i say it depends on geography, law and culture.
In the planet we live in, exactly where organised religion is all too typically far more about the survival and dominance of 'The Company' than belief, I fear we would find that a universally accepted 'You Should Not Insult The Faith(s)' would quickly become 'You Can not Question The Faith(s)'. Certainly, for some believers, this is currently so.
That is not acceptable in the nation in which I live without a adjust in both the law and the culture. Importantly, it would bring to an end the acceptance of 'deorum injuriae diis curae' (offences to the gods are dealt with by the gods), which in the UK has been the legal rule, with handful of notable exceptions, for almost a century.
Cultures stick to different paths and in all societies, dominant cultures make the Nice List Certificate rules. If I travel to a place exactly where it is unacceptable to kiss in public, I will not kiss in public - in a lot the identical way as I would not walk in by way of a person else's front door with a lit cigarette.
Nevertheless, in my personal home the guidelines may possibly not accord with what a person from a diverse place wishes to see. The west (in a simplistic way in my opinion) likes to feel it has a long tradition of 'nothing is sacred' where journalism is concerned. As a result there will inevitably be articles, etc Good List Certificate that will be in poor taste, cruel, nasty, ignorant and so on.
That is a price we all potentially pay, because a totally free press is free of charge to say what it wishes about any of us or anything we hold dear and if they break no law ... nicely, you know the rest.
If someone objects, they have a perfect proper to that objection. If they are offended, they have every appropriate to be offended. They may be 'right' to be each.
But the dominant culture has the proper to merely shrug it is collective shoulders and not really give a toss. In the modern day west, for it to do otherwise would be the western cultural turkey voting for Christmas.