• About us
  • Careers
  • Brand Partnerships
TFI Official Merchandise
TFI हिन्दी
TFI Global
Friday, February 3, 2023
Tfipost.com
  • Premium
  • Politics
    • All
    • Analysis
    • Opinions
    • Trending
    Tom-Foolery Exposed: The Savage Science of Victimology

    Tom-Foolery Exposed: The Savage Science of Victimology

    Hydrogen trains

    Budget lights the fire for Indian Railways’ Hydrogen transformation

    From a rickshawala to billionaire godman: An unexplored tale

    From a rickshawala to billionaire godman: An unexplored tale

    Dr Jaishankar

    Left’s lobby’s plot to tarnish Jaishankar’s reputation

    • Analysis
    • Opinions
    • Trending
  • Economy
    • All
    • Business
    • Economy1
    • Finance
    Budget 2023’s Delicate Dance: Balancing Fiscal, Populism and the Public Interest

    Budget 2023’s Delicate Dance: Balancing Fiscal, Populism and the Public Interest

    Artificial Intelligence India

    Unlocking Artificial Intelligence Potential: India’s 2023 Budget and the Future

    new tax regime

    Budget 2023: Income Tax breakthrough for India’s middle class

    Union Budget 2023 live updates

    Union Budget 2023 live updates: Modi Govt announces New Tax slab

    • Business
    • Finance
  • Defense
    • All
    • Defence
    • Strategy
    • Weaponry
    Defence budget India

    Modernization of Indian defence: Right trajectory but low velocity

    AK-203 rifles

    Amethi has started producing the dreaded AK 203 for India and the world

    HELINA and VSHROD

    Amidst build up on China and Pakistan border India gets HELINA and VSHROD

    K9-Vajra

    K9 VAJRA: The Made in India weapon that China fears

    • Defence
    • Strategy
    • Weaponry
  • Geopolitics
    • All
    • Africa
    • Americas
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • South Asia
    • West Asia
    In the Presidential year of G20, they have waged an info war against India

    In the Presidential year of G20, they have waged an info war against India

    Macron-Modi-Biden: France gives India an edge in dealing with the USA

    Macron-Modi-Biden: France gives India an edge in dealing with the USA

    Ajit Doval Jake Sullivan

    The Quiet Revolution: India’s Diplomatic Success in Bringing Tech Transfer

    India UNSC

    UNSC Row: Time for China to choose between Competition and Cooperation with India

    • Africa
    • Americas
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • South Asia
    • West Asia
  • Knowledge
    • All
    • Culture
    • History
    • Indology
    Ram V. Sutar

    The legacy of Ram V. Sutar: A gift from Bhagwan Vishwakarma

    Dilip Kumar Indira Gandhi

    When Dilip Kumar silenced Indira Gandhi

    Bhagwan Vishnu Bhavishya Badri

    Is Bhagwan Vishnu leaving Badrinath and shifting to Bhavishya Badri?

    Banjara community

    Banjaras are Sanatani and everything else about them is cropped up

    • Culture
    • History
    • Indology
  • Law
  • Lounge
    • All
    • Books
    • Cinema
    • Food
    • Health
    • Lifestyle
    • Satire
    • Sports
    • technology
    • Travel
    Sharad Kelkar: An underrated gem of Indian Cinema

    Sharad Kelkar: An underrated gem of Indian Cinema

    Sayaji Shinde

    Unrecognized in Bollywood, but Celebrated Everywhere Else: The Tale of Sayaji Shinde

    Anurag Kashyap

    Anurag Kashyap’s new facade: Bollywood’s left intelligentsia plans to befool the nationalist audience

    Govinda congress

    When Govinda started literally pleading in front of Sonia Gandhi

    • Books
    • Cinema
    • Food
    • Health
    • Sports
    • technology
    • Travel
    • Satire
No Result
View All Result
Tfipost.com
  • Premium
  • Politics
    • All
    • Analysis
    • Opinions
    • Trending
    Tom-Foolery Exposed: The Savage Science of Victimology

