about your feelings, but I do, and not just your feelings but I care about other people’s feelings generally speaking. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother entertaining or engaging with them. I don’t think I’m at all unusual in caring about other people’s feelings, part of living in a modern civilised society and what separates us from the societies you condemn is that we do care about other people’s feelings.

A small minority of people in any society who don’t care about other people’s feelings are the type who shoot their mouth off and make death threats without thinking about the consequences of their actions for other people. That’s why we have human rights laws in Western society to limit the behaviour of those sorts of people who don’t care about the consequences of their actions for other people. It’s the essence of a democratic society.

If you want to live in a society where you aren’t obligated to care for the consequences of your actions or other people’s feelings, there are countries in the Middle East will be only too happy to accommodate you, though probably not for very long as they don’t care about your feelings and will have no issue with lobbing you off the top of a building in spite of your protests that you’d rather they didn’t :pac:

No see I think you are overegging this a bit - nobody cares about your feelings or any body outside of their circle. Yes I care about how family and friends feel but outside of that group? Nope, couldn’t give less of a **** if I tried.

That’s the mistake the left and the woke make - they think they are so clued in to reality when in fact they are detached from it. Nobody cares about your feelings mate despite what they tell you, the only ones that do so in any genuine way(and the only ones that matter) are friend and family.

And the funniest thing you mention them lobbing me off buildings? The woke and those who practice the
Ideology of “hug a Muslim” are the first ones that will fall when these types go a bit ****ed in the head.

One eyed Jack

Blaze420 wrote: »

No see I think you are overegging this a bit - nobody cares about your feelings or any body outside of their circle. Yes I care about how family and friends feel but outside of that group? Nope, couldn’t give less of a **** if I tried.

That’s the mistake the left and the woke make - they think they are so clued in to reality when in fact they are detached from it. Nobody cares about your feelings mate despite what they tell you, the only ones that do so in any genuine way(and the only ones that matter) are friend and family.

And the funniest thing you mention them lobbing me off buildings? The woke and those who practice the
Ideology of “hug a Muslim” are the first ones that will fall when these types go a bit ****ed in the head.

Quite a few assumptions in that post there horse, so allow me to clarify.

I have very little time for lefty or liberal woke types or Internet intellectuals. I don’t imagine myself falling any time soon, my sister happens to be Muslim she’s grand, though I don’t recommend hugging her, or hugging people generally, that’s just weird behaviour, frankly.

In spite of what you say, I know that the law does regard people’s feelings, and that’s why there is no such right as the right to cause offence.

In this particular case, a teenage girl who by her own admission wanted to blaspheme (there’s no law against it in France), clearly didn’t care for other people’s feelings, and her counter-opposite were the people who didn’t care about her feelings. It’s a perfect example of what happens when people don’t care about other people’s feelings - some people show themselves to be utterly nasty and obnoxious individuals.

Fcukall to do with politics or religion or anything else, just simply a case of nasty obnoxious people being nasty and obnoxious to each other because they imagine themselves to be morally superior. John Cleese has a good take on the phenomenon that’s still as relevant today as it was then -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4

Redneck Reject71

Too much self entitlement recently is what has caused a lot of conflict. I remember the saying "If you can't say something nice. Then don't say nothing at all". Now everyone thinks they can say what they like regardless of what and who they upset. And then play the victim when it goes south.

Fact is everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and convictions, there is no right or wrong in that aspect but to themselves. And anyone pushing for more than that are only looking out for their own agenda.

JustAThought

whats missed in this conversation is that the guy who asked her out (muslim) when she declined then called her a dirty lesbian - it escalated from there with her response & comments on his religion aimed at him. I’m surprised the fem-brigade aren’t hopping all over this - you turn down a date and are called degrading and dirty - this is part of the root of this & a massive culture divide. Whats even more abhorrent is that those (whomever they were) that marched with placards and threatened her with death threats were not hunted down and arrested - in France I’d particularly expect this: since when can people
death threat a teenage girl and it be ok? Smacks of Charlie Hebron all over again & shows a very sinister pattern. Its the kind of witchhunt and menace you’d expect the middle east and the french tolerance of it is frightening.

