tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post5816310467399433365..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Free Speech and Its LimitsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-62983589991424578752008-03-04T21:36:00.000+05:302008-03-04T21:36:00.000+05:30Mr Dilip wrote:"How does one decide whether a book...Mr Dilip wrote:<BR/><BR/>"How does one decide whether a book is deliberately and maliciously intended to insult somebody or a belief/doctrine?"<BR/><BR/>My opinion: <BR/><BR/>a) unless the abuse/insult can be shown as meant to make a larger, socially relevant point;<BR/><BR/>b) and unless that point is regarded by ordinary people as advancing a reasonable cause<BR/><BR/>the said abuse must be considered as wanton abuse meant for the purpose of giving offence. <BR/><BR/>Consider two hypothetical cases. In the first, a feminist lambasts Rama of Ramayan in abusive language for his ill-treatment of Sita. In the second, an artist portrays Rama in an "offensive" light -- in a urinal perhaps, or as copulating with an animal. <BR/><BR/>Numerous tracts were written harshly critiquing Rama's conduct towards Sita, and they did not face trouble.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-23521057821714086552008-03-01T21:32:00.000+05:302008-03-01T21:32:00.000+05:30It is freedom of expression that needs protection,...It is freedom of expression that needs protection, however unpopular the idea may be.<BR/>The trend of asking authors to delete is unhealthy and dangerous.<BR/>Technological revolution is changing the parameters of the debate.<BR/>What does a ban mean in an inter-connected world.<BR/>If a book that is anned in<BR/>india is available in the net for free download what can the court or government do. Can they prevent the book being read in india.<BR/><BR/>ravi srinivasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-45865189865554315352008-03-01T07:07:00.000+05:302008-03-01T07:07:00.000+05:30Thanks for the comment. I agree completely with wh...Thanks for the comment. I agree completely with what you say. You are of course right that section 153A should not apply to Taslima Nasreen because multiple religious groups are not involved here. But that is small consolation if charges under section 295A and 499-502 can be made to stick.<BR/><BR/>As I see it, there are two problems here. One is that when we are talking of the content of speech (not form), the distinction between hate speech and legitimate criticism is not very clear. Under section 295A (which, as pointed out in VV’s previous post, has been upheld by the SC in <A HREF="http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=656" REL="nofollow">Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP</A>), is there a distinction between criticism and insult of religion/religious beliefs? Again under 153A, what does ‘ground of religion’ mean – does it refer to religious doctrine, prominent figures, followers? if a comparative review of two religious doctrines concluded by deprecating one and hailing the other, would that amount to promoting enmity between groups on ground of religion? Likewise, in place of a written review, if we had a politician, say from the Hindu right, doing the same thing in a speech, is that an offense under 153A?<BR/><BR/>The other problem is that the distinction between criticisms of an individual who is central to a narrative is not easily divorced from a critique of the precepts themselves. Some commentators (such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali) say that in the case of Islam, the Prophet Mohammed is seen as <EM>the </EM>ideal person and it is the religious duty of every practicing Muslim to model his own life on that example (likewise, his wife and daughter are role models for women). They argue that it is therefore impossible to criticize religious notions without also repudiating at least some of the beliefs, values and conduct of the Prophet’s own life. I do not know if this is indeed the case but it raises an important point about whether a distinction between the precepts and the person who propounded them is meaningful at all. Secondly, if the tenets and prophets/deities are fair game for criticism, the practices of a religion that flow from those tenets and prophets/deities cannot seriously be excluded. All of that leaves only speech against the followers themselves open to proscription which raises the question whether it is workable.<BR/><BR/>Your point about why religion ought to have a special status in a secular society is a good one. Unfortunately, the fact remains that these laws continue to be in the books and the <EM>status quo</EM> is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. Many people see considerable utility in keeping it that way for maintaining public order (though, as you point out, the view is open to challenge). While there have been some calls to remove sec. 295A, to my knowledge,there have been no similar proposals about 153A.Dilip Raohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18294894305584371011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-54922279435853705262008-02-29T21:41:00.000+05:302008-02-29T21:41:00.000+05:301. Isnt the purpose of free speech protection to p...1. Isnt the purpose of free speech protection to protect unpopular/offensive speech? Inoffensive speech does not need protection to begin with.<BR/><BR/>2. Even if one concedes a hate speech exception to speech, it must necessarily be confined to promoting hatred against a definable group. this is NOT the same as criticising, howsoever harshly, the beliefs of that group. section 153A(a) is directed against promoting 'enmity' between groups - how does Taslima Nasreen's criticism of Islam promote enmity amongst any groups? In any case, why should religious belief have a special constitutional status in a secular society? <BR/><BR/>3. It is true that Article 19(2) has a public order exception to free speech, reflected in 'likely to disturb the public tranquility' clause in section 153A(b). this is a terrible exception that encourages social censorship. all that a group needs to do is to engineer public order problems (so easy to do in India) against a speech it does not like. remember dera saccha sauda, calcutta protests against tasleema and numerous other examples? this is a self-fulfiling exception that can always be achieved by a political group that does not have qualms with using violence for political purposes (that would probably include every group in India - Raj Thackery's defense of his 'movement' expressly defends political violence).<BR/><BR/>4. I hope we can still see the beauty of Bachchan's 'Madhushala', made popular in the distant 1930s. today, perhaps, its reception would have been different:<BR/><BR/>'He who has burnt all scriptures with his inner fire,<BR/>Has broken temples, mosques and churches with carefree abandon,<BR/>And has cut the nooses of pandits, mullahs and priests ---<BR/>Only he is welcome in my tavern.'<BR/><BR/>the SC's proposal of deleting certain paragraphs from Laine's book makes a mockery of Article 19.Tarunabh Khaitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07234574402062317396noreply@blogger.com