5 ms·

India never had freedom of speech. Opposition newspapers are often harassed and shut down. They have a law criminalizing offending religious feelings. This is n

India never had freedom of speech. Opposition newspapers are often harassed and shut down. They have a law criminalizing offending religious feelings. This is not an exaggerated paraphrase, that’s what the law says. A scientist was convicted under this law a few years ago for demonstrating that a “weeping” statue of the Virgin Mary was not actually weeping blood. The truth was offensive, so the law applied. EDIT: I remembered inaccurately. It was a statue of the crucified Jesus, not Mary.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
imdhmd 5y ago
There is a difference between a law in paper and its enactment. There are various laws in the constitution of india that can be conveniently represented to prosecute someone on the basis of their speech. There is significant evidence of such happenings only increasing lately
stickfigure 5y ago
Your point still stands, but there was never a formal prosecution or conviction (he fled to Finland before it got that far): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai
- leephillips 5y ago
  Thanks for the clarification (I was going by memory). So he was arrested, and presumably would have been prosecuted had he not escaped.
bruceb 5y ago
He was gone after not because of proving it false, but because he accused the church of purposefully lying I believe. One could call it not much different but it isn't the exact same as being prosecuted for debunking a "miracle" From wikipedia: he skeptic-rationalist author Sanal Edamaruku proved that the water stemmed from a faulty sewage system, which seeped due to capillary action. However, Edamaruku also accused Latin Christian priests of regularly scamming devotees and defrauding miracