While I have written on the encroachment of blasphemy laws in the West, this is a case of a positive move in the opposite direction.
The case (Kalman v. Cortes) was brought by a filmmaker who was told that he could not name his company “I Choose Hell Productions.” Baylson ruled that he found that “the statute’s plain language makes apparent its predominantly religious purpose.” He found that the law “unequivocally excludes only one religious perspective but not the other, as it permits speech deemed reverent to religious beliefs, yet excludes speech deemed irreverent to religious beliefs.”
Chief Deputy Attorney General Barry N. Kramer argued that the statute should survive the constitutional challenge because it was needed to protect the public from offensive, indecent and profane expression.
Here is the opinion: Kalman Opinion