[gamblor956]

No, I really don't know the answer to why someone is bringing up a point of Constitutional law in a case governed by an entirely different set of laws. Commonwealth countries like India have very different definitions of free speech rights than the US, and India has some of the most restrictive free speech laws of the former British colonies.

To be more blunt: in India, people can and have been imprisoned for saying negative things about other religions, and those punishments were upheld by the courts.

In America, people might get jailed at the local level in certain parts of the country by an overzealous sheriff if they badmouth Christianity. And then they get released within a few hours, or a few days tops. And then they sue and receive a settlement in the millions of dollars to compensate them for the violation of their civil rights.

So really, not at all similar.

[lujim]

I was using this particular case as an example of why those of us in the U.S should be grateful for the First Amendment.

You understood that from the beginning but it rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. Let me guess, you think that offensive speech shouldn't fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment? That would be a real shocker.