From the first line in the article: > The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a woman convicted by an Austrian court of calling the Prophet Mohammed a pae

From the first line in the article: > The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a woman convicted by an Austrian court of calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not have her freedom of speech rights infringed. Now, I don't particularly like the Daily Mail, but given that you are expressing the exact opposite of the situation described in the article I would expect some sort of argument. It appears you misunderstood the article's title?