Prashant Bhushan

  • Thread starter Thread starter chetan31
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 117
  • Views Views 14,686
I support Arundhati's Roy right to speech on that one. In fact it was shown then that the very broad & vague "by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise" did not apply.

To be charged for sedition you have to actively partake in it. Actually take actions that cannot be doubted for otherwise.

Words alone, spoken or written do not qualify. Why should they be. She was not successfully charged in the end for this reason.

She apologised to ppl, frankly i would have been happy if instead she crudely told them where to go.

But then she is a public figure that could be attacked and our wonderful state does nothing to protect an individuals right to speech. That is why any tom, dick & harry can crawl out of the woodworks and beat up anybody because their 'feelings' were offended.

Arundhati was not charged because the Police dropped the charges and NOT because some court found her not guilty.

When the words in a statute are "broad and vague" it enables the court to give it the widest possible interpretation. So even what may otherwise not appear to be sedition can fall under it. She openly advocated session of Indian territory and the Delhi government was advised to initiate legal proceedings against her. The only reason the government did not go ahead with it was because of the then prevailing sensitivity over the issue.

Freedom of Speech as a Fundamental Right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Re Sedition : In Kedar Nath v State of Punjab a constitution bench of Supreme Court had held that only an open call for armed revolt or violence constitutes sedition. The question whether a subtle call can qualify as sedition was left unanswered. It is for the Court and the Court only to decide if a sedition case could be made against Roy. In my personal opinion - Perhaps "Yes". But a sure shot case can be made for transgressing the right to freedom of speech.

Saying that Kashmir is not an integral part of India and that India is an imperialistic state that had deceitfully annexed Goa, Junagarh and Hyderabad is not just stupid but when spoken in front of an already agitated Kashmiri youth has the potential of sparking violence.
 
Arundhati was not charged because the Police dropped the charges and NOT because some court found her not guilty.
Why did the police drop the charges ?

When the words in a statute are "broad and vague" it enables the court to give it the widest possible interpretation. So even what may otherwise not appear to be sedition can fall under it.
I think this is problematic and can be used to threaten free speech.

She openly advocated session of Indian territory and the Delhi government was advised to initiate legal proceedings against her. The only reason the government did not go ahead with it was because of the then prevailing sensitivity over the issue.
Sensitivity ? she says something that 'offends' ppl and the govt decides not to pursue it ? Why ?

Freedom of Speech as a Fundamental Right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions.
I agree, the problem is the interpretation of 'reasonable' in India is too restrictive. I would prefer it stop at the line where one advocated the death of others. Until such a point is reached everything else should be allowed. Therefore i'm not advocating for anything absolute. I've already set the limit.

I don't believe in hate speech, if you want to say you hate any thing or any one then you should be free to do so.

Too bad the consitituion does not agree with me on that one 🙁

Re Sedition : In Kedar Nath v State of Punjab a constitution bench of Supreme Court had held that only an open call for armed revolt or violence constitutes sedition. The question whether a subtle call can qualify as sedition was left unanswered. It is for the Court and the Court only to decide if a sedition case could be made against Roy. In my personal opinion - Perhaps "Yes". But a sure shot case can be made for transgressing the right to freedom of speech.
She did not call for an armed revolt.

Saying that Kashmir is not an integral part of India and that India is an imperialistic state that had deceitfully annexed Goa, Junagarh and Hyderabad is not just stupid but when spoken in front of an already agitated Kashmiri youth has the potential of sparking violence.
So it is the 'kashmiri youth' that is the problem NOT the speaker.

We do not protect the speech rights of ppl in this country that is why these twats can go on rampages and make a mountain out of a molehill. And here's the biggie -- get free PR for their outfit.

The emphasis is ppl have a right to be offended and i dont think they should by implication have such a spurious right.

Unfortunately the state of public debate on this topic is still not at the right point, just the other day i was watching FTN and sagarika is asking ppl whether free speech should be absolute. And she found a majority of her audience agreed as well as a cpl of artists. The problem is that is the wrong question. There cannot be absolutes. I would very much have preferred she used the US model here because that is the most liberal interpreation of its kind in the world. That is what we must be aiming for. You cannot call for the deaths of others in the US, that is clearly a breach, anything else and the state will not be able to touch you. There should be no grounds to make these frivolous sedition charges on the basis of what Roy said.

All that matters is whether ppl can say what they want, there is no obligation that it be acceptable or right or worng.

This is actually a difficult topic to understand and it took me many months of debating around the time the cartoons came out years back to reach this point. The hardest bit was letting go of cultural conditioning. hangups over right & wrong. if its wrong which is a subjective position then it should be illegal to say. Who gets to decide right & wrong. Nobody, imposing this condition in the first place is an obstacle. All that matters is whether you can say it or not. How many things can't you say, this will tell you how crippled speech rights are here because there are lots of things that cannot be said.
 
Unfortunately the absolute freedom of speech you seen to advocate is absent in EVERY constitution in the world and can exist in only a utopian society. About the Indian government dropping the charges - it is due to the international sensitivity that concerns Kashmir. I don't think I need to elaborate on this. Any offensive stand taken by the Indian government could have been used by the pro-azadi groups to their advantage at a time when there were allegations of human rights violation by the para military. About Kashmiri youth being the problem - Any person with working knowledge of law would realise that both the provoker and the provoked are guilty. Often the fact that you have been provoked works as a defence. Further going by your logic a person who abets suicide is also not guilty? Because the fault lies with the dead?Regarding the Kedar Nath case - Please also notice the word "violence" after arms revolt. Can subtle provocation that may lead to violence be sedition? That is what the court has to decide.
 
Theres no freedom of speech here! Whistleblowers are eliminated, jailed, etc. ANd now they are even beaten up by hired men.I am pretty sure some Congi men wud have hired these attackers to beat up Bhushan, under the pretext of Kashmir issue, whereas they actually took revenge for Bhushan standing up alongside Annaji, against the Crocodiles sitting at the top.
 
Unfortunately the absolute freedom of speech you seen to advocate is absent in EVERY constitution in the world and can exist in only a utopian society.
Oh, and you've read every constitution in the world ? lol

No, thats the american stand, it isn't absolute, so don't misrepresent what i said. If it exists already in the US it isn't utopian but a working concept. It just seems utopian from your perspective. That's ok. You don't understand and i was like that once too, just go through the earlier threads here. Its not an easy concept to grasp. Cultural conditioning is a bitch to get over.

About the Indian government dropping the charges - it is due to the international sensitivity that concerns Kashmir. I don't think I need to elaborate on this. Any offensive stand taken by the Indian government could have been used by the pro-azadi groups to their advantage at a time when there were allegations of human rights violation by the para military.
Interesting, i didn't think we gave a shit what the world thinks about what we do in our country.

Do the americans talk about Kashmir to us any more, nah. So what sensitivity is it then.

You think slapping sedition charges on Roy in any way compares to what happens in Kashmir under AFSPA ? not by a long shot. So excuse me if i don't buy the reason you just gave. Its a good one but i don't believe it 🙂

About Kashmiri youth being the problem - Any person with working knowledge of law would realise that both the provoker and the provoked are guilty. Often the fact that you have been provoked works as a defence. Further going by your logic a person who abets suicide is also not guilty? Because the fault lies with the dead?
Talking isn't abetting, wanna try another one on me ?

Provoking heh, you cant control what ppl say but you can very well control how you react. If you fly off the handle and go on a rampage because you think somebody provoked you then you deserve to be slapped down.

Regarding the Kedar Nath case - Please also notice the word "violence" after arms revolt. Can subtle provocation that may lead to violence be sedition? That is what the court has to decide.
An armed revolt is incitement to violence. As i said earlier if you're out there telling others to go kill somebody else, you deserve to be taken down. otherwise there is no crime.

But where did Roy ever say that.
 
Oh, and you've read every constitution in the world ? lol

No, thats the american stand, it isn't absolute, so don't misrepresent what i said. If it exists already in the US it isn't utopian but a working concept. It just seems utopian from your perspective. That's ok. You don't understand and i was like that once too, just go through the earlier threads here. Its not an easy concept to grasp. Cultural conditioning is a bitch to get over.


