Thx bolo, i would also count myself in that group until recentlyOriginally Posted by bolo121
This topic isn't easy to grasp because one construes that words can hurt like a stick can and should therefore be restricted.
Any religious community can ban a book, movie or media just by filing a case under section 153-A & B or other IPC code. It empowers govts, or any group of citizens to silence another.
Last month, Nandi's petition to quash the initial FIR was rejected
Exactly.
The HOW to fix it is something i feel can only happen once more ppl understand the consequences of continuing with the current state of affairs. People need to understand the costs of allowing these practices to occur.
Last edited by Double Edge; 10 Nov 10, at 19:04.
Technically, we do not. In reality, indians cannot stand someone offering "half" information.
When arundhati talks about the indian oppression in kashmir, most indians feel enraged because it is only the "half" picture. The events that led to fortification of kashmir are not mentioned.
In case of hussain, the anger was really about beastiality and islams double standards on artistic portrayal of mohammed with that of hindu gods.
There is no requirement to provide half or full. It's irrelevant.
Again, as i keep on hammering it in, whether they can say what they have said without being locked up.
It is indeed relevant because censorship portray india and it's people as being "intolerant". This is not the true picture.
The people are free to protest and that they did with the case of mf hussain. Though hussain didn't leave the country because of threats to his life. He left because he had several cases against him.
Free speech can only be absolute. India has a customized version of the free speech. The people have nothing to do with it. The govt is the one that finds extraordinary ways to implement normalcy. Arundhati is liable to be booked under the same offence.
Tell me, before we speak for the universal rights of arundhati, is the govt ready to keep the "free speech" policy fair and simple? And is it ready to uphold it without appeasing a segment of its vote bank?
The popular argument is that it all started because the govt cannot keep an explosive segment in check. The govt needs to ask itself if it really is capable of running things.
Getting locked up depends on the consequence of the free speech. I can say what ever I want in my home. But if I say something in public which may incite voilence (which is the case when Arundhathi gave her "free speech"), then getting locked up is logical. Hell!! I can't speak my "free speech" at home without the cosequences of "silent treatment"
If you want to quibble about definitions, not tolerant is perhaps more accurate than intolerant. But the day we contemplate and then attempt to lock up our authors & thinkers is the day we have crossed the line. This is what we do to influential people, let alone the powerless. It's then a short trip from 'not tolerant' to intolerant, most likely intolerant for the common man.
If you charge a person for what he says, then you are intolerant of what he says. Someone will take offence and the law empowers them to lock that person up. The law currently makes it easy to silence anyone. It makes it easy to enslave others. That is not a picture of tolerance or freedom.
Yeah and what are those cases about, ppl taking offence to what he painted. Same thing.
Ideally, yes, but if we are to implement this, the only country with the most liberal interpretation is the US. Their limit is incitement. If you incite ppl to go kill others, you will get locked up and rightfully so. If you incite them to hate, then unless there is a direct order to kill, nothing more happens. So it is not absolute, even in the US.
Europe & Canada are more limited in this regard, with their provisions of 'hate speech', which are nothing but attempts to weaken free speech.
What does customised rights mean ? Are they full rights or half rights. Why call them rights at all.
Yah this is the true picture, but its a crock.
Forget Roy. i'm sick of her. She's an useful idiot with an annoying tendency to insert herself into as many places as possible.
Let's talk Prof Nandy. He took a direct shot at an idealogy, a political one and faces charges. All trumped up with no basis because the law allows it. Those charges are very real. This is the worst kind, because political speech isn't as protected as we think it is.
Don't you get it, not allowing free speech is preserving vote banks, it very much encourages it. It's the leaders of those vote banks that abuse it the most, by pretending to be the defenders of whatever.
The govt can tax you, lock you up and even kill you. I think they meet the minimum requirements of being capable.
The explosive segment you refer to is any intolerant segment of each & every religion and idealogy. Do you want these types to retain their power and hold the rest of us to ransom ? These types will be the most vocal against free speech because it will directly threathen their power. Think about it.
An open society depends on the free flow of capital & ideas. We're already started work on the former, the latter however is still very handicapped because we do not want to hurt people's feelings. This is just a throwback to colonial times.
