Indian skeptic faces 3 year prison sentence for explaining dripping crucifix

[struggle4progress]

54. The law can be traced back to 1860, but has been modified slightly several times since, notably

after independence and again in 1961 (somewhat indicated by italics):

IPC § 295A
Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.-- Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

So although you describe it as an "anti-blasphemy" law, the statute could also be regarded as a law to limit public disturbances (aiming to prevent the outraging of any class) or as a species of anti-libel law (insofar as construction of the offense requires deliberate and malicious intent). While we in the US do not generally regard "outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens" as a crime, we do make exceptions to our free speech theories in the case of "clear and present danger" to the public order, and there is no obvious reason to think that what constitutes a "clear and present danger" is the same at all times and places. Moreover, although we in the US of course recognize libel limitations on free speech, the English version of libel law has long differed from the American, and I see no obvious reason to think the American version must always be regarded as superior. The American notion of free speech is certainly in many ways a good thing, though I am unpersuaded that everyone everywhere outside of the US should always adopt your view that outraging people, deliberately and with malicious intent, should be protected