Regarding your original comment, I can't say with certainty but it was probably flagged because it's misleading.

You stated that the EU doesn't have freedom of speech, but your link shows is specifically about Austria and how the ECHR isn't going to overrule it on this case. Pretty much every EU country has some form of free speech, and the ECHR sets a baseline on what's expected from member countries. It seems like Austrian law is running pretty close to that baseline but, as much as I'd personally prefer that case went the other way, supranational institutions need to draw a line between what they can and can't do.

She was not convicted after appeal right? She retained her right to free speech, and the Austrian courts should not convict somebody on these counts. Weird that you link that.

EDIT: It's the total opposite, I apologize. She was convicted for her speech, but the courts found her speech to disrupt the religious peace, and not freedom of opinion. Turns out disrupting religious peace is illegal in Austria, which is a stupid law.

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?

No, everything you say here is incorrect. The case being described in that article IS the appeal to the ECHR, which upheld her conviction.