Interesting, i didn't think we gave a shit what the world thinks about what we do in our country.

Do the americans talk about Kashmir to us any more, nah. So what sensitivity is it then.

You think slapping sedition charges on Roy in any way compares to what happens in Kashmir under AFSPA ? not by a long shot. So excuse me if i don't buy the reason you just gave. Its a good one but i don't believe it 🙂


Talking isn't abetting, wanna try another one on me ?

Provoking heh, you cant control what ppl say but you can very well control how you react. If you fly off the handle and go on a rampage because you think somebody provoked you then you deserve to be slapped down.


An armed revolt is incitement to violence. As i said earlier if you're out there telling others to go kill somebody else, you deserve to be taken down. otherwise there is no crime.

But where did Roy ever say that.

I am a lawyer by profession. So yes, I have done a comparative study of most major constitutions. And NO constitution gives an absolute fundamental right to freedom of speech. You wouldn't have libel laws if the right was absolute. Even in USA freedom of speech is qualified and one of the exceptions is "incitement to riot". This incitement may be express or implied. They have more liberal exceptions but then you have to factor in a more liberal and educated society present there. Laws are made for effective governance of society and therefore will differ from country to country. Doesn't require much exercise of cognitive faculties to understand that. Eh?

If you think we don't care what the world thinks about us, you obviously have not gone into any depth of diplomacy. There is a reason why India is called a "soft power". There is a reason why we have fully developed diplomatic relations with both Israel and Palestine. India has hardly ever NOT cared! We have been trying hard to create an image different from China (which does not have a great human rights record). Kashmir still is the fundamental point of discussion in every Indo-Pak meet. Not only that, if you remember only recently Pakistani government's role in a pro-azadi pressure group in USA was exposed.

Speech (Talking) is one of the medium in which provocation can be made. When I address a gathering of youths who have been stone pelting the security forces and setting government buildings on fire and tell them that their struggle against an imperialistic nation is justified, that can very well lead to provocation. What you have to differentiate is the scenario in which the speech was made. If it is an article written in Outlook it may not provoke to the same extent as it would if made in an already volatile atmosphere. Similarly if I were to tell you to jump off a bridge, it is a perfectly normal sentence but if I were to tell you the same when you had suicidal tendencies (and which was to my notice), it may be provocation. What you are doing is taking the words as they are without looking into the surrounding factors.

I have made the point about Roy clear. She did not call for an armed revolt. But asked the youth to continue their "struggle" which had been extremely violent to say the least. Her words amounted to creating hatred towards the State - imperialistic, deceitful, cede - are all words that may arouse anti-State sentiments keeping in mind the circumstances that surrounded the occasion.

You may have developed what you feel are intelligent views, but they are highly utopian in nature.
 

I am a lawyer by profession. So yes, I have done a comparative study of most major constitutions. And NO constitution gives an absolute fundamental right to freedom of speech. You wouldn't have libel laws if the right was absolute.
Good, so why do you persist in saying i'm advocating for an absolute interpretation. Unecessary straw man.

I've never said it and in fact have already admitted that we cannot have an absolute interpretation. I agree you can't call for the death of other people, therefore its not an absolute position. What i am for is a very liberal interpretation which even the european countries do not have because they have this nonsense known as hate speech that acts as a limiter.

I'm aware that libel & defamation exist, and do not agree with these laws. How about burning holy books etc, is the US govt going to stop you there ? burning the stars & stripes even. Any number of art exhibits that prolly dont deserve to be referred to as art. Are there any groups that interfere in what books should or should not be included in the college reading lists or curriculums ?

Why do we have to put up with this crap in our country ? so no, you can plainly see our freedoms of expression are limited in comparison to other countries and i see no reason for that at all. Let ppl express themselves however way they want without incitement and those that are offended can just go suck a lemon 😀

Even in USA freedom of speech is qualified and one of the exceptions is "incitement to riot". This incitement may be express or implied. They have more liberal exceptions but then you have to factor in a more liberal and educated society present there. Laws are made for effective governance of society and therefore will differ from country to country. Doesn't require much exercise of cognitive faculties to understand that. Eh?
Here we go, Indians cannot be trusted with more freedom because they are not liberal or educated enough ? Did i get that right ?

