Besides, I'd wager even if the whole state hated you, you would clearly be protected in that specific scenario by article 5 of the constitution, which trumps the penal code or other ordinary laws:
IX - are free the expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication, regardless of censorship or license;
But again, IANAL (although married to one)
Some laws are written in such a way that, eventually, when put to the test and being presented to the Supreme Court, which judges matters of constitutionality, they may indeed be declared void for being unconstitutional. That has never happened for article 287 of the penal code, although it may one day. You'd need an actual case to make that claim, though.
There are no "superiors", except for the constitution.
The law as written doesn't take into account whether the Supreme Court judges are corrupt or politically appointed/influenced. The law spells out what "ought to be", not what "is".
Ok, so unless article 287 has literally never been used, my fear is valid.
> There are no "superiors", except for the constitution.
I was referring to the defense of "oh but they'd never use this overreaching law badly". If the law is too vague or broad, those interpreting it become your superiors, since they get such wide latitude.