    Tom-Foolery Exposed: The Savage Science of Victimology

    Hydrogen trains

    Budget lights the fire for Indian Railways’ Hydrogen transformation

    From a rickshawala to billionaire godman: An unexplored tale

    From a rickshawala to billionaire godman: An unexplored tale

    Dr Jaishankar

    Left’s lobby’s plot to tarnish Jaishankar’s reputation

    • Analysis
    • Opinions
    • Trending
  • Economy
    • All
    • Business
    • Economy1
    • Finance
    Budget 2023’s Delicate Dance: Balancing Fiscal, Populism and the Public Interest

    Budget 2023’s Delicate Dance: Balancing Fiscal, Populism and the Public Interest

    Artificial Intelligence India

    Unlocking Artificial Intelligence Potential: India’s 2023 Budget and the Future

    new tax regime

    Budget 2023: Income Tax breakthrough for India’s middle class

    Union Budget 2023 live updates

    Union Budget 2023 live updates: Modi Govt announces New Tax slab

    • Business
    • Finance
  • Defense
    • All
    • Defence
    • Strategy
    • Weaponry
    Defence budget India

    Modernization of Indian defence: Right trajectory but low velocity

    AK-203 rifles

    Amethi has started producing the dreaded AK 203 for India and the world

    HELINA and VSHROD

    Amidst build up on China and Pakistan border India gets HELINA and VSHROD

    K9-Vajra

    K9 VAJRA: The Made in India weapon that China fears

    • Defence
    • Strategy
    • Weaponry
  • Geopolitics
    • All
    • Africa
    • Americas
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • South Asia
    • West Asia
    In the Presidential year of G20, they have waged an info war against India

    In the Presidential year of G20, they have waged an info war against India

    Macron-Modi-Biden: France gives India an edge in dealing with the USA

    Macron-Modi-Biden: France gives India an edge in dealing with the USA

    Ajit Doval Jake Sullivan

    The Quiet Revolution: India’s Diplomatic Success in Bringing Tech Transfer

    India UNSC

    UNSC Row: Time for China to choose between Competition and Cooperation with India

    • Africa
    • Americas
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • South Asia
    • West Asia
  • Knowledge
    • All
    • Culture
    • History
    • Indology
    Ram V. Sutar

    The legacy of Ram V. Sutar: A gift from Bhagwan Vishwakarma

    Dilip Kumar Indira Gandhi

    When Dilip Kumar silenced Indira Gandhi

    Bhagwan Vishnu Bhavishya Badri

    Is Bhagwan Vishnu leaving Badrinath and shifting to Bhavishya Badri?

    Banjara community

    Banjaras are Sanatani and everything else about them is cropped up

    • Culture
    • History
    • Indology
  • Law
  • Lounge
    • All
    • Books
    • Cinema
    • Food
    • Health
    • Lifestyle
    • Satire
    • Sports
    • technology
    • Travel
    Sharad Kelkar: An underrated gem of Indian Cinema

    Sharad Kelkar: An underrated gem of Indian Cinema

    Sayaji Shinde

    Unrecognized in Bollywood, but Celebrated Everywhere Else: The Tale of Sayaji Shinde

    Anurag Kashyap

    Anurag Kashyap’s new facade: Bollywood’s left intelligentsia plans to befool the nationalist audience

    Govinda congress

    When Govinda started literally pleading in front of Sonia Gandhi

    • Books
    • Cinema
    • Food
    • Health
    • Sports
    • technology
    • Travel
    • Satire
No Result
View All Result
Tfipost.com
No Result
View All Result

HOME » Politics » Opinions » Supremely schizophrenic

Supremely schizophrenic

Guest Author
by Guest Author
17 March 2014
in Opinions
0
27
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
We are a country of 128 crore people and there may be 128 crore views. This is the maturity of a democracy. For a person making such a speech, it may not be a hate speech

~ The Supreme Court of India reacting to a PIL against perceived “hate speech” by politicians during electoral campaigning

Freedom of expression and free speech underlies one of the most important aspects of a healthy nation – a well-informed and vibrant citizenry that is free to discuss and debate issues that concern them at a practical and intellectual level in the country and abroad. At the same time a free press ensures that journalists are capable of reporting what they want to (the paid media allegations that are running riot these days are another matter). By all means, the Supreme Court has done a service to the country by furthering this right to freedom of expression through its statement, and to recommend that this matter be taken up by the Law Commission instead of the courts.