When you limit the creation of works that will quickly challenge those limits and extend them then how do you expect us to grow into a more liberal & educated society.

Why stop there, you might as well say, India should not have had a democracy or a parliamentary system of govt because we were a lot less developed & educated than the Brits at the time. Why should we have 1 man 1 vote. Are we fit to have a right to vote.

Yeah, the euphemism used by govt is 'in the public interest'. All this excuse does is limit freedoms, i see it for what it is and will call it such. Freedom is a universal concept, its not beholden to any culture or how developed or educated one is. You either have it or not or as in our case it just happens to be unprotected and crippled to begin with.

If you think we don't care what the world thinks about us, you obviously have not gone into any depth of diplomacy. There is a reason why India is called a "soft power". There is a reason why we have fully developed diplomatic relations with both Israel and Palestine. India has hardly ever NOT cared!
What good is is an India with weak freedom of speech laws ?

What about things that cannot be said here which do not even raise an eyebrow in the free west. Why do we even need a ministry of I & B. Do they have this in the west. It seems like an anachronism of the soviet era.

Why the proposals by the Press Council of India to not renew broadcast licenses recently in case of violation. Who gets to decide what is and is not a violation. Its not been implemented yet, its just a proposal but its not a good development. Why do we impose all sorts of protectionist restrictions on foreign media from opening shop here, cannot have more than 26% FDI ownership in the news & current affairs sector, have to have an all Indian board who are residents etc. Thereby preventing the current media space from becoming more competitive.

We have been trying hard to create an image different from China (which does not have a great human rights record). Kashmir still is the fundamental point of discussion in every Indo-Pak meet. Not only that, if you remember only recently Pakistani government's role in a pro-azadi pressure group in USA was exposed.
I still dont understand how not prosecuting Roy would make the slightest difference here. What reasons were given to those that filed those charges ?

GOI: Sorry but we think this would give us a bad name on the intl stage ?

So according to you we compromise on our laws, do not prosecute our own citizens that supposedly commited a crime according to our laws on our own territory. Is this what you are telling me ?

I am not satisified that is the reason charges against were dropped.

I think they were dropped because they were ridiculous to begin with and had no chance of getting a hearing. Talking about actions that amount to sedition does not equal sedition. Roy is not the leader or spokesperson of some seperatist group that actively undermines the actions of GOI in Kashmir. And i'm talking about doing more than merely talking here or holding rallies. I'm talking about engaging with the enemy to propagate violence & unrest in Kashmir. See, that right there makes more sense to me than what you just said.

Speech (Talking) is one of the medium in which provocation can be made. When I address a gathering of youths who have been stone pelting the security forces and setting government buildings on fire and tell them that their struggle against an imperialistic nation is justified, that can very well lead to provocation. What you have to differentiate is the scenario in which the speech was made. If it is an article written in Outlook it may not provoke to the same extent as it would if made in an already volatile atmosphere. Similarly if I were to tell you to jump off a bridge, it is a perfectly normal sentence but if I were to tell you the same when you had suicidal tendencies (and which was to my notice), it may be provocation. What you are doing is taking the words as they are without looking into the surrounding factors.
If you say the state sucks and they act violently on what you said then those youths are liable. If they are being directed & facilitated to act then the person talking is guilty of incitment. If that person is only telling them the state sucks and nothing happens then there is no crime.

Telling me to jump off a bridge if i was suicidal is tantamount to telling me to go kill myself isn't it. Its exactly the same as inciting ppl to violence.

The only differentiation i care about is whether anybody was told to go kill themselves or somebody else and the test for this has to be stringent. Its CANNOT be broad, vague or loosely defined. All that does is impinge on what can be said and gives liberal license to police speech. Which in many ways is a reality in India.

I have made the point about Roy clear. She did not call for an armed revolt. But asked the youth to continue their "struggle" which had been extremely violent to say the least. Her words amounted to creating hatred towards the State - imperialistic, deceitful, cede - are all words that may arouse anti-State sentiments keeping in mind the circumstances that surrounded the occasion.[/b]

I think hate speech laws are a crock and do not support them. You should be free to say you hate any one or thing you want.

