Free Speech rules
#1
Hello Everyone,

Lately i been noticing Lot Zakir naik videos,

I'm wondering, are there no rules for Free speech, He's defiantly crossing some lines, Lost of statements he's making doesn't have reliable sources, In other words he's defiantly creating propaganda..

I'm wondering, is there any possible way, i can file case against to him.

Thanks
Kapil
Reply
#2
Ya, basically what your searching for is laws against hate speech. I'm pretty certain some countries have them. I think the UK banned him entry few months ago citing hate speech. But I'm not sure if India has such a law.
Reply
#3
I don't think we should have such a law anyway. Speech should be free no matter how hateful.
[+] 1 user Likes unsorted's post
Reply
#4
Zakir Naik is a third rate islamist scholar who gains his reputation by feeding rotten ideology to it's audience. He has been denied entry to UK and Canada. He's known for his anti-semetic rhetoric and his unrelenting support for the restoration of the islamic caliphate.

Every country has free speech laws. United States undoubtedly is the flag bearer in Freedom of Speech and separation of Church and State, thanks to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. However, it's important to note the difference between freedom of speech and the intent of harm.

The following article is a very good read to understand the boundaries of free speech.
free speech article
[+] 4 users Like Kruttik's post
Reply
#5
Thanks for posting that link, I didn't know much about that before - the Harm Principle and so on. I guess I have to re-evaluate my position.

I also found this old article by Soli Sorabjee on hate speech laws in India, worth a read. Link

Reply
#6
Here's Hitchens' take on Free Speech. From what I understood of it, he says that free speech should be defended irrespective of it being hateful.

https://howtoplayalone.wordpress.com/hit...ee-speech/

However, I am not sure if India is in general ready for it.
Aditya Manthramurthy
Web Administrator & Associate Editor
Nirmukta.com
Reply
#7
The free speech debate in India is now raging in the context of a controversial new film.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/we-the-...ics/207305
Reply
#8
I was meaning to make a post about free speech and right of expression in India coming under the censorship board. The movie controversy aside, there is a show called Family Guy that airs on Star World. For those of you unfamiliar with the show, it is a show produced by Seth McFarlene ( a renowned atheist and gay rights activist in the USA and also creator of American Dad!) which is known for its uncomfortable and often random skits and cut-away scenes.
I have seen most of the shows during my year in England and was glad to see them aired on Star World India. However much to my consternation I realized that most of the good stuff was heavily censored and even innocuous words like breasts were censored. And the reason they block them is because the censor board thinks that some religious group will get offended and probably protest or worst case scenario start a riot. To be honest, Seth has all religions in his crosshairs including Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. And some skits like Mother Teresa over dosing on crack and being dumped in front of the hospital were completely omitted. This could be viewed as an impingement on the free speech rights of Seth McFarlene. If you start censoring one voice, then everyone who is offended by something or the other will have their nagging voices hushed and slowly the world's vocal chords will be slit. Apparently Jesus being offered a toke, talking about his ex-wife is offensive to Christians, a Palestinian alarm clock that goes Allah-hu-Akbar before blowing up is offensive to Muslims and Vishnu and Jesus arguing up on a cloud is offensive to Hindus. Of course, you have a right to be offended, but that shouldn't influence the right of the person making the statement to make that statement.
One prime example of America's intent to protect free speech concerns the Westboro baptist church Yes, they spew homophobia, they openly condemn people to hell on the street and they picket the funerals of the people whom they think they've sinned against their Lord. But the supreme court upheld their right to freedom of speech.
And finally I would recommend that everybody watches Cartoon Wars parts 1 and 2. It is a beautiful and masterful analysis of the merits and pitfalls of allowing free speech in society.
This is my understanding of free speech. If I'm wrong about something, do let me know and we can have a discussion about it.
"It's alright, I rarely meet anyone who's able to read it properly. Although personally, I never thought that it to be an odd of a name. Once I give people the pronunciation, they tend to remember my name by easily associating me with it. A unique face, a unique moniker."
Reply
#9
(20-Nov-2010, 02:33 PM)unsorted Wrote: Thanks for posting that link, I didn't know much about that before - the Harm Principle and so on. I guess I have to re-evaluate my position.

I also found this old article by Soli Sorabjee on hate speech laws in India, worth a read. Link

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood (in the link posted by Kruttik), I do not support hate speech restrictions. It can be a very close call, but I believe that intent to cause harm must be made explicit through endorsement of a position seeking specific acts of violence against individuals or groups.

Hate speech itself can be addressed in many ways if it is intrusive and/or dangerous: -invasion of privacy laws, public nuisance (conduct and vandalism) laws, libel laws etc are often good enough.

Of course, hate speech with explicit intent to incite the committing of violent acts against individuals would not be protected under these guidelines. But by my standards (and let's not kid ourselves, there is a strong subjective element involved in such discussions) Europe and the United States are restricting free-speech with their hate-speech restrictions (in Europe specifically concerning Holocaust denial). These forms of expression are often very disturbing and downright disgusting, but I do not think they should be disallowed.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#10
Free Speech: With great power comes great responsibility.
"It's alright, I rarely meet anyone who's able to read it properly. Although personally, I never thought that it to be an odd of a name. Once I give people the pronunciation, they tend to remember my name by easily associating me with it. A unique face, a unique moniker."
Reply
#11
(08-Aug-2011, 12:56 PM)arvindiyer Wrote: The free speech debate in India is now raging in the context of a controversial new film.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/we-the-...ics/207305

The NDTV debate linked above touches upon several issues related to free speech, some of which are:

1) Are censor boards in India adequately representative of all sections of society for their rulings to be said to conform to the will of the republic?

2) Since it is the polity and steel frame that are eventually held accountable when 'hate speech' goes out of hand, are they entitled to sometimes err on the side of caution (and hence coercion) pre-emptively by citing the harm principle?

3) Doesn't society stand to lose in the long run if all public discourse is sanitized in a paranoid way of such issues as 'personal' laws or affirmative action?

4) Why does the Indian state seem beholden always to the religious offence-taking industry, be it during the Da Vinci Code ban in several states or the hounding out of Deepa Mehta's Water production team?

5) How can the mainstream Indian media be sensitized to avoid certain cliched expressions which nevertheless carry connotations of an unforgotten apartheid? (A case in point is this CNN IBN news item...

Quote:Chief administrator or Chief Monster, a forward thinking pragmatic leader or a polarizing Hindu fanatic, a developmentalist or a fundamentalist, future prime minister or a political pariah: Narendra Modi has been called all this and more
)
Reply
#12
Here are some news items that call out the Indian commentariat about its 'selective rage' over free speech restrictions when it affects them and stony silence in other cases when it suits. This sort of 'free speech advocacy of convenience' is hypocritical and self-defeating.

Javed Akhtar on the selective liberal outrage over the Aarakshan ban and silence during Fanaa/Water bans

Firstpost Article: Protesters We Like: Anna, Arundhati and the doublespeak of dissent

Quoting from the second news item:

Quote:A democratic society must protect the right to non-violent protest, be it by ‘daft’ people or otherwise, or whether they espouse popular causes or not.

Quote:The idea that protest has to meet some arbitrary standard of utility or legitimacy is deeply undemocratic.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)