1. Ioannis Iglezakis, Associate Professor, Aristotle University
Penalization of blasphemy and religious insults as an infringement of freedom of expression in Europe
Ioannis Iglezakis, Associate Professor, Aristotle University

2. Laws on Blasphemy

3. U.S. Supreme Court
…the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.

4. Reactions against Blasphemy

5. The purpose of blasphemy laws
To limit the freedom of speech and expression related to blasphemy in order to protect God or a particular religion;
To protect the religious feelings of the majority of the population;
To protect the religious beliefs of minorities.
To preserve peace

6. Limitations of the right to freedom of expression
Article 10 ECHR Treaty
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

7. Definitions
Blasphemy: the offence of insulting or showing contempt or lack or reverence for God and, by extension, towards anything considered sacred
Religious insult: an insult based to a particular religion or an insult to religious feelings
incitement to religious hatred

8. European Court of Human Rights
Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria
Wingroe v United Kingdom

9. Council of Europe - Report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of 8 June 2007
permit open debate on matters relating to religion and beliefs and do not privilege a particular religion in this respect, which would be incompatible with Articles 10 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
penalise statements that call for a person or a group of persons to be subjected to hatred, discrimination or violence on grounds of their religion as on any other grounds;
prohibit acts which intentionally and severely disturb the public order and call for public violence by references to religious matters, as far as it is necessary in a democratic society in accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

10. Venice Commission
a. That incitement to hatred, including religious hatred, should be the object of criminal sanctions as is the case in almost all European states, with the exception only of Andorra and San Marino.
b. That it is neither necessary nor desirable to create an offence of religious insult (that is, insult to religious feelings) simpliciter, without the element of incitement to hatred as an essential component.
c. That the offence of blasphemy should be abolished (which is already the case in most European states) and should not be reintroduced.

11. Conclusion
The need to protect freedom of speech calls for the abolishment of blasphemy laws, with the exception of incitement to religious hatred.