But maybe, after a bit of research, not so wrong as all that. OK, "blasphemy" may have been a red-herring, but here's a direct quotation: ...the Court of Human Rights has never accepted the view that a body which is a public authority may not legitimately limit a fundamental freedom in order to protect its reputation. The opposite seems to be the case... When you strip out the double-negative and simplify, what the man is saying is the Court of Human Rights accepts the view that a public authority may limit a fundamental freedom in order to protect its reputation. Thus, there is an opinion within the EU that you are not allowed to libel it. And the opinion doesn't say (even in context) to protect its reputation against unjustified criticism, it appears you can't even tell the truth if that truth tends to lower the EU's reputation.

Oh dear. I confess that within these threads (and elsewhere) I have vilified the EU in a manner calculated to lower its reputation. I have called it corrupt (but it is corrupt), accused it of being run by bureaucrats for bureaucrats (but it is), accused its politicians of being power-mad (but they are) and its institutions and operations of being undemocratic (they certainly are). I shall continue to do so.