You may have developed what you feel are intelligent views, but they are highly utopian in nature.
The basis for my views is founded in freedom. You find the idea of freedom to be utopian ?

More freedom the better, curtailing & legislating against is bad. Let me clarify that absolute freedom leads to anarchy, so that is not my position. My position is to have freedom as much as possible with clearly defined limits. No loose defintions because thats open to interpretation and whose only goal is to limit freedom.

Whereas you're looking at it the way its implemented and justifying the existing system without seeing its limitations.

But there is hope, it was only in 2004 where the crazy rules about the flag were relaxed, ppl are more free to display the flag if they want.
 
Now we might see an interesting debate here........Rodeoz is a lawyer by profession, and Mr. Blr_p - well dont know his profession, but he too looks like 1!
 
I doubt he is lawyer. He does not sound like one based on his words.
 
But if we ask him what is he by profession, he will again say "This thread is not about me"
 
LOL. then start a thread titled "blr_p" then he cant say that! 😀
 
Good, so why do you persist in saying i'm advocating for an absolute interpretation. Unecessary straw man.

I've never said it and in fact have already admitted that we cannot have an absolute interpretation. I agree you can't call for the death of other people, therefore its not an absolute position. What i am for is a very liberal interpretation which even the european countries do not have because they have this nonsense known as hate speech that acts as a limiter.

I'm aware that libel & defamation exist, and do not agree with these laws. How about burning holy books etc, is the US govt going to stop you there ? burning the stars & stripes even. Any number of art exhibits that prolly dont deserve to be referred to as art. Are there any groups that interfere in what books should or should not be included in the college reading lists or curriculums ?

Why do we have to put up with this crap in our country ? so no, you can plainly see our freedoms of expression are limited in comparison to other countries and i see no reason for that at all. Let ppl express themselves however way they want without incitement and those that are offended can just go suck a lemon 😀


Here we go, Indians cannot be trusted with more freedom because they are not liberal or educated enough ? Did i get that right ?

When you limit the creation of works that will quickly challenge those limits and extend them then how do you expect us to grow into a more liberal & educated society.

Why stop there, you might as well say, India should not have had a democracy or a parliamentary system of govt because we were a lot less developed & educated than the Brits at the time. Why should we have 1 man 1 vote. Are we fit to have a right to vote.

Yeah, the euphemism used by govt is 'in the public interest'. All this excuse does is limit freedoms, i see it for what it is and will call it such. Freedom is a universal concept, its not beholden to any culture or how developed or educated one is. You either have it or not or as in our case it just happens to be unprotected and crippled to begin with.


What good is is an India with weak freedom of speech laws ?

What about things that cannot be said here which do not even raise an eyebrow in the free west. Why do we even need a ministry of I & B. Do they have this in the west. It seems like an anachronism of the soviet era.

Why the proposals by the Press Council of India to not renew broadcast licenses recently in case of violation. Who gets to decide what is and is not a violation. Its not been implemented yet, its just a proposal but its not a good development. Why do we impose all sorts of protectionist restrictions on foreign media from opening shop here, cannot have more than 26% FDI ownership in the news & current affairs sector, have to have an all Indian board who are residents etc. Thereby preventing the current media space from becoming more competitive.


I still dont understand how not prosecuting Roy would make the slightest difference here. What reasons were given to those that filed those charges ?

GOI: Sorry but we think this would give us a bad name on the intl stage ?

So according to you we compromise on our laws, do not prosecute our own citizens that supposedly commited a crime according to our laws on our own territory. Is this what you are telling me ?

I am not satisified that is the reason charges against were dropped.

I think they were dropped because they were ridiculous to begin with and had no chance of getting a hearing. Talking about actions that amount to sedition does not equal sedition. Roy is not the leader or spokesperson of some seperatist group that actively undermines the actions of GOI in Kashmir. And i'm talking about doing more than merely talking here or holding rallies. I'm talking about engaging with the enemy to propagate violence & unrest in Kashmir. See, that right there makes more sense to me than what you just said.


