Religions are like an Emperor without clothes, but don’t want that to be told!

2.Repeal India’s anti- free speech laws and unban all books and movies

2.1India’s anti free-speech laws: an overview

I now propose to explore some of India's anti-free speech laws – of the type which allowed Hindutva bullies to destroy the Doniger book (this being only one of many either banned or destroyed in India).

But this freedom of speech is not absolute, unlike in the USA (where it has been not as absolute as one would like it to be, but close enough). Unlike in the American Constitution, India's Constitution sets out “reasonable restrictions” on free speech.

It is through this article that anti-free speech laws of India get their oxygen. In particular, it is on the ground of ‘public order’ that India has prohibited and penalized ‘hate speech’.

We have seen here that "offence" is no cause to restrict free speech. However, India has mastered this lame excuse and created almost impenetrable limitations on free speech.

HATE/ANTI – FREE-SPEECH LAWS

(Here is an extensive discussion of hate laws in India.)

“In the Indian context, … hate speech has primarily been understood … as referring to speech intended to promote hatred or violence between India’s religious communities. “

1) s 153A IPC makes it an offence to spread communal hate (an offence to promote enmity between groups "on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community or any other ground whatsoever").

The section also prohibits:
•    the promotion of ‘disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will’ between different communities through ‘words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise’ (section 153A(1)(a));
•    acts which are ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony’ between communities, or which ‘disturb or [are] likely to disturb the public tranquility’ (section 153A(1)(b)).

2) s.153B IPC: s 153B prohibits ‘imputations and assertions prejudicial to national-integration’. The section criminalises the use of ‘words either spoken or written’, signs, ‘or by visible representations or otherwise’ which, inter alia:

3) s 295A IPC prohibits ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’;

4) s 298 IPC prohibits ‘uttering words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings'

5) s.505(1) IPC prohibits ‘statements conducive to public mischief’

6) s.505(2) IPC prohibits ‘statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes’.

7) Under s 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, publication of material which ‘is grossly offensive or has menacing character’, or which is broadcast, despite being known to be false, for the purpose of ‘causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will’, is prohibited.

The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011, functioning in addition to the Act, further expand the capacity of the government of India to prohibit ‘hate speech’. Significantly, unlike prior ‘hate speech’ provisions, they explicitly prohibit the ‘host[ing], display, upload[ing], modif[ication], publi[cation], trans[mission], updat[ing], or shar[ing]’ of any information which, as per clause 3(2)(b) of the Rules, is ‘blasphemous’; such explicit reference to ‘blasphemy’ is unprecedented.

In addition, clause 3(2)(b) of the Rules prohibit the dissemination of material which is ‘racially [or] racially objectionable’, or ‘otherwise unlawful in any manner whatsoever’, while clause 3(2)(i) prohibits material which ‘threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or is insulting to any other nation.’

8) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 bans any organisation which violates s 153A, among other such provisions.

I'll commence analysis of these and related laws in the coming days.

Also censorship laws:

So far censorship of films in India is concerned, the power of legislation is vested with the Parliament under Entry 6076 of the Union List (or List I)77 of the Schedule VII of the Constitution. The States are also empowered to make laws on cinemas under Entry 3378 of the Sate List (or List II)79 but subject to the provision of the
central legislation. The prime legislation in this respect is the Cinematograph Act, 1952, No. 37 of 1952, (hereinafter 1952 Act) and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, Gen. S.R. 381(E) (hereinafter Rules). [Source]

It appears that Pakisan has many similar laws (see this).

The colonial-era sedition law, which prohibits any words or representation that can cause “hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection” toward the government, has often been abused. In a landmark ruling in 1962, the Supreme Court said criticism or comment on government action was protected under the fundamental freedoms of speech and expression unless there was incitement to violence. Yet cases in which there was no incitement continue to be filed, as was the case with Aseem Trivedi, whose offence was to criticise members of Parliament with a political cartoon. In 2010, activist-doctor Binayak Sen was sentenced to life in prison for sedition for defending the rights of members of the rebel Maoist movement, though he was never linked to any violence. In Tamil Nadu, the police has pursued thousands of sedition cases against farmers and fishermen protesting the construction of a new nuclear plant because of environmental concerns. [Source]