> if that is the spirit of it then I feel a bit better

The thing is, I don't think we really know what the spirit of it is, because the new incarnation of this law hasn't yet been put to the test. I doubt that it will get carried to silly extremes, but "I doubt" doesn't reassure me. The trouble with having speech or "utterance" legally restricted is that it empowers the authorities to use it when they need to, for whatever reasons they need to. Where do they draw the line? Anywhere they want to, basically, and that's what makes me nervous. The problem is not whether they would, but Because They Can.

What about satire? Or simply the personal opinions of those who do not believe in religions? It doesn't have to be shouted hate-slogans in order to be actionable. Tonight, on another website, a friend put up a YouTube link to something that was very funny, and HARMLESS, but could certainly be interpreted as sacrilegious. He's now taken it down. Whether or not he would have been prosecuted, that is intimidation. He censored himself, voluntarily, because he didn't feel safe otherwise. How Orwellian is that?