“No such thing as a free speech”

However, laws related to freedom of expression in India betray a strangely schizophrenic mindset – while the Supreme Court has unequivocally refused to disqualify hate speech, in Article 19 Clause (2) restricts speech on eight conditions, namely security of the state, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense and sovereignty and integrity of India. Now in effect this hate speech should be analysed through the lens of public order, incitement, defamation and public order. It would be a worthwhile exercise to look at the United States for laws regarding freedom of speech and expression, since the First Amendment to the American Constitution provides one of the strongest protections to free speech in the world.

Internet laws – sticks and arrows in a nuclear age

On another level, the legislation surrounding new media serves as a far more draconian clampdown on free speech. Consider just one instance: the dreaded Section 66(A) of the IT Act, which bans anything that is pornographic, disparaging, harmful and other such broad adjectives. Under this Orwellian Act, two of the more famous arrests happened last year – the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Shaheen Dhada-Rinu Srinivasan. This latter was arrested for “Like”ing content that the former had posted on her Facebook timeline. So much from freedom of speech – and if anybody is interested, it would be instructive to read about the case where a US Appeals Court has ruled that Facebook Likes are substantive speech and hence protected under the First Amendment.

Desperately Seeking Sanity

This schizophrenic conduct of the Supreme Court is deeply mystifying – on one hand it produces populist judgments such as those that result in hangings where “public conscience” must be assuaged, even though the courts concede that the evidence simply does not add up – here the Supreme Court is more than happy to play the role of the guardian of public morals and conscience, and acts as a conduit of some imagined social outrage that justifies state-sanctioned murder. On the other hand, the court dons its sanctimonious robe when asked for seemingly-legitimate rulings such as the one on Section 377 and on hate speech during electioneering, and argues from the separation of powers. Granted that the courts routinely face a barrage of criticism over judicial activism, but it is in the lager interest of the citizens of the country that the court should live up to its moniker of “the court of last resort”. Till such time as that happens, we the citizens of the country can only be a tennis ball in the court – pardon the pun – between the legislature and the judiciary, while the executive branch happily crawls when asked to bend.

 

We are a country of 128 crore people and there may be 128 crore views. This is the maturity of a democracy. For a person making such a speech, it may not be a hate speech

~ The Supreme Court of India reacting to a PIL against perceived “hate speech” by politicians during electoral campaigning

Freedom of expression and free speech underlies one of the most important aspects of a healthy nation – a well-informed and vibrant citizenry that is free to discuss and debate issues that concern them at a practical and intellectual level in the country and abroad. At the same time a free press ensures that journalists are capable of reporting what they want to (the paid media allegations that are running riot these days are another matter). By all means, the Supreme Court has done a service to the country by furthering this right to freedom of expression through its statement, and to recommend that this matter be taken up by the Law Commission instead of the courts.

“No such thing as a free speech”

However, laws related to freedom of expression in India betray a strangely schizophrenic mindset – while the Supreme Court has unequivocally refused to disqualify hate speech, in Article 19 Clause (2) restricts speech on eight conditions, namely security of the state, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense and sovereignty and integrity of India. Now in effect this hate speech should be analysed through the lens of public order, incitement, defamation and public order. It would be a worthwhile exercise to look at the United States for laws regarding freedom of speech and expression, since the First Amendment to the American Constitution provides one of the strongest protections to free speech in the world.

Internet laws – sticks and arrows in a nuclear age

On another level, the legislation surrounding new media serves as a far more draconian clampdown on free speech. Consider just one instance: the dreaded Section 66(A) of the IT Act, which bans anything that is pornographic, disparaging, harmful and other such broad adjectives. Under this Orwellian Act, two of the more famous arrests happened last year – the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Shaheen Dhada-Rinu Srinivasan. This latter was arrested for “Like”ing content that the former had posted on her Facebook timeline. So much from freedom of speech – and if anybody is interested, it would be instructive to read about the case where a US Appeals Court has ruled that Facebook Likes are substantive speech and hence protected under the First Amendment.

