This chapter examines how the European Court of Human Rights balances freedom of expression with respect for religious convictions in disputes involving blasphemy, defamation of religion, and related restrictions. It situates the debate within Council of Europe standards, which reject expanded “religious offense” limitations while affirming that hate speech and incitement to violence may justify sanctions. Through key Strasbourg judgments on artistic and political expression the chapter traces an evolution from deference to national authorities under the margin of appreciation toward a more objective proportionality analysis. In particular, the Court increasingly emphasizes whether the expression contributes to public debate and whether it incites hatred or violence, rather than treating subjective offense to religious feelings as sufficient. The chapter also addresses the contemporary context of anti-blasphemy extremism and evaluates the risks of “chilling effects” when criminal law is used to police religious sensibilities, arguing for rights-compatible responses that preserve pluralism and democratic discourse.