If you say the state sucks and they act violently on what you said then those youths are liable. If they are being directed & facilitated to act then the person talking is guilty of incitment. If that person is only telling them the state sucks and nothing happens then there is no crime.

Telling me to jump off a bridge if i was suicidal is tantamount to telling me to go kill myself isn't it. Its exactly the same as inciting ppl to violence.

The only differentiation i care about is whether anybody was told to go kill themselves or somebody else and the test for this has to be stringent. Its CANNOT be broad, vague or loosely defined. All that does is impinge on what can be said and gives liberal license to police speech. Which in many ways is a reality in India.


I think hate speech laws are a crock and do not support them. You should be free to say you hate any one or thing you want.


The basis for my views is founded in freedom. You find the idea of freedom to be utopian ?

More freedom the better, curtailing & legislating against is bad. Let me clarify that absolute freedom leads to anarchy, so that is not my position. My position is to have freedom as much as possible with clearly defined limits. No loose defintions because thats open to interpretation and whose only goal is to limit freedom.

Whereas you're looking at it the way its implemented and justifying the existing system without seeing its limitations.

But there is hope, it was only in 2004 where the crazy rules about the flag were relaxed, ppl are more free to display the flag if they want.



I think the point I am trying to put forward is either not clear, or you have a fundamental opposition to it and refuse to buy any other argument.


Different societies need different laws. Just because USA has a more liberal freedom of speech does not mean that we can should implement the same in totality in India. US is by and large a homogeneous society. India on the other hand is diverse. There are bound to be more conflicting interests in India as compared to the US. The purpose of any legislation is to harmonise these conflicting interests. Thus you can not simply throw "liberals feel it is right" law on the society. After all what are laws? Rules and regulations that the society makes through its elected representatives. Thus the view of the society is paramount and this view differs from society to society. US allows you to burn religious books but does not allow you to smoke weed. Netherlands does not allow you to burn religious books but allows you to smoke weed. Thus different societies, different laws. India is a society where religion is a part of everyday life. Burning of religious books can not be allowed here. For this very reason the Indian concept of secularism is very different from the Western concept. Our Constitution framers realised it and made necessary adjustment to the Constitution.


There are a group of art advocates who are pro soft child porn as a form of erotica. There are others who gross out at this very thought. There are people who want bestiality to be legalised - "If you can eat an animal, use it carry load, why can't you use it for sexual pleasure?". Then there are others who want stringent laws against bestiality. Now who will decide what is acceptable and what is not? YOU? Because you feel that you have "developed" liberal views after reading a lot about Western freedom of speech? Or is the society that will decide that through its elected representatives in the Parliament? Likewise what you feel is liberal may not appear all that liberal to me.

"Talking about actions that amount to sedition does not equal sedition." - You are the jury of your own case? The question whether subtle provocation may amount to sedition was left open for the Court to answer which I have mentioned before. I have already answered why the government of India was reluctant to press charges against Roy. If you do not believe it, good for you.

If X enters his bedroom, finds his girl with another guy, the other guy tells him "I sleep with her everyday cause you are impotent" and X shoots down the guy, he ll escape the charge of Murder and may only be charged for Culpable Homicide. This is how circumstances cause what may otherwise not appear to be a provocation, to qualify as one. You don't need to actively provide the Kashmiri youths stones to throw or shout "I am with you" when they are burning government property. Ever heard of criminal conspiracy or similar offences? There can be passive provocation or involvement. When a group of angry Kashmiri youths (who have been on a rampage) assemble and a noted public personality tells them to continue their "struggle" against an "imperialistic" state, it may arouse passion, as many may believe that their otherwise illegal rioting has intellectual backing of eminent personalities.

The idea of freedom is not utopian. But flying the freedom flag while turning a blind eye to ground realities can only be done by a person who believes in a utopian society. The system that exists has come from the people of India themselves. It is evolving and will evolve at a pace which can match the evolution of the society.
 
LOL. then start a thread titled "blr_p" then he cant say that! 😀
I won't answer that question, period ! neither do I care what your profession is.

Only thing that matters is the strength & quality of arguments offered.
 