Desperately Seeking Sanity

This schizophrenic conduct of the Supreme Court is deeply mystifying – on one hand it produces populist judgments such as those that result in hangings where “public conscience” must be assuaged, even though the courts concede that the evidence simply does not add up – here the Supreme Court is more than happy to play the role of the guardian of public morals and conscience, and acts as a conduit of some imagined social outrage that justifies state-sanctioned murder. On the other hand, the court dons its sanctimonious robe when asked for seemingly-legitimate rulings such as the one on Section 377 and on hate speech during electioneering, and argues from the separation of powers. Granted that the courts routinely face a barrage of criticism over judicial activism, but it is in the lager interest of the citizens of the country that the court should live up to its moniker of “the court of last resort”. Till such time as that happens, we the citizens of the country can only be a tennis ball in the court – pardon the pun – between the legislature and the judiciary, while the executive branch happily crawls when asked to bend.

 

We are a country of 128 crore people and there may be 128 crore views. This is the maturity of a democracy. For a person making such a speech, it may not be a hate speech

~ The Supreme Court of India reacting to a PIL against perceived “hate speech” by politicians during electoral campaigning

Freedom of expression and free speech underlies one of the most important aspects of a healthy nation – a well-informed and vibrant citizenry that is free to discuss and debate issues that concern them at a practical and intellectual level in the country and abroad. At the same time a free press ensures that journalists are capable of reporting what they want to (the paid media allegations that are running riot these days are another matter). By all means, the Supreme Court has done a service to the country by furthering this right to freedom of expression through its statement, and to recommend that this matter be taken up by the Law Commission instead of the courts.

“No such thing as a free speech”

However, laws related to freedom of expression in India betray a strangely schizophrenic mindset – while the Supreme Court has unequivocally refused to disqualify hate speech, in Article 19 Clause (2) restricts speech on eight conditions, namely security of the state, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense and sovereignty and integrity of India. Now in effect this hate speech should be analysed through the lens of public order, incitement, defamation and public order. It would be a worthwhile exercise to look at the United States for laws regarding freedom of speech and expression, since the First Amendment to the American Constitution provides one of the strongest protections to free speech in the world.

Internet laws – sticks and arrows in a nuclear age

On another level, the legislation surrounding new media serves as a far more draconian clampdown on free speech. Consider just one instance: the dreaded Section 66(A) of the IT Act, which bans anything that is pornographic, disparaging, harmful and other such broad adjectives. Under this Orwellian Act, two of the more famous arrests happened last year – the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Shaheen Dhada-Rinu Srinivasan. This latter was arrested for “Like”ing content that the former had posted on her Facebook timeline. So much from freedom of speech – and if anybody is interested, it would be instructive to read about the case where a US Appeals Court has ruled that Facebook Likes are substantive speech and hence protected under the First Amendment.

Desperately Seeking Sanity

This schizophrenic conduct of the Supreme Court is deeply mystifying – on one hand it produces populist judgments such as those that result in hangings where “public conscience” must be assuaged, even though the courts concede that the evidence simply does not add up – here the Supreme Court is more than happy to play the role of the guardian of public morals and conscience, and acts as a conduit of some imagined social outrage that justifies state-sanctioned murder. On the other hand, the court dons its sanctimonious robe when asked for seemingly-legitimate rulings such as the one on Section 377 and on hate speech during electioneering, and argues from the separation of powers. Granted that the courts routinely face a barrage of criticism over judicial activism, but it is in the lager interest of the citizens of the country that the court should live up to its moniker of “the court of last resort”. Till such time as that happens, we the citizens of the country can only be a tennis ball in the court – pardon the pun – between the legislature and the judiciary, while the executive branch happily crawls when asked to bend.

 

We are a country of 128 crore people and there may be 128 crore views. This is the maturity of a democracy. For a person making such a speech, it may not be a hate speech

~ The Supreme Court of India reacting to a PIL against perceived “hate speech” by politicians during electoral campaigning

Freedom of expression and free speech underlies one of the most important aspects of a healthy nation – a well-informed and vibrant citizenry that is free to discuss and debate issues that concern them at a practical and intellectual level in the country and abroad. At the same time a free press ensures that journalists are capable of reporting what they want to (the paid media allegations that are running riot these days are another matter). By all means, the Supreme Court has done a service to the country by furthering this right to freedom of expression through its statement, and to recommend that this matter be taken up by the Law Commission instead of the courts.

