It's easy to agree with what you wrote, but I do think you need to emphasis more on the freedom of speech and on the importance of the logos.

Talking in the abstract, it's easy to say that "there is freedom of speech as long as you don't... (insert anything here), and those who claim this what are really saying is that "I'm ok with your freedom of speech as long as what you're saying doesn't bother my sensibilities". This would be, in my opinion, a false notion of free speech, simply because those that claim this would cling to the notion of free speech as long as you are allowed to say something. The notion of free speech does not mean "you are allowed to say something", but it means "you are allowed to say anything", even if what you say is hurtful. If what is being said is hurtful then you have the freedom to ignore or to answer back.

How would a person that is being hurtful and unfair know that they need to reassess their opinion? By using free speech and delivering competent arguments.
How would a person that is doing something wrong know it's doing something wrong without risking to be too late for correcting oneself? By telling that person, with the risk of hurting his or her sensibilities, that what's being done is wrong.

Applying this to a religion is, of course, extremely hard. In part because religions rely heavily on faith and less on factual evidence, in part because most people want/are predisposed to believe in a deity, in part because religions usually had thousands of years to develop their arguments and counter-arguments, in part because those that are willing to engage in religious discourse in a professional manner are not having a discussion, but a debate (as in their position is not one that is willing to accept that they may be wrong, and are willing to defend their position with word power-play instead of talking sincerely).
But, at the end of the day, as the poster said... in order to avoid being subjugated by a religious tyrant, (or any tyrant of that matter) you need freedom of speech as a weapon against tyranny, even if that weapon is as sharp as a butter knife