I think the point I am trying to put forward is either not clear, or you have a fundamental opposition to it and refuse to buy any other argument.
Feel free to try again. So far you stated no consititution has absolute freedom of speech (which i never claimed in the first place) and then used that to justify the indian postion. Your argument does not take into consideration extent of limitations imposed, in fact it justifies any and all limitations imposed. Where is the limit ? is there any limit to curbs that can be imposed with your answer. I would submit, no. Govt can impose whatever it likes because ' no country has absolute freedom of speech'. So this isn't a fundamental opposition to any other argument but a refutation of the one offered by you. Your argument could very well be used to justify policies in China & S.Arabia too but these aren't the kind of countries one looks to as paragons of free speech.

Are you aware that 3 years after independence article 19 got a rider (ii) because otherwise it was claimed it would be impossible to prosecute somebody for advocating murder. We already discussed it here, years ago in the article 19(2) thread.

That spurious provision is what reduced the scope for speech in this country, happened in 1951. So no, the founding fathers were liberal, but we have a tendency in this country to add all sorts of amendments since. We are 64 years old and have had over a hundred amendments to our constitution but the US which is more than three times older have only had 30 or so amendments.

Different societies need different laws. Just because USA has a more liberal freedom of speech does not mean that we can should implement the same in totality in India. US is by and large a homogeneous society. India on the other hand is diverse. There are bound to be more conflicting interests in India as compared to the US.
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'. Your feelings should not get in the way of my freedoms. You don't like what im saying then dont listen to what i have to say. Don't use govt to lock me up on the pretext of your feelings. This is the ridiculous reality in the country right now.

In fact i think the more freedom of speech we have the more tolerance we build as opposed to the current system which works on the basis of lowest common denominator. I can post an interesting talk by Ashis Nandy in this regard if you're interested. Nandy as you may be aware was slapped with charges by Modi because he wrote an article criticising the middle class, in the end those charges were removed by intervention of the supreme court. Not everybody will have the supreme court act in this way, i say take away the ability to file said charges on the spurious basis of 'feelings'. There are many examples like this over the years.

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.

What is this nonsense ? is the I & B ministry trying to justify its outdated presence with this latest stunt !!

So on the basis of complaints received they can they go after the channels concerned and pull them up. If you dont like the program and feel offended change the frickin' channel. Why are we pandering to the lowest common denominator in this manner. Don't tell me its because we are not developed this is just statist politics trying to justify a bloated org whose time to go is long past overdue.

Re: the bolded bit, if we are to move from developing to developed it behooves us to study the picture in advanced societies and compare with what we have and then try to close the gap. Saying these are western ideas and not indian is a cop out. We dont have to ape them completely but we can certainly look at the ideas they have, examine their merit and then implemt them here. Why reinvent the wheel, if somebody somewhere has a better working system then use that idea.

The purpose of any legislation is to harmonise these conflicting interests. Thus you can not simply throw "liberals feel it is right" law on the society. After all what are laws? Rules and regulations that the society makes through its elected representatives. Thus the view of the society is paramount and this view differs from society to society. US allows you to burn religious books but does not allow you to smoke weed. Netherlands does not allow you to burn religious books but allows you to smoke weed. Thus different societies, different laws. India is a society where religion is a part of everyday life. Burning of religious books can not be allowed here. For this very reason the Indian concept of secularism is very different from the Western concept. Our Constitution framers realised it and made necessary adjustment to the Constitution.
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.

The problem with harmonising conflicting interests in this context is we get a stripped down version of freedom of speech because anybody can claim they were offended. This is not an equitable position because everybody is affected & poorer as a result. The US isn't as homogeneous as you think they have 12% blacks even more hispanics, signifncant numbers of Asians and a host of other communties. They've always had a progressive immigraiton policy there.

There are a group of art advocates who are pro soft child porn as a form of erotica. There are others who gross out at this very thought. There are people who want bestiality to be legalised - "If you can eat an animal, use it carry load, why can't you use it for sexual pleasure?". Then there are others who want stringent laws against bestiality. Now who will decide what is acceptable and what is not? YOU? Because you feel that you have "developed" liberal views after reading a lot about Western freedom of speech? Or is the society that will decide that through its elected representatives in the Parliament? Likewise what you feel is liberal may not appear all that liberal to me.
Key point to make wrt to child porn is whether a child is being abused in the process. Otherwise its just art.