Indians cannot be trusted to govern themselves so we fought for freedom and won it. Then it becomes Indians cannot be trusted with money, so we strangled ourselves in a socialist zoo. At the same time, Indians cannot be trusted with ideas, so lets lock up anyone that says bad things. This is the strait jacket i'm trying to attack.
If Indians cannot criticise other Indians, then who else can
Certainly not foreigners, because then its biased or they have an ulterior motive or racism etc. They are purposely offending our feelings so lets just ignore them. And thats the only way you can criticise india, make sure you live in a country that does honor free speech. Well, if thats the case then it will take us longer to get where we want to be
Last edited by Double Edge; 11 Nov 10, at 10:39.
You yourself see the fine line then why do you prepare these unnecessary adjectives?
India already crossed the line with the shah bano judgement then why do you still keep getting surprised about india?
Influential, my foot. Arundhati sells papers. It gets the nation talking squabbles and going round and round. Look at her past trend: *Kashmir *War in Afghanistan *Nuclear india *Naxal *Linking the mumbai attacks to kashmir. That's how she makes her money and spends her days.
Talking about mf hussain made sense. Tasmila nasreen made sense. If arundhati gets a noble peace prize, i won't care. If she dies an unnatural death, i still won't care. I won't even bother on clicking the headline. More of a pretender than a wannabe.
Physically? Arundhati was attacked? Mf hussain was attacked? I know things where thrown from close range at taslima during a press conference in hyd but im not sure about any attacks on arundhati or hussain. Could you enlighten me...
Why do you describe that is well known?
Yes, if my speech offends you then im liable to be thrown in jail. What the fu@k do you want the indian people to do about it when the govt is unsure about its control on the explosive segment. The govt bows down to those *who screams louder*. The ball has already started rolling. People wanted normalcy and it comes with an accruing amount of mess for future generations to solve.
What about you? You ready to fight today battles today itself or are you planning to vote for an extended normalcy? Yes, i mean congress. Pardon my use of metaphors.
So you see something common in the american condition of "incitement" and our customized version of free speech.
To me, it looks like the american justice system is looking for substance. They are saying that you can say whatever you want *but* if it results in a loss of life(or vandalism?) then you will be held for criminal proceedings. Contrast that with the indian version where you can be put in jail for as simple as hurting someone's psyche. So how is it free speech when you are not allowed to speak your mind? They should make metaphors a criminal offence also.
Sarcasm
Nandy is not the only case. There are so many cases. We have talked about it before and we have narrowed it down on our *conditional free speech. These little conditions have become major repercussions. Someone will have to stand up and undo it. The last thing i want now is someone suggesting more conditions to the existing conditions.
We have a govt filled with incompetent workers to decide our future. Look at the number of times karan thapar puts down his interpretation of the constitutional texts which send his guests into turning a "oh sh^t!" face. The problem i think is that the babu's of the day who drafted the law did not have a full gasp of the semantics. That does not mean we do not fight to change it. But i don't think many worry about those things. How many intellectuals actually go out and vote? The vibe i feel is that people do not think they have the power to change things.
Because we are considered as a free & open society. These incidents are not becoming of one, they indicate a problem. And the degree of this problem is not well known or widespread. People do not even think there is one. Easy to be intolerant in that case
What does the shah bano case have to do with freedom of speech
It set a precedent where govt interefered with a court ruling for political reasons so why is that relevant here ?
Point was she's got powerful friends. She's known. Arguably she's harder to silence than the common man but still not invulunerable enough.
You're still discriminating as far as speech is concerned. Does not matter who makes it.
Yeah, cause i never said physically, getting served is what i mean by attacks. She's been threathened or she would not have issued a statement, Prof Nandy already has a court case pending and mf hussain several.
Why bother with violence when the law will do it for you
It's not well known, of all the replies ive got here just one got it. My experiences have been similar elsehwere when i brought this topic up. Most prefer not to offend not realising the costs. The turning point for me was the danish cartoons where i got to thrash this out in several fora.
I'm highlighting the problem, if its as well known as you say, then why are we allowing it to happen. Those explosive segments are the ppl that will be threatened if the govt does act, so we all lose out to appease them. I say BS to that.
I would like that more ppl to be apprised of the issue. That will suffice as there are many ways to deal with it, whatever course chosen needs careful consideration.
I don't see anything common, thats the problem , i only see that ours seems to be not worth being called 'free speech' and its an important component of an open society.
