In the "Best-of-All-Possible-Worlds" the government would not need to regulate speech in regard to hate and incitement to violence. Nor do I implicitly trust any government to do it's job well without threat of impeachment--somebody has to watch the watchdog. But if a secular government were not in place to define, say, incitement to riot, who would then do so? The Imams are only too eager.

The Calcutta Quran Petition is a good case in point. Petitioners didn't ask for the whole book to be banned, just the incitements to harm unbelievers. The gov't chickened out though, essentially saying that hate and violence are part & parcel of Islam and we must never step on the toes of religion, now must we?

BTW, I've changed my mind on whether, by stating the obvious, Sanal is less likely to win his case. According to the Indian Penal Code unless he is interpreted to be "doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony", he is not guilty. It is the Church who is "doing acts prejudicial" by inventing miracles and they should thank him for setting them straight.