“No such thing as a free speech”

However, laws related to freedom of expression in India betray a strangely schizophrenic mindset – while the Supreme Court has unequivocally refused to disqualify hate speech, in Article 19 Clause (2) restricts speech on eight conditions, namely security of the state, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense and sovereignty and integrity of India. Now in effect this hate speech should be analysed through the lens of public order, incitement, defamation and public order. It would be a worthwhile exercise to look at the United States for laws regarding freedom of speech and expression, since the First Amendment to the American Constitution provides one of the strongest protections to free speech in the world.

Internet laws – sticks and arrows in a nuclear age

On another level, the legislation surrounding new media serves as a far more draconian clampdown on free speech. Consider just one instance: the dreaded Section 66(A) of the IT Act, which bans anything that is pornographic, disparaging, harmful and other such broad adjectives. Under this Orwellian Act, two of the more famous arrests happened last year – the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Shaheen Dhada-Rinu Srinivasan. This latter was arrested for “Like”ing content that the former had posted on her Facebook timeline. So much from freedom of speech – and if anybody is interested, it would be instructive to read about the case where a US Appeals Court has ruled that Facebook Likes are substantive speech and hence protected under the First Amendment.

Desperately Seeking Sanity

This schizophrenic conduct of the Supreme Court is deeply mystifying – on one hand it produces populist judgments such as those that result in hangings where “public conscience” must be assuaged, even though the courts concede that the evidence simply does not add up – here the Supreme Court is more than happy to play the role of the guardian of public morals and conscience, and acts as a conduit of some imagined social outrage that justifies state-sanctioned murder. On the other hand, the court dons its sanctimonious robe when asked for seemingly-legitimate rulings such as the one on Section 377 and on hate speech during electioneering, and argues from the separation of powers. Granted that the courts routinely face a barrage of criticism over judicial activism, but it is in the lager interest of the citizens of the country that the court should live up to its moniker of “the court of last resort”. Till such time as that happens, we the citizens of the country can only be a tennis ball in the court – pardon the pun – between the legislature and the judiciary, while the executive branch happily crawls when asked to bend.

 

We are a country of 128 crore people and there may be 128 crore views. This is the maturity of a democracy. For a person making such a speech, it may not be a hate speech

~ The Supreme Court of India reacting to a PIL against perceived “hate speech” by politicians during electoral campaigning

Freedom of expression and free speech underlies one of the most important aspects of a healthy nation – a well-informed and vibrant citizenry that is free to discuss and debate issues that concern them at a practical and intellectual level in the country and abroad. At the same time a free press ensures that journalists are capable of reporting what they want to (the paid media allegations that are running riot these days are another matter). By all means, the Supreme Court has done a service to the country by furthering this right to freedom of expression through its statement, and to recommend that this matter be taken up by the Law Commission instead of the courts.

“No such thing as a free speech”

However, laws related to freedom of expression in India betray a strangely schizophrenic mindset – while the Supreme Court has unequivocally refused to disqualify hate speech, in Article 19 Clause (2) restricts speech on eight conditions, namely security of the state, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense and sovereignty and integrity of India. Now in effect this hate speech should be analysed through the lens of public order, incitement, defamation and public order. It would be a worthwhile exercise to look at the United States for laws regarding freedom of speech and expression, since the First Amendment to the American Constitution provides one of the strongest protections to free speech in the world.

Internet laws – sticks and arrows in a nuclear age

On another level, the legislation surrounding new media serves as a far more draconian clampdown on free speech. Consider just one instance: the dreaded Section 66(A) of the IT Act, which bans anything that is pornographic, disparaging, harmful and other such broad adjectives. Under this Orwellian Act, two of the more famous arrests happened last year – the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Shaheen Dhada-Rinu Srinivasan. This latter was arrested for “Like”ing content that the former had posted on her Facebook timeline. So much from freedom of speech – and if anybody is interested, it would be instructive to read about the case where a US Appeals Court has ruled that Facebook Likes are substantive speech and hence protected under the First Amendment.

