Freedom of Expression
Article 19(2) permits the state to intrude upon the right to free speech when such intrusion is “reasonable” and is in the interest of any of the following: the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.Who defines what is "reasonable"? Public order, decency or morality? All these are such vague terms which can be interpreted conveniently and contextually.
And this is from the Constitution of USA
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I am no legal expert, but I think the difference is stark and begging to be noticed. While, the Indian constitution gives state the legitimacy for "reasonable" intrusion, the American constitution is clear and unambiguous in its stance. The state cannot intrude and any intrusion can be challenged under First Amendment. So while in India, the onus would be on the individual to prove the "unreasonableness" of the intrusion, in USA the state has to justify the intrusion.
And that is where the difference in freedom of expression starts! May be, its time to pass an amendment to our constitution!