[nspkr]

Many countries in the EU have blasphemy laws and the European Court of Human Rights says they are okay:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...

If someone criticised Jesus Christ in their podcast (for example), they would be putting Liberapay at risk. I don't believe Liberapay would allow that, so they'd just ban the user. That's what makes Liberapay a risky option.

[rjtavares]

That's quite different from "free speech is not considered". Every country has free speech exceptions: for example, in the USA "there are several common-law exceptions, including obscenity,defamation,incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,fighting words,fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct"

In th EU:

> The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been legally binding since December 1, 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon became fully ratified and effective. Article 11 of the Charter, in part mirroring the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, provides that

> 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

> 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. The European Court of Justice takes into account both the Charter and the Convention when making its rulings. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union accedes to the European Convention as an entity in its own right, making the Convention binding not only on the governments of the member states but also on the supranational institutions of the EU.

So, is speech in USA "freer" than in the EU? Yes. But in both cases free speech is recognized as a right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

[gspetr]

> So, is speech in USA "freer" than in the EU? Yes. But in both cases free speech is recognized as a right.

True, but also trivial. Everyone pays lip service to free speech, even the most serious violators of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea

Article 67 states: "Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee conditions for the free activity of democratic political parties and social organizations."

[yorwba]

That podcaster might be ordered to cease the blasphemy, and if they don't comply their website might be blocked, but I don't think that puts Liberapay at risk if they don't operate as a publishing platform but only handle payments. That woman didn't lose her bank account, did she?

[ck425]

While many EU countries duo have blasphemy laws, they're almost never enforced. They're laws that the majority of people find ridiculous and would be quickly removed if anyone started to actually enforce them. If Liberapay did block someone for blasphemy without being legally compelled, they'd likely face a huge backlash themselves. If they were legally compelled the law would soon be changed.

[anth_anm]

It's not like the US doesn't have a bunch of laws that violate free speech but are never enforced, and thus still sit on the books unchallenged.

[rjtavares]

In any case, European countries don't have blasphemy laws (there might be exceptions to this - I know Ireland had it until recently).

That case the parent linked is about defamation (calling Muhammed a paedophile), not blasphemy (for example saying Muhammed was not a prophet).

EDIT: so I was wrong. See the comments below.

[leereeves]

The charge was blasphemy, or, in the words used in the article: "disparagement of religious precepts". It could not be defamation because there is plenty of evidence that Muhammad did marry and have sex with a child. That was not doubted even within the Muslim community until it became a source of controversy in modern times.

With Ireland's recent repeal, it seems there are now only 17 European countries with blasphemy laws, including Austria, where this case happened:

> Andorra, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland) and the Vatican City. This list excluded countries like Belgium and Luxembourg, which provide narrower provisions for insulting the objects of a religion in places of worship or public ceremonies.

https://ipi.media/despite-danish-repeal-blasphemy-laws-still...

[rjtavares]

Well, it seems my understanding of the word blasphemy is not the commonly used: I was considering only "lack of reverence to a deity", while "insulting or showing contempt" to the practice is also considered blasphemy.

I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

[yorwba]

Austria does have a blasphemy law. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=a...

Specifically, it covers disparagement and mockery of religions and traditions if it is likely to cause justified anger. That leaves a lot open to interpretation (when is anger justified?) but it seems clearly aimed at blasphemy.

[kurtisc]

All countries in the EU must follow article 11 of the CFR.