[annalex]

Sure we do. Not necessarily by statutory law, but it is a tort. Or, more precisely, sacrilege is a tort. The case on hand is insult to Muslim faith. It is entirely withing the competence of a court to figure out that Hebdo Charlie was not engaged in reasoned discussion about the Muslim religion but was simply looking to irritate any Muslim who takes his faith seriously. And similarly about irritation to Christians. The court does not have to take sides: it needn't take a Christian view nor Muslim view. All it needs to determine is that Hebdo Charlie is no Voltaire; it simply incurs psychological damage on people. It is in the interest of the society not to allow that, -- because while most Muslim would ignore and tolerate, some would go off hinges over it and commit crimes.

[reasonisfaith]

Can you not see that Voltaire was no Charlie Hebdo? And are you truly ignorant of the psychological damage incurred as a result of what Voltaire wrote?

As your argument is based on a mandate for reasoned discussion, I have a suggestion. Commence to clawing amidst the thorns and thistles around you—search in earnest for the tiniest bit or remnant of reason that might be lying beneath the noxious dust of the disordered, whimsical idea that you can magically read the mind of cartoonists and know their intentions.

No competent judge of any courtroom would accept otherwise.