About the lad who tells me that freedom of speech is absolute in USA - Go read beyond wikipedia. USA has some of the most stringent libel laws (which will not exist if freedom of speech is absolute).
blr_p:
"Key point to make wrt to child porn is whether a child is being abused in the process. Otherwise its just art." - Hope you realise the difference between nude paintings of children and soft child porn. Soft child porn is when people exchange nude pics of children/view them and this serves as a medium of erotica for them. If you are all for soft child porn. I am sure you would also be amongst the crowd that feels that sex is just a need of the body and can be satisfied by anyone - be it your mother, sister etc? So you advocate incestuous relationship and bestiality as well? If yes, there is no point arguing. Even USA does not allow any of the three. Can only exist in your wonderland. If no, I can blame the answer in the negative to culture the "bitch" which has evolved you into a person with pre-conceived notions of what is right and what is wrong. Got it? Every demand of right by 'X' may not be approved/liked/appreciated by 'Y'.
----------
Btw, there is a ton of information in your comment which is formed due to partial study of a topic. Won't pinpoint each and every one of them as neither do I have time to enter into a cyclic argument, nor to explain how law works in detail.
"So no, the founding fathers were liberal, but we have a tendency in this country to add all sorts of amendments since." - Ever heard of family laws in India? And the absence of a Common Civil Code? Why did our founding fathers make provision for religion based family laws in a secular nation? Because they felt that the society was not ready to accept a Universal Civil Code at that time. Laws evolve. That is the reason Uniform Civil Code was placed in DPSPs - so that future government may implement it when the time is ripe. Constitutions are dynamic. That is the reason why there are provisions for amendment. Laws reflect what the society needs. And this is a basic thing that you fail to understand time and again.
"I would argue the opposite because as you say we have so many conflicting interests then the chances of ppl to be offended multiplies significantly and its very easy for any tom, dick & harry to complain that he is being offended. Tell them to grow the fcuk up. Get rid of this 'right to be offended'." - 'X' won't be offended if I tell him that his mother is a whore? Who decides what is a valid reason to get offended? You? Time and again you do not realise what I am trying to say - it is NOT you who decides what is right and what is wrong, but the society. There is something called "gravity of an offence". So no tom, dick and harry can get offended for anything. There is a test of reasonableness that courts apply.
"Of late i notice this ticker thread on some of the movie channels that says if you feel 'offended' by this program then contact the I & B ministry and make a complaint." - Even USA has a television regulatory authority which decides which program are fit for prime time viewing and which should go out. Regulation exists in USA as well - in both movies and television. The regulation is much more liberal than in India but the very existence of a regulatory body negates your "Why the **** do we need regulation" theory. There was a capitalist idea in the early part of the 20th century which stated that "Markets can regulate themselves" - this lead to the Great depression and highlighted the point that some amount of regulation is necessary. How much is needed depends and varies from country to country.
"Burning books & smoking weed are not the same thing. One is freedom of expression the other is advocating for freedom to consume a controlled substance. False comparison." - Why false comparison? It is the freedom to choose what I consume? I am comparing one freedom with another. Unless you feel that comparisons have to be narrowed down to suit your argument!
"Can you provide sources for your explanation of why charges were dropped against Roy ?" - I do not work with the Delhi Government but here is a link - http://ibnlive.in.com/news/govt-unlikely-to-take-action-against-arundhati/133814-37-64.html
"Passive provocation isn't the same as aiding & abetting." - Who said it is? Don't put words in my mouth. Read again what I wrote.
"Arousing passions is one thing, acting on them another. Do you not see the difference ?" - The former facilitates the latter.
"Provocation is not an argument for a lighter sentence in my books." - The country runs according to the IPC and NOT your "book". Provocation is a valid excuse in almost all criminal law systems. Don't quote vague examples of a cricket match. I clearly mentioned that circumstances can result in an ordinary statement provoking people. Clearly not EVERY circumstance will qualify!