I see what your saying here, but you're mistaken. The reason is that ppl will threathen violence otherwise and this is what you understand as resulting in loss of life. The question to ask is why are the ppl threathening this violence allowed to do so. That is the problem for us.
How else would you construe 'customised' rights. A sick joke thats what it is and i know you were being serious there.
Good, we are in agreement as to the degree of the problem we face then. Those conditions are so many to the point of jeopoardising speech itself.
That would be going backwards even further
Its clear we are not very good at conflict resolution. This is why we risk having explosions.
Why else would we still have bandhs. That is just one symptom of a failure to address grievances.
Last edited by Double Edge; 11 Nov 10, at 23:32.
Well if the words incite violence then certainly after there is a violent act the court can decide upon the matter, however to arrest someone for expressing their opinion on a matter is very 'British Raj' behaviour.Getting locked up depends on the consequence of the free speech. I can say what ever I want in my home. But if I say something in public which may incite voilence (which is the case when Arundhathi gave her "free speech"), then getting locked up is logical. Hell!! I can't speak my "free speech" at home without the cosequences of "silent treatment"
To give you an example if i was asked in a public forum my thoughts on religion and if i was to go on and make a statement that some people thought was a bit insulting to them and they were to attack me, i think the justice system should be on my side, and it probably will be.
If i make remarks with the purpose of inciting violence then i should be the one who is put to trial.
Law is always complicated, like the prostitution laws, there is always room to allow for prostitution, and if the government wants they can interpret the law in a way that does not.
cheers
All i see are consequences which are arosing cause of the govts quick fix solutions.These incidents are not becoming of one, they indicate a problem. And the degree of this problem is not well known or widespread. People do not even think there is one. Easy to be intolerant in that case
I was pointing at the compromises the govt makes. The conditional free speech is nothing compared to the shah bano case. It made the indian constitution irrelevant.What does the shah bano case have to do with freedom of speech
The constitution has to be upheld at any cost. If the govt itself doesn't understand it's importance then there is no need to have a constitution.
Enough. No more talk on arundhati.
Here is the deal. The intelligence infrastructure is weak and the control over unnatural incidents is not there. The explosive segment felt an existential threat over any minor propulsion to the majority. I guess that is why the govt heightened its secular propaganda starting in the 90's. So far it is working and there is calm. Sometimes, it has to give in a little more that raises criticism. It will continue this strategy till it increases its hold on the people. Im sure the govt has huge expectations from nilekani.
Pre-emption for free speech?
Not all threats will necessarily mean a loss of life. And how can we be sure? How can you read a persons mind? In the american music industry, threats sell records. Has it resulted in substance? Is there an epidemic?
What do you think about the indian version of free speech? Are you ok with the restrictions:
*Security of the State: Cannot attempt to overthrow the govt.
*Friendly relations with foreign States: Indian media and australia
*Public order: Cannot talk candidly about religion
*Decency and morality: Open to interpretation
*Defamation: Open to interpretation
*Incitement to an offence
Exactly, presently, the way the govt would explain it is they prevented violence by pre-emption and taking you into custody. Violence that would have happened because interested parties need a show of strength from time to time. But if the govt acts to protect instead of incarcerate you then everyone can feel secure and say what they want and it will quickly become clear that these parties cannot go after everyone, it will be the beginning of their demise. You remove the thug element or muscle power right away that exercises a stranglehold over issues. Face it, these ppl survive on a combination of ideas and muscle power at the expense of society. This will force them to work on their ideas more if they want to survive. It ups the level of the game.
I want to clarify more what my thoughts here are. I want you to be free to say you hate a particular people, a religion, a practice, an idealogy, anything. To be free to express yourself without fear of offending ANYONE about the things that PISS-YOU-OFFBut not so far where you direct ppl to go and physcially attack them. That's the line.
Paradoxically, I think this would go a long way to actually promoting tolerance because you being able to speak will act as a safety valve. Just like elections are a safety valve, we can throw govt out of office if we're unhappy. The other party wil counter and you'll rally for a bit but in the end you'll be talking instead of hacking each other up or threathening it. Eventually you'll both grow a thick skin and it will be harder to instigate mobs on the smallest of pretexts. You might despise each other but will choose to live together and recognise the other. We make incremental gains along the way but massive grievances are addressed before they explode into unrest.