Desperately Seeking Sanity

This schizophrenic conduct of the Supreme Court is deeply mystifying – on one hand it produces populist judgments such as those that result in hangings where “public conscience” must be assuaged, even though the courts concede that the evidence simply does not add up – here the Supreme Court is more than happy to play the role of the guardian of public morals and conscience, and acts as a conduit of some imagined social outrage that justifies state-sanctioned murder. On the other hand, the court dons its sanctimonious robe when asked for seemingly-legitimate rulings such as the one on Section 377 and on hate speech during electioneering, and argues from the separation of powers. Granted that the courts routinely face a barrage of criticism over judicial activism, but it is in the lager interest of the citizens of the country that the court should live up to its moniker of “the court of last resort”. Till such time as that happens, we the citizens of the country can only be a tennis ball in the court – pardon the pun – between the legislature and the judiciary, while the executive branch happily crawls when asked to bend.

 

We are a country of 128 crore people and there may be 128 crore views. This is the maturity of a democracy. For a person making such a speech, it may not be a hate speech

~ The Supreme Court of India reacting to a PIL against perceived “hate speech” by politicians during electoral campaigning

Freedom of expression and free speech underlies one of the most important aspects of a healthy nation – a well-informed and vibrant citizenry that is free to discuss and debate issues that concern them at a practical and intellectual level in the country and abroad. At the same time a free press ensures that journalists are capable of reporting what they want to (the paid media allegations that are running riot these days are another matter). By all means, the Supreme Court has done a service to the country by furthering this right to freedom of expression through its statement, and to recommend that this matter be taken up by the Law Commission instead of the courts.

“No such thing as a free speech”

However, laws related to freedom of expression in India betray a strangely schizophrenic mindset – while the Supreme Court has unequivocally refused to disqualify hate speech, in Article 19 Clause (2) restricts speech on eight conditions, namely security of the state, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense and sovereignty and integrity of India. Now in effect this hate speech should be analysed through the lens of public order, incitement, defamation and public order. It would be a worthwhile exercise to look at the United States for laws regarding freedom of speech and expression, since the First Amendment to the American Constitution provides one of the strongest protections to free speech in the world.

Internet laws – sticks and arrows in a nuclear age

On another level, the legislation surrounding new media serves as a far more draconian clampdown on free speech. Consider just one instance: the dreaded Section 66(A) of the IT Act, which bans anything that is pornographic, disparaging, harmful and other such broad adjectives. Under this Orwellian Act, two of the more famous arrests happened last year – the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Shaheen Dhada-Rinu Srinivasan. This latter was arrested for “Like”ing content that the former had posted on her Facebook timeline. So much from freedom of speech – and if anybody is interested, it would be instructive to read about the case where a US Appeals Court has ruled that Facebook Likes are substantive speech and hence protected under the First Amendment.

Desperately Seeking Sanity

This schizophrenic conduct of the Supreme Court is deeply mystifying – on one hand it produces populist judgments such as those that result in hangings where “public conscience” must be assuaged, even though the courts concede that the evidence simply does not add up – here the Supreme Court is more than happy to play the role of the guardian of public morals and conscience, and acts as a conduit of some imagined social outrage that justifies state-sanctioned murder. On the other hand, the court dons its sanctimonious robe when asked for seemingly-legitimate rulings such as the one on Section 377 and on hate speech during electioneering, and argues from the separation of powers. Granted that the courts routinely face a barrage of criticism over judicial activism, but it is in the lager interest of the citizens of the country that the court should live up to its moniker of “the court of last resort”. Till such time as that happens, we the citizens of the country can only be a tennis ball in the court – pardon the pun – between the legislature and the judiciary, while the executive branch happily crawls when asked to bend.

 

We are a country of 128 crore people and there may be 128 crore views. This is the maturity of a democracy. For a person making such a speech, it may not be a hate speech

~ The Supreme Court of India reacting to a PIL against perceived “hate speech” by politicians during electoral campaigning

Freedom of expression and free speech underlies one of the most important aspects of a healthy nation – a well-informed and vibrant citizenry that is free to discuss and debate issues that concern them at a practical and intellectual level in the country and abroad. At the same time a free press ensures that journalists are capable of reporting what they want to (the paid media allegations that are running riot these days are another matter). By all means, the Supreme Court has done a service to the country by furthering this right to freedom of expression through its statement, and to recommend that this matter be taken up by the Law Commission instead of the courts.

