It seems that freedoms: freedom of speech and religious liberty, should be treated comprehensively and complementarily. Comprehensively – because complete fruition one of them implicates existing the other one. Complementarily – because the freedoms are interrelated/connected in such way that they could encourage/ support and limit each other. Obvious implication in this matter is frequent crossing of conflicts as well as connecting mentioned liberties (for example secular interests with sects interests, religious liberty with ideas concerning wounding of religious feelings; belief liberty with wounding of belief liberty through demonstration of opponents). On the one hand how the freedom of speech is pledge of secular state, on the other hand how the freedom of speech might be risk for it? I will try to answer this question, consisting in decisions of USA Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.