Isn't this funny?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Amer

Prosecution lawyer Mohamed Dawoud told The Associated Press:

"I want him [Nabil] to get the toughest punishment," Dawoud told . "I am on a *jihad* here ... If we leave the likes of him without punishment, it will be like a fire that consumes everything."

Mr. Amer's 'crime' was criticizing Islam on his blog.

Arek - so it can all be broken down to insulting Islam and Mubarak, can't it?

Defaming the president of Egypt = insulting Mubarak
Incitement to overthrow the regime based upon hatred and contempt = disagreeing with the government
Incitement to hate "Islam" and to breach public peace standards = publicly criticizing Islam
Highlighting inappropriate issues that harm the reputation of Egypt and spreading these publicly = Speaking out about problems with Egypt and Islam

You have not read any of his writings. He was criticizing Islam. But because you equate criticizing Islam with insulting Islam, you see his writings as disrespectful. He called Mubarak a 'dictator' and that was translated into defaming the president of Egypt!

Answer 1

that's why america rules - freedom

Answer 2

Specifically, Kareem was charged with:

Spreading information and malicious rumors that disrupt public security;
Defaming the president of Egypt;
Incitement to overthrow the regime based upon hatred and contempt ;
Incitement to hate "Islam" and to breach public peace standards; and
Highlighting inappropriate issues that harm the reputation of Egypt and spreading these publicly.



The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that:

Everyone has the right to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Technically the Declaration is a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly rather than a treaty and so it is not legally binding in its entirety, on members of the UN, and, while some of its provisions are considered to form part of customary international law, there is dispute as to precisely which provisions do so. Freedom of speech is granted unambiguous protection in international law by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is binding on around 150 nations. Article 19 provides that:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
The right is further qualified by Article 20 which prohibits war propaganda, incitement to violence and certain forms of hate speech. In adopting the Covenant the Republic of Ireland, Italy and Luxembourg insisted on reservations to Article 19 in so far as it might be held to affect their systems of regulating and licensing broadcasting [1]. A number of state parties also have official reservations to Article 20.



Clearly he violates the respect part.

Answer 3

So now we are not allowed freedom of speech?
Not funny, just depressing!

Answer 4

If you want something even funnier, read the USA "Patriot" Act.

Answer 5

not funny

Answer 6

No, it isn't funny at all.