Gynoid

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058048389/1/#post112345351

If readers want to know the general gist of opinions on this matter, it has been discussed. Apparently mouthy chicks should not have access to the Internet because they might put up a video of themselves singing, a lad might persistently perve on her, she might tell him to get fcuked, he might call her a filthy French dyke and a whore and tell her that he is a Muslim anyway, she might say I dont like any religion, I hate Islam, it is a hate filled religion, and then he might have to round up a battalion of vicious trolls who will doxx her, and challenge each other to rape and kill her, she might be forced to leave school and go into hiding, and the beau monde generale might be forced to say practically shag all about the creeping implicit blasphemy in modern Europe because mouthy chicks should not have the internet. That is the Summary. No need to tire yourselves out reading lengthy epistles.

One eyed Jack

Gynoid wrote: »

That is the Summary. No need to tire yourselves out reading lengthy epistles.

You’re going to need a bigger safe space.

MrAbyss

When psychotic liberals make the statement that 'Islam is the Religion of Peace' what they fail to understand is that the Koran clearly states it is the religion of peace towards other Muslims. It is the religion of Jihad to everyone else.

I am a Pagan and I dislike Christianity too. But as a non Abrahamic, I can tell you that the Koran is very specific in its intention to kill or convert anyone who is not Muslim and THEN there is 'peace.' The Koran is not a work in progress. The book is completed. There will be no Islamic reformation. The Koran is not arbitrary. It is specific and detailed in its intent towards Jihad.

That is what the 'religion of peace' really denotes.


oh and BTW 'people of books' means Jews and Christians. They are to be force converted out of (Abrahamic ) 'respect'. Pagans like me and Hindus are screwed. We go straight to the beheading.

Millicently

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I gathered already that you wouldn’t expect me to care about your feelings, but I do, and not just your feelings but I care about other people’s feelings generally speaking. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother entertaining or engaging with them. I don’t think I’m at all unusual in caring about other people’s feelings, part of living in a modern civilised society and what separates us from the societies you condemn is that we do care about other people’s feelings.

A small minority of people in any society who don’t care about other people’s feelings are the type who shoot their mouth off and make death threats without thinking about the consequences of their actions for other people. That’s why we have human rights laws in Western society to limit the behaviour of those sorts of people who don’t care about the consequences of their actions for other people. It’s the essence of a democratic society.

If you want to live in a society where you aren’t obligated to care for the consequences of your actions or other people’s feelings, there are countries in the Middle East will be only too happy to accommodate you, though probably not for very long as they don’t care about your feelings and will have no issue with lobbing you off the top of a building in spite of your protests that you’d rather they didn’t :pac:

The thing is that the people from those countries that would happily lob you off a building is that they have been coming en masse to Europe, including Ireland, claiming asylum and instead of integrating they want to change European culture to make it more like it was back home. Your average Syrian refugees for example will not shake hands with a member of the opposite sex because it's against their religion, they will happily take the keys to a free house and all the Social Welfare benefits you can give them.


Now, likewise there are people who want to silence the fact that there are massive issues with anti social behaviour rampant in young Africans asylum seekers in Ireland, they'll accuse you of being racist if you point out the gangs and the violence and the attempts to mimic what's going on with gang culture in Britain and America, it's not race it's culture. We don't get equality until we treat everyone equally and that means not allowing colour, gender, race, religion or anything else to be a get out of jail card. I'll be honest, I genuinely don't know how Islam, the most oppressive hateful ideology in the world has managed to make itself so protected from criticism and have so many of it's advocates from the very sectors they'd like to annihilate.

MrAbyss

One of the problems with Ireland is the obsession with Palestinians blinds so many Irish to the true nature of Islam. Anytime I see a knuckle-scraper in a Glasgow Celtic jersey waving a Palestinian flag the only thing I see is the on coming Celtic Caliphate he is easing in.