“No such thing as a free speech”

However, laws related to freedom of expression in India betray a strangely schizophrenic mindset – while the Supreme Court has unequivocally refused to disqualify hate speech, in Article 19 Clause (2) restricts speech on eight conditions, namely security of the state, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense and sovereignty and integrity of India. Now in effect this hate speech should be analysed through the lens of public order, incitement, defamation and public order. It would be a worthwhile exercise to look at the United States for laws regarding freedom of speech and expression, since the First Amendment to the American Constitution provides one of the strongest protections to free speech in the world.

Internet laws – sticks and arrows in a nuclear age

On another level, the legislation surrounding new media serves as a far more draconian clampdown on free speech. Consider just one instance: the dreaded Section 66(A) of the IT Act, which bans anything that is pornographic, disparaging, harmful and other such broad adjectives. Under this Orwellian Act, two of the more famous arrests happened last year – the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Shaheen Dhada-Rinu Srinivasan. This latter was arrested for “Like”ing content that the former had posted on her Facebook timeline. So much from freedom of speech – and if anybody is interested, it would be instructive to read about the case where a US Appeals Court has ruled that Facebook Likes are substantive speech and hence protected under the First Amendment.

Desperately Seeking Sanity

This schizophrenic conduct of the Supreme Court is deeply mystifying – on one hand it produces populist judgments such as those that result in hangings where “public conscience” must be assuaged, even though the courts concede that the evidence simply does not add up – here the Supreme Court is more than happy to play the role of the guardian of public morals and conscience, and acts as a conduit of some imagined social outrage that justifies state-sanctioned murder. On the other hand, the court dons its sanctimonious robe when asked for seemingly-legitimate rulings such as the one on Section 377 and on hate speech during electioneering, and argues from the separation of powers. Granted that the courts routinely face a barrage of criticism over judicial activism, but it is in the lager interest of the citizens of the country that the court should live up to its moniker of “the court of last resort”. Till such time as that happens, we the citizens of the country can only be a tennis ball in the court – pardon the pun – between the legislature and the judiciary, while the executive branch happily crawls when asked to bend.

 

We are a country of 128 crore people and there may be 128 crore views. This is the maturity of a democracy. For a person making such a speech, it may not be a hate speech

~ The Supreme Court of India reacting to a PIL against perceived “hate speech” by politicians during electoral campaigning

Freedom of expression and free speech underlies one of the most important aspects of a healthy nation – a well-informed and vibrant citizenry that is free to discuss and debate issues that concern them at a practical and intellectual level in the country and abroad. At the same time a free press ensures that journalists are capable of reporting what they want to (the paid media allegations that are running riot these days are another matter). By all means, the Supreme Court has done a service to the country by furthering this right to freedom of expression through its statement, and to recommend that this matter be taken up by the Law Commission instead of the courts.

“No such thing as a free speech”

However, laws related to freedom of expression in India betray a strangely schizophrenic mindset – while the Supreme Court has unequivocally refused to disqualify hate speech, in Article 19 Clause (2) restricts speech on eight conditions, namely security of the state, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense and sovereignty and integrity of India. Now in effect this hate speech should be analysed through the lens of public order, incitement, defamation and public order. It would be a worthwhile exercise to look at the United States for laws regarding freedom of speech and expression, since the First Amendment to the American Constitution provides one of the strongest protections to free speech in the world.

Internet laws – sticks and arrows in a nuclear age

On another level, the legislation surrounding new media serves as a far more draconian clampdown on free speech. Consider just one instance: the dreaded Section 66(A) of the IT Act, which bans anything that is pornographic, disparaging, harmful and other such broad adjectives. Under this Orwellian Act, two of the more famous arrests happened last year – the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Shaheen Dhada-Rinu Srinivasan. This latter was arrested for “Like”ing content that the former had posted on her Facebook timeline. So much from freedom of speech – and if anybody is interested, it would be instructive to read about the case where a US Appeals Court has ruled that Facebook Likes are substantive speech and hence protected under the First Amendment.

