the actual content of the article, which discussed a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. Since you are allowed to include up to four paragraphs of an article in your excerpt, you could make your post much more informative by doing so.

It takes no more work to include more of an article, so I'm at a loss to understand why you quote material that doesn't really reflect the actual topic in the article.

Unfortunately, it cannot happen in countries such as China and N. Korea as well.

speak far louder than words in a book.

As a Communist country, China has no official religion. That being said, the government does officially recognize five religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism. As of the last official census in 2010, 52.2% of the population said they were unaffiliated with any religion. The other circa 48% of the population is split between the officially recognized religions, as well as folk religions and very small populations of Jewish and Hindu believers.

That's why there are blasphemy laws. Religion can not stand up to scrutiny. Proof of that is the trend away from religion in the information age.

directed at debunking religion. So, how is that going to help Islam or Christianity? I doubt that's what the writer was suggesting.

You still ignored the fact that the court discussed in the article essentially ruled in the opposite direction, toward restricting free speech.

The defenders of Muhhamad wouldn't like anything I wrote. They're not interested in my free speech; only theirs.

I have no idea what interests you, though. You certainly criticize my use of free speech often enough. Maybe you align with that weird court.

Send a squad of heavily armed thugs to slaughter the blasphemers.

Another way is to criminalize blasphemy.

It is not clear method is most effective.