As the author points out, it is way too open to interpretation and could be used by the government in a very selective fashion. I much prefer the free speech aspects of our own laws.
OTOH, he makes an interesting case for why these laws exist in certain places and how they reflect/influence the social order.
I recently had a conversation with a young Russian immigrant. She felt, like most Russians, that the members of Pussy Riot should have been charged. She made the case that the protest was against Putin but infringed on the rights of innocent people who were in what they consider a safe haven sanctuary. OTOH, she felt that the punishment was way too severe.
I guess the good news, if there is any, in this story is that they extended these protections to non-believers and believers in non-traditional religions. At least if they are going to do it, they are doing it across the board.
I wish there were an easy way to allow free speech, including blasphemy, but have a society that is respectful and does not use that right to enrage or infringe on the rights of others.