I can go on and on but I will be wasting my time. Either my English is bad or you are willingly choosing to comprehend what I am saying in another manner. In any case, I am out of this argument.
blr_p:
"Key point to make wrt to child porn is whether a child is being abused in the process. Otherwise its just art." - Hope you realise the difference between nude paintings of children and soft child porn. Soft child porn is when people exchange nude pics of children/view them and this serves as a medium of erotica for them. If you are all for soft child porn. I am sure you would also be amongst the crowd that feels that sex is just a need of the body and can be satisfied by anyone - be it your mother, sister etc? So you advocate incestuous relationship and bestiality as well? If yes, there is no point arguing. Even USA does not allow any of the three. Can only exist in your wonderland. If no, I can blame the answer in the negative to culture the "bitch" which has evolved you into a person with pre-conceived notions of what is right and what is wrong. Got it? Every demand of right by 'X' may not be approved/liked/appreciated by 'Y'.
----------
Btw, there is a ton of information in your comment which is formed due to partial study of a topic. Won't pinpoint each and every one of them as neither do I have time to enter into a cyclic argument, nor to explain how law works in detail.
"So no, the founding fathers were liberal, but we have a tendency in this country to add all sorts of amendments since." - Ever heard of family laws in India? And the absence of a Common Civil Code? Why did our founding fathers make provision for religion based family laws in a secular nation? Because they felt that the society was not ready to accept a Universal Civil Code at that time. Laws evolve. That is the reason Uniform Civil Code was placed in DPSPs - so that future government may implement it when the time is ripe. Constitutions are dynamic. That is the reason why there are provisions for amendment. Laws reflect what the society needs. And this is a basic thing that you fail to understand time and again.
"I would argue the opposite because as you say we have so many conflicting interests then the chances of ppl to be offended multiplies significantly and its very easy for any tom, dick & harry to complain that he is being offended. Tell them to grow the fcuk up. Get rid of this 'right to be offended'." - 'X' won't be offended if I tell him that his mother is a whore? Who decides what is a valid reason to get offended? You? Time and again you do not realise what I am trying to say - it is NOT you who decides what is right and what is wrong, but the society. There is something called "gravity of an offence". So no tom, dick and harry can get offended for anything. There is a test of reasonableness that courts apply.
"Of late i notice this ticker thread on some of the movie channels that says if you feel 'offended' by this program then contact the I & B ministry and make a complaint." - Even USA has a television regulatory authority which decides which program are fit for prime time viewing and which should go out. Regulation exists in USA as well - in both movies and television. The regulation is much more liberal than in India but the very existence of a regulatory body negates your "Why the **** do we need regulation" theory. There was a capitalist idea in the early part of the 20th century which stated that "Markets can regulate themselves" - this lead to the Great depression and highlighted the point that some amount of regulation is necessary. How much is needed depends and varies from country to country.
"Burning books & smoking weed are not the same thing. One is freedom of expression the other is advocating for freedom to consume a controlled substance. False comparison." - Why false comparison? It is the freedom to choose what I consume? I am comparing one freedom with another. Unless you feel that comparisons have to be narrowed down to suit your argument!
"Can you provide sources for your explanation of why charges were dropped against Roy ?" - I do not work with the Delhi Government but here is a link - http://ibnlive.in.com/news/govt-unlikely-to-take-action-against-arundhati/133814-37-64.html
"Passive provocation isn't the same as aiding & abetting." - Who said it is? Don't put words in my mouth. Read again what I wrote.
"Arousing passions is one thing, acting on them another. Do you not see the difference ?" - The former facilitates the latter.
"Provocation is not an argument for a lighter sentence in my books." - The country runs according to the IPC and NOT your "book". Provocation is a valid excuse in almost all criminal law systems. Don't quote vague examples of a cricket match. I clearly mentioned that circumstances can result in an ordinary statement provoking people. Clearly not EVERY circumstance will qualify!
I can go on and on but I will be wasting my time. Either my English is bad or you are willingly choosing to comprehend what I am saying in another manner. In any case, I am out of this argument.