Desperately Seeking Sanity

This schizophrenic conduct of the Supreme Court is deeply mystifying – on one hand it produces populist judgments such as those that result in hangings where “public conscience” must be assuaged, even though the courts concede that the evidence simply does not add up – here the Supreme Court is more than happy to play the role of the guardian of public morals and conscience, and acts as a conduit of some imagined social outrage that justifies state-sanctioned murder. On the other hand, the court dons its sanctimonious robe when asked for seemingly-legitimate rulings such as the one on Section 377 and on hate speech during electioneering, and argues from the separation of powers. Granted that the courts routinely face a barrage of criticism over judicial activism, but it is in the lager interest of the citizens of the country that the court should live up to its moniker of “the court of last resort”. Till such time as that happens, we the citizens of the country can only be a tennis ball in the court – pardon the pun – between the legislature and the judiciary, while the executive branch happily crawls when asked to bend.

 

Tags: concernConstitutionDemocracyIndiamoralsSocialTennisUP
ShareTweetSend
Previous Post

Trust and other casualties of Election 2014

Next Post

What if?

Guest Author

Guest Author

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms of use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

  • Most Read
  • Comments
  • Latest
Xi Jinping, coronavirus, Shinzo Abe, china, Japan, coornavirus, COVID-19, Wuhan Virus

‘Pack up and get out of there,’ Japan to spend $2.2 billion to get Japanese companies to exit China

9 April 2020
ajay devgn karan johar

The man who bullied the Bully – How Ajay Devgn made Karan Johar’s monopoly a joke and forced him to apologize

22 June 2020
Huawei, China, Trump, USA, Xi Jinping

‘Our survival is at stake now,’ Chinese Telecom giant Huawei crumbles after US ban on Semiconductor exports

19 May 2020
T-Series Sonu Nigam Divya Khosla Kumar Bhushan Kumar

T-Series forced to take down Atif Aslam’s video, Divya Khosla trolled. T-Series has a bad day in office

25 June 2020
Meat Ban

A Jain responds to Meat Ban in Mumbai

Public Sector Bank, Government, Bill

Dear bank employees, continue your stride but PSBs will be privatized

anti-Hindi

Anti-Hindi Forever?- In search of a National Language!

Dear Liberals – your Beef Parties are not protests, they just intend to displease the Majority

Dear Liberals – your Beef Parties are not protests, they just intend to displease the Majority

Tom-Foolery Exposed: The Savage Science of Victimology

Tom-Foolery Exposed: The Savage Science of Victimology

3 February 2023
Hydrogen trains

Budget lights the fire for Indian Railways’ Hydrogen transformation

3 February 2023
From a rickshawala to billionaire godman: An unexplored tale

From a rickshawala to billionaire godman: An unexplored tale

3 February 2023
Sharad Kelkar: An underrated gem of Indian Cinema

Sharad Kelkar: An underrated gem of Indian Cinema

2 February 2023

Popular This Week

Preity Zinta
Cinema

Preity Zinta – The woman who stood up to the underworld, but paid a heavy price for it

by Paurush Gupta
30 January 2023
Adani-Hindenburg row: Decoding the hidden agendas
Premium

Adani-Hindenburg row: Decoding the hidden agendas

by Abhishek Kumar Singh
29 January 2023
Govinda congress
Cinema

When Govinda started literally pleading in front of Sonia Gandhi

by TFIPOST News Desk
31 January 2023
The untold story of Swami Pranavananda
History

The untold story of Swami Pranavananda

by Abhishek Kumar Singh
29 January 2023
Reality of Bageshwar Dham
Analysis

The Bageshwar Dham: The Reality of Dhirendra Krishna Shastri

by Tejasvi Malhotra
31 October 2022

©2023 TFI Media Private Limited

  • Terms of use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap
No Result
View All Result
  • Premium
  • Politics
    • Analysis
    • Opinions
    • Trending
  • Economy
    • Business
    • Finance
  • Defense
    • Defence
    • Strategy
    • Weaponry
  • Geopolitics
    • Africa
    • Americas
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • South Asia
    • West Asia
  • Knowledge
    • Culture
    • History
    • Indology
  • Law
  • Lounge
    • Books
    • Cinema
    • Food
    • Health
    • Sports
    • technology
    • Travel
    • Satire
TFI Official Merchandise
TFI हिन्दी
TFI Global
  • About us
  • Careers
  • Brand Partnerships

©2023 TFI Media Private Limited

Follow us on Twitter

and never miss an insightful take by the TFIPOST team

Follow @tfipost