In reply to Jimbo W:
> Which is my rhetorical point.. ..speech is never actually free.
That doesn't make it an oxymoron.
> More particularly, in your OP, I don't think you are really interested in the freedom of this man's
> speech per se, you are interested in what you regard as the unreasonable dominance of laws of
> blasphemy that you find archaic and dislike.
No, it's both of those things.
> Discussion of this man and his apparently violated "rights" is not for you an end in itself, rather he
> is a means to end for you to pursue your ulterior interest in pursuing hatred of religion, and belittling
> the values, embodied in law, of a foreign society.
On the last point, not at all guilty your honour. First, as my OP title makes clear, I was surprised that this would happen in Greece; I in no way want to denigrate Greece as a whole over this; indeed, the majority of people complaining about this arrest are Greeks. Those Greeks have been publicising this and asking for support such as by signing the petition (see OP). There is nothing anti-Greek in supporting them.
Second, I have a track record of being just as critical about such laws in this country. Indeed, I've posted vastly more critical of the UK than critical of Greece.
Third, on "free speech" issues I have been entirely consistent and supported free speech when it is nothing to do with religion. Indeed I have repeatedly attacked the anti-free-speech of the Section 5 Public Order Act, in several different threads of the last year. Note that I equally oppose, for example, the use of Section 5 to prevent Christians preaching an anti-gay message on street corners.
Fourth, your labeling of my stance as "pursuing hatred of religion" uses too strong a word. This sort of use of the "hate" label is an attempt to silence and ignore critics by implying that they are extremists who "hate". A common example is the use of the word "Islamophobia" against anyone who entirely valid criticisms of that totalitarian set of ideas.
Fifth, you have posted multiple times on this thread, attacking our ideals of free speech, yet I still have no real idea of that you sort of laws on this you would like instead. Yes, a fully worked-out wording would take time, but you could at least tell us what general theme you'd adopt. Since you've given us nothing of substance, nothing specific at all (to the point that most posters replying to you have no real idea what you are advocating), I suggest that your criticisms are (to use your phrase) mere piss and wind.
> However, your example is problematic for me, because I don't actually think speech should be free.
Fine, so tell us, in outline, what degree of criticism or comment or ridicule should be allowed regarding the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Mohammed or Greek elders. If you have no idea what your answer is then go away and think about it and come back when you have something to say.