I think David and Allan need to read Gary Excellent article.
Islam has not been given special treatment in this ruling it’s followers have been grated the same rights that the authors of this article possess. Do the authors believe that I should be am to say anything I wish anywhere. As a atheist many aspects of religion trouble me, not least of which is the general hatefulness and intolerance of many of it’s practitioners

WELL THEY (CTF MINISTIES) GOT OF EASY DIDNT THEY ,
AN ENTIRE FAMILY WAS MURDERED HERE IN THE USA
FOR DOING THE SAMETHING IN THE INTERNET

Am I committing an offence in Victorian Law by writing the following? Or am I exercising the right to free speech and to be controversial? Or am I just exceeding the limits of polite discourse?

Religion and religious thinking, in the age of science and technology, is an example of atavistic modes of thought. The persistence in the modern collective human psyche of superstitious claptrap that would be appropriate for Stone Age man.
or
As for the so-called sacred texts, (the bible, the Koran or the Vedic writings of the ancient Hindus), these are the disjointed rants of long forgotten spin-doctors.
or
Only the most credulous can believe that there is an old man in the sky or equivalent direct the traffic on earth

Well done David, of course this is an attack on both religious freedom and free speech.

Religions are a competition of world views and now include by their own claim the humanist world views. As such they are in the market place of ideas, but in addition will always by their very nature, aim to prosletise, to get others to come to their world view, their way of thinking.

In the process many aberant notions will be peddled from time to time which must be subject to critical debate, but this law and this case, will only serve to silence that debate. The Law must be repealed or substatially amended.

Two Bob

Kenny,
I assume by your comment that you would believe everyone has a right to his view point?

Two Bob

I suppose one of the joys of life is annoying other people and the more thin skinned a person---the more fun it is to annoy them. At the moment many Muslims are particuarly thin skinned. I suppose that this is the consequence of twenty odd years of Multi-Culturalism. Many Christians have learnt to be thick skinned; they have learnt to live with such things as Piss Christ and are probably the better for it, I cannot help thinking that many Muslims would benefit from learning to live with a Piss Muhammed, but at this stage perhaps not. This law stops Muslims from developing the thick skins necessary to survive in a modern western state--a pity because without growing a thick skin one is certainly going to be disadvantaged in politics, the media and probably even sport--the best defence against sledging is a thick skin as in sport so in life.