[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 !!!
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 !!!
