It feels awful to make a mistake and due to that mistake being even not able to post about it in that thread. Thanks for the help, Bill, and thanks to Pene who has restored my ability to post here.

My link doesn't work for me now, but thanks to McGrath you now can read the press release about the judgement and if I don't mess up again the actual judgement in that case (which of course has been translated into English as is any opinion in those cases contrary to what Bald Eagle has stated).

I had found the English translation of the opinion of the advocate general in that case (which I tried to link to above) and I can only say that in this case the reporting of parts of the British press is to blame completely. The applicant, Connolly, was the one who introduced a blasphemy case in his appeal in order to argue that except in cases of blasphemy the right of free speech cannot be restricted.

The advocate general had to respond to that argument brought forward by the applicant. I have seen nothing remotely similar in content to the above citation. In contrary, he upheld explicitely the general right of any person to criticise openly the European commission or its decisions.

Mr. Connolly, however, was an employee openly and harshly criticising his employer and was dismissed for that critique. That is what the case was about with the additional twist that the critique titled The Rotten Heart of Europe · The Dirty War for Europe's Money was published during a short leave for personal reasons.

I wonder how the Britsh press might react if a high ranking employee of the British government would publish during a short leave a book The rotten heart of Downing Street openly criticising by name several sectretaries and the Prime Minister and their decisions and would then sue against his dismissal with the argument that only blasphemy is forbidden and Blair isn't God and therefore can be criticised by anybody at any time.

Wolfgang