Are other laws being broken in the process or not. There has to be a more robust method of determining this. The point is as close to NOBODY should be in a position to decide what is & isn't acceptable. Because its only in such a regime where you can police speech. Its this way of thinking thats at the root of the problem.

"Talking about actions that amount to sedition does not equal sedition." - You are the jury of your own case? The question whether subtle provocation may amount to sedition was left open for the Court to answer which I have mentioned before. I have already answered why the government of India was reluctant to press charges against Roy. If you do not believe it, good for you.
Can you provide sources for your explanation of why charges were dropped against Roy ?

If X enters his bedroom, finds his girl with another guy, the other guy tells him "I sleep with her everyday cause you are impotent" and X shoots down the guy, he ll escape the charge of Murder and may only be charged for Culpable Homicide. This is how circumstances cause what may otherwise not appear to be a provocation, to qualify as one.
But he still murdered the guy, right ?

What if it was over the basis of something much smaller, like who will win the next cricket match for instance. Are you still going to argue that the perp was provoked and thereby deserves a lighter sentence as a result ?

It was deliberate not accidental, possibly even pre-meditiated. Provocation is not an argument for a lighter sentence in my books. Verbal attacks are not the same as being physically attacked.

You don't need to actively provide the Kashmiri youths stones to throw or shout "I am with you" when they are burning government property. Ever heard of criminal conspiracy or similar offences? There can be passive provocation or involvement. When a group of angry Kashmiri youths (who have been on a rampage) assemble and a noted public personality tells them to continue their "struggle" against an "imperialistic" state, it may arouse passion, as many may believe that their otherwise illegal rioting has intellectual backing of eminent personalities.
Passive provocation isn't the same as aiding & abetting.

Involvement in what ? talking about something does not involve anybody. Taking part in it is involvement.

Arousing passions is one thing, acting on them another. Do you not see the difference ?

I migh think & want to do a lot of things, but the only thing in the end that matters is whether i do it. Or are we not in control of our thoughts & actions.

Intellectual backing amounts to what really. Its basically one person that is an intellectual saying they agree with your situation. I see that as sympathising not provoking or aiding & abetting illegal actions.

Was there a signficant increase in attacks against the state after Roy's speech, is there documented evidence that can show as a result of Roy's speech that the situation deteriorated considerably to the point one may suspect Roy was invovled in a great deal more than just making speeches.

See, all of these points strike me as common sense, but those that are blind and are incapable of self-criticism see what Roy said as affronts on the state. The charges against Roy to me are mostly emotionally motivated, taking advantage of loosely worded laws rather than having any rational justifications.

There ain't no crime, charges against Roy were dropped, it still remains to be understood on what basis those charges were dropped. Anybody want to chime in here. Got any articles to share with us.

The idea of freedom is not utopian. But flying the freedom flag while turning a blind eye to ground realities can only be done by a person who believes in a utopian society. The system that exists has come from the people of India themselves. It is evolving and will evolve at a pace which can match the evolution of the society.
Nope, if we are to remain free, it requires active viligiance by the citizenry. We get nothing for free and the state & politicians will always act & behave in a manner that consolidates power to their advantage. They are only our representatives, we are not their slaves or subjects to lord over.

Still think this is a utopian way of thinking ? i would call it spreading awareness and advocating for more freedom.
 
hmm this guy is actually wrong , after the 1st and 4th amendment of U.S constitution , freedom of speech is absolute , the onus is on state to proof in a court if they have a conflict with a person or entity's view and same goes for Sweden and Norway . i could never understand why we have restriction on freedom of speech the basic freedom and yet claim to be the world's biggest democracy , it's more of a restrain.

according to democracy index no wonder we are ranked at no 40 !!

Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@ topic , same retarded behavior from some ppl, anyoe has the right to say anything is my believe , don't like go to court to sort it out . here books and movies , paintings and even clothing is banned right and left cause it might hurt someone's sentiments . grow the **** up.
 

Top