Good luck convincing US and EU residents to take a significant economic hit in the name of standing on principle against censorship that doesn't affect them.
It depends. There are plenty of people who willingly pay more for non-Chinese goods when they can. The problem is that they often have no choice in the matter because so much is made in China.
There are lots of small manufacturing businesses new and old all across the country that are thriving because of where their stuff is made. The problem is that they can't make goods in large enough quantities to be carried in the national chain stores, so it's mostly online and word-of-mouth.
It’s easier to deploy something already built than to build a system from scratch. There is a clear civil rights argument against letting American tech companies build this technology for dictators.
If the last few years have shown anything, it's that you can get EU and US citizens to vote against their best interests using a convenient scapegoat or outgroup.
[] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
1. IIRC, it is illegal for newspapers publish arrestee's full names in Germany to protect their privacy - assumption of innocence and all that. This law wouldn't hold in the US as it infringes on publishers 1A rights
You could have the same position as the fined person and you wouldn't be fined in Austria. The fine was imposed due to the context of the fora/background and the intent of communication, not the position itself.
> The courts felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace.
Are you saying that the seminars caused anti-Muslim violence? Were there incidents reported that made the connection?
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22002-121...
> Are you saying that the seminars caused anti-Muslim violence? Were there incidents reported that made the connection?
I was pretty clear on what I said. I repeat - The courts (not me) felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace.
The case appears to turn on the claim that "having sexual interest in children" is not paedophilia as long as there is also sexual interest in non-children, or, in other words, that the actual defamation was an implied claim that Muhammad did not have a sexual interest in adults.
> In their opinion, by accusing Muhammad of paedophilia, the applicant had merely sought to defame him, without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty or that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. In particular, the applicant had disregarded the fact that the marriage with Aisha had continued until the Prophet’s death, when she had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty.
This is the same anti-girl (and I emphasize "girl", not "woman") logic that refuses to punish rapists like the drivers' ed teacher in italy who raped a girl student who was wearing jeans without underwear, on the basis of her clothing.