I sometimes get the feeling the country is like some over stressed up pressure cooker, one little crack and things snowball very easily. Where is all this pent up rage coming from where it can trivially be manipulated and channeled by interested parties, on demand giving them immense power. No wonder things move so slowly as these ppl's main job is just mob control and nothing more, lots of perks on offer and muscle to keep everyone in line.
The idea is to promote toleration of dissent of any kind because that is what we are failing with at the moment. When the radical is tolerated the unorthodox ideas come out which challenge the status quo, we advance as a society because it would create an explosion in all sorts of stuff and increases competition where only the best win, because we're encouraging choice & diversity. The only resources we have are our people and their ideas, that's all we can compete with the world on. But we have the advantage of numbers and youth, 60% of this country is under the age of 30, thats a lot of productive people. If we can leverage that, then we enter a new era where the world comes to buy from us than the other way around. The world recognises this potential but WE are still the biggest obstacle to achieving it and making it a reality.
Last edited by Double Edge; 12 Nov 10, at 21:16.
Agree we have a compromised version of free speech. It points to the thinking trend behind a lot of decisions.
It was a travesty so we have to ensure it never happens again. The only reason i think it did, in the first place is because the opposition was very weak at the time, Rajiv had an absolute majority, about as close as you get to one party rule. I want to believe it was a one off.
Careful there, arundhati hatao (begone) can easily turn into opposition hatao, already did in the 70s
How much control can any govt have over unnatural incidents
Isn't this very pretext used to increase surveilance and erode rights. If they want to do this they need to ensure the protections against abuse are water tight or its going to end up becoming bigger than the problem they are trying to solve. Penalties for abuse should include death by firing squad
I've yet to get an answer to whether its worth what we have to spend for it and thats putting it lightly. I don't have a problem with something like #SSN's but UID is in an altogether different league, its a veritable people tracker
Assume the worst and act accordingly.
Sedition, a lot depends on how you define it. No treason, subversion of the constitution, incitements to violence etc.
Against.
Against
Against
How's this for a reason from the libertarian manifesto by Rothbard ?
It has generally been held legitimate to restrict freedom of expression if that speech has the effect of either falsely or maliciously damaging the reputation of another person. What the law of libel and slander does, in short, is to argue a “property right” of someone in his own reputation. Yet someone’s “reputation” is not, and cannot be “owned” by him, since it is purely a function of the subjective feelings and attitudes held by other people. But since no one can ever truly “own” the mind and attitude of another, this means that no one can literally have a property right in his “reputation”. A person’s reputation fluctuates all the time, in accordance with the attitudes and opinions of the rest of the population. Hence, speech attacking someone cannot be an invasion of his property right and therefore should not be subject to restriction or legal penalty.
It is, of course, immoral to level false charges against another person, but once again, the moral and the legal are, for the libertarian, two very different categories.
if laws on libel did not exist, people would be less willing to believe a particular piece of gossip unless it was supported by evidence. The existence of the laws only makes them believe in gossip because, if it were false, “why doesn’t he sue for libel?” is the question they ask. It thus becomes a case of guilty until proven innocent as far as public opinion is concerned. The law discriminates against the poor because the rich can use it to suppress genuine free speech – poor people don’t have money to hire lawyers and fight court cases to prove their innocence.
Depends on the offence, violence is out.
More 'right to be offended' nonsense by the Telecoms minister. He's careful to say he's not asking for censorship nor will he define what is offensive but he would like Indian law to apply on the internet for Google, Twitter, Facebook and 'any other service of the like'.
‘Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended’ | NY Times India Ink Blog | December 6, 2011
Sibal is far far smarter & cunning than he makes out to be here, which makes me suspect his motive.
Caught some of the newshows and as usual they still keep missing the point.
Last edited by Double Edge; 06 Dec 11, at 23:32.
Next elections I'm voting the Congress out....
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Nasty SOB Sibal. I think he has been inspired by the very restrictive and punitive censorship laws now close to being passed in the US.
First he will declare a impossible to enforce code of conduct given the sheer scale of social network data.
Then once it is shown as ineffective the Government will introduce a harsh censorship law saying that code of conducts were being ignored and so on.
The internet is the last truly free public medium left in the world. Looks like its days are nearly over.
For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: