In ES v Austria the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg Court or Court) ruled, not for the first time, 1 that Austria can legitimately curb free speech to protect the religious feelings of believers. 2 The applicant in ES intimated, during seminars she gave on Islam, that the Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile. The Austrian courts subsequently found her guilty of the criminal offence of publicly disparaging, in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation, a person (Muhammad) who is an object of veneration. 3 In ES, the Strasbourg Court endorsed the Austrian courts’ reasoning and ruled that the applicant’s freedom of expression had not been violated. The Strasbourg Court has received impassioned criticism in some media and the blogosphere for its judgment in ES. 4 Marko Milanovic, in particular, has castigated