<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/41a8840dd28d2565</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/religion-between-facts-and-opinions/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Freedom to Discuss Religion Between Facts and Opinions - The Role of the ECtHR Case Law in a Current Prosecution Case in Turkey</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Şirin, Tolga</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2024-07-25</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>E.S. Case</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>ECtHR</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte | Straßburg</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Freedom of speeech</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Religious feelings</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Turkey</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Türkei</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>freedom of religion</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte | Straßburg</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Türkei</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>In a recent televised discussion in Turkey, two Youtube-influencers have discussed Sharia law and Muhammad’s marriage with Aisha. This has caused strong reactions on social media. Moreover, after a public statement of the Justice Minister, a criminal investigation has been initiated. I argue that such statements should enjoy the full protection of freedom of expression. However, I criticise the distinction between “statements of fact and value judgements” as introduced by the ECtHR in case E.S. v Austria.</dc:description>
</dc>