Remember the sheer number of PLO flags at the 1916 Commendations being waved by Marxists and Sinn Feiners?

Baby steps towards the jihad...

One eyed Jack

MrAbyss wrote: »

When psychotic liberals make the statement that 'Islam is the Religion of Peace' what they fail to understand is that the Koran clearly states it is the religion of peace towards other Muslims. It is the religion of Jihad to everyone else.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the difference between psychotic liberals and wingnuts who refer to themselves as ‘classic liberals’, people who bleat on about their right to freedom of speech as though only they shall have the right to behave like an obnoxious twat, and anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs should be denied the right to behave like an equally obnoxious twat.

It’s as though there can only be peace from their point of view, when everyone else confirms to their point of view of them being permitted to abuse people without consequence and call it exercising their right to freedom of speech, and anyone who retaliates to being goaded by these pseudo-intellectuals is in their opinion psychotic and dangerous and all the rest of it.

That’s called trolling people and looking for a reaction tbh, then playing the victim when people react.

Gynoid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the difference between psychotic liberals and wingnuts who refer to themselves as ‘classic liberals’, people who bleat on about their right to freedom of speech as though only they shall have the right to behave like an obnoxious twat, and anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs should be denied the right to behave like an equally obnoxious twat.

It’s as though there can only be peace from their point of view, when everyone else confirms to their point of view of them being permitted to abuse people without consequence and call it exercising their right to freedom of speech, and anyone who retaliates to being goaded by these pseudo-intellectuals is in their opinion psychotic and dangerous and all the rest of it.

That’s called trolling people and looking for a reaction tbh, then playing the victim when people react.

Oh ffs what a wankerish comparison. I hate your religion vs I will rape and murder you.

Raconteuse

Your Face wrote: »

According to an article she was asked out by a Muslim and when she refused him he called her a racist and made derogatory remarks about her sexuality.
She responded angrily on twitter and got a mixed response.

So it's down to the individual who to see as the victim here.

It's down to the individual as to what their view is indeed, but the objective fact is: the victim is the one who is receiving death threats and had to change school.

volchitsa

_Brian wrote: »

There repercussions for every act you do in life, it’s a great lesson learned.

Funny that there don't seem to be any repercussions for the guy who started it all though - he kicked off because she refused to go out with him, but she's the one who has to change schools. Repercussions for every act some people do - mainly women - while others, male, seem to get off scot free?

One eyed Jack

Gynoid wrote: »

Oh ffs what a wankerish comparison. I hate your religion vs I will rape and murder you.

Them’s fighting words -


In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend(s)to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".

“True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected. However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes. Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.


Whereas threats of rape or murder it could easily be argued would generally be regarded by a reasonable person as obvious hyperbole.

Granted that is the law in the US, a Western secular democracy.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Funny that there don't seem to be any repercussions for the guy who started it all though - he kicked off because she refused to go out with him, but she's the one who has to change schools. Repercussions for every act some people do - mainly women - while others, male, seem to get off scot free?

This isn’t true. The people who made threats against her are also being investigated by the authorities, they aren’t getting away with anything.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Them’s fighting words -


In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".

“True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected. However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes. Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.


Whereas threats of rape or murder it could easily be argued would generally be regarded by a reasonable person as hyperbole.

Granted that is the law in the US, a Western secular democracy.

That's exactly why a number of women have been murdered by stalkers despite having reported them to the police - all those "reasonable" people telling them not to be silly, don't you know.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

That's exactly why a number of women have been murdered by stalkers despite having reported them to the police - all those "reasonable" people telling them not to be silly, don't you know.

They’re not at all the same thing?

One constitutes freedom of speech, the other constitutes an unlawful act.

JustAThought

this is europe - national and european laws apply - not american ones.

And the french are notoriously tough in enforcing theirs - Im surprised they dont have the riot police at the death threatners houses or snipers on opposite balconies - yet.