Somehow I never liked these Bhushan bros .. They r well known for filing the PIL against the govts and blackmailing them ..
I feel Anna's team has got these 2 member wrong .. They should have been kicked out a long time back ..
Regarding beating up of one of the bhushan brother.. I would say I don't care .. Doesn't matter if the attackers were sent by congress or bjp .
Now that one of them says something about Kashmir, he does not like the Bhushans any more.. :lol:
Lets forget all the other work they have done to improve public governance shall we. And its FATHER & SON not brothers.
TA can't kick the bhushans out they are the one that have filed a PIL against PC, maybe its true what you said 'filing PIL and blackmailing govt' :Boy Think:
Prashant is the only person i bother to listen to if i want to get a decent answer on whatever the hell TA is upto.
@blr_p - I see a missionary zeal in you. You put forth your points, right or wrong, in a really PAINFUL and LONG way. As I had said earlier, you wear down other people with idiotic arguments. I wonder why people choose to reply to your posts!Your posts are as long as technical details/product reviews with hardly any value.
Yes I too honestly appreciate the hard work he does to put forward his views. (But if only it was in right direction!)Its just that his vision is kind of blur and cant see the distant reality. And other problem is he thinks that others are dumb, because he cudnt understand (and hence cudnt accept) others argument and then when others get fed up of answering him, he goes on assumption/claim that he won on basis of no-argument!
[Forget that link. Even the link YOU quoted mentions the limitations on the freedom of speech - "The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity."
Clearly shows that there do exist circumstances where your speech can be curtailed. I have said before, the exceptions are more liberal than India but they DO EXIST. Thus the right is not absolute. For that matter, no right in the World is absolute. With right, comes responsibility and that responsibility is laid down by the statute.]
note that Supreme Court recognized it, not govt , i.e the interpretation of 1st amendment , the court on every ruling decided not state or federal govt. here the govt decided what books, paintings,movies, clothes will or will not hurt some jerks feelings, and in the process we miss out on our freedom.
"but the onus as i said in my earlier post is on the one who takes a objection to it, he is the one who has to prove in court that libel or defamation did happen." - This is the basis in EVERY legal case. The onus to prove something is ALWAYS on the one who alleges. Have you not heard of "Presumption of innocence"? If I were to file a case of sedition against Roy, the onus to prove that she did make a seditious statement lies on me, NOT her. This does not mean that the law becomes absolute. Don't cite the very basic legal principle and try to make it appear to be libel specific. If freedom of speech was absolute there can be no penalty for what you speak - in civil or criminal trials.
with very right comes responsibly but again it is up to court to decide not govt , we can debate about my use of word 'absolute' whole day.but the point remains in India right to freedom of speech is heavily curtailed by govt and hence a an amendment is needed and that is what blrp is trying to say also.
In 2006 the US legislature tried passing the "Flag Desecration Amendment", but it failed by one vote (this is protected by the first amendment). Even till this day the government is mulling a constitutional amendment. You think the US has never banned a book? Enlightenment time! There have been a few. Most famous example was a book called "Tropic of Cancer" written by Henry Miller which was banned by the US Government. This was later overturned by their Supreme Court but the ban did exist for a long time. In another famous case, Miller v California, the question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Speech. The Court ruled it was not. It indicated that "obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment". The court went forward to lay down a definition of obscenity. A number of laws were passed by States after this case, including laws regulating/banning "public nudity", "strip-clubs", "adult-theatres" etc. Thus USA has its own set of restrictions. Some of them have been turned down by the Court while others do exist.
as above every case you have cited is from court and yeah digging up Henry miller one was good , but that book was not published in states till 60's i think but only the import of it was banned and later again nulled by court.
in every single case it is courts which decided and that is what i am saying.
i rest my case.
p.s what is with sick pervs of politicians and lawyers and corporate trolls always bring in child porn as an excuse for every everything when they want to censor anything , does it not even it make you sick to your stomach just to mention it. plus i have moved in all kinds of circles and never heard of anyone trying regularizing soft child 'porn' are you freaking nuts porn is porn and child porn porn is child porn wtf is wrong man !!!
133t - You should never take up law as a profession for even your basic knowledge is weak. Even in USA it is the govt that decides what is to be banned and what is not The courts only give their binding opinion when it is challenged. In the process they may add new restrictions/remove them.Similarly in India it is the govt which bans and the ban can be challenged in any court of law. The Indian court has, like the US court expanded the scope of some laws (and in the process added new restrictions/removed them) and nullified others. Prime example is Delhi High Court striking doen Section 377 of the IPC as unconstitutional. In neither of the two countries the court bans things or legislate. It only interprets the law (when a ban is challenged) and analyses if it is in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. "Absolute" is used in legal parlance to refer to something that admits no exception. Your personal interpretation can go to the balls.The person with whom I was having the original discussion understands the topic of soft child porn. There are some advocates of that (I am not). When someone tries to teach me jurisprudence I can't help but reply. All right. Bye for the final time. Unsubscribed.
@blr_p - I see a missionary zeal in you. You put forth your points, right or wrong, in a really PAINFUL and LONG way. As I had said earlier, you wear down other people with idiotic arguments. I wonder why people choose to reply to your posts!
Show where my arguments are idiotic. Can you do that ? can anybody here do that ?
That you chose to make a general statement tells me you cannot. Don't generalise. Be specific.
That is why the arguments are long, so that you can see the thinking quite clearly and consequently it should be easier if you know your stuff to point out the flaws. We've already had this debate here many years ago about Article 19(ii). There's been recent examples of ppl taken to task because the law allows them to do so. I think its a DUMB law. get it. If you can't see beyond this foolishness, just because we happen to be indian then you're the fool.
Discussing this elsehwere i've found 9 out of ten indians has nfi about the limitations of free speech in this country compared to the US. Rodeoz does not even admit this, its because we're indian is the best i got from him. Its society. Hey maybe we should just resile ourselves to the fact that we will never have better govenrance or ever tackle corruption either, you know because its society. I've actually heard this argument offered against the AH movement. Its a leftwing position. How can AH hope to achieve anything because WE ourselves are also corrupt. Its cynical and ultimately defeatist. There can be no improvment in a country or very little with such a mindset. And it comes from so called educated people.
The kind of nationalist i absolutely detest is the one that is blind and incapable of self-criticism. Worse, they attack those that ARE capable because they dont like what these people say. Thats a sure sign of the weakness of their position. You see these jokers come out in their numbers on the comments section whenever any article that is in the slightest way critical of the country comes out. Message: do not criticse the country, then i counter them, then they start to get personal and go into character assasination, lol sure sign of somebody with no ammo. lightweights the lot.
Besides mr. 'lawyer' here yet to make his point about sedition and a successful case brought about as a result of those words. Thats the point where he jumped in.
Roy does not count and the other case he mentioned went beyond what Roy said. My defence of Roy was on the basis of what she said. I stand by it until shown otherwise. Do that then you counter what i've said.
133t - You should never take up law as a profession for even your basic knowledge is weak. Even in USA it is the govt that decides what is to be banned and what is not The courts only give their binding opinion when it is challenged. In the process they may add new restrictions/remove them.
Similarly in India it is the govt which bans and the ban can be challenged in any court of law. The Indian court has, like the US court expanded the scope of some laws (and in the process added new restrictions/removed them) and nullified others. Prime example is Delhi High Court striking doen Section 377 of the IPC as unconstitutional. In neither of the two countries the court bans things or legislate. It only interprets the law (when a ban is challenged) and analyses if it is in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution.
"Absolute" is used in legal parlance to refer to something that admits no exception. Your personal interpretation can go to the balls.
The person with whom I was having the original discussion understands the topic of soft child porn. There are some advocates of that (I am not).
When someone tries to teach me jurisprudence I can't help but reply. All right. Bye for the final time.
jeez h Christ , where did i say that the courts put a ban !! courts job is too interpret the constitution that is all , one part about our constitution that i like is how the executive, legislative and judiciary is all separated from each other, it is not so in states and we can see results there , but that is another topic.
the point here is 1st amendment gives protection from federal govt from curbing freedom of speech , can you make out the difference, in our Constitution there is no such protection, so the courts are helpless. i hope you get the point this time and stop with the how liberal Americans or Europeans are ,they are not , remember that voting rights to blacks in southern states were given as late late 60's and to women in 50's , it just that some ppl were smart enough to put curbs on federal govt which is paying off now and it will do you no harm to admit that freedom of speech is curtailed here.
anyway am off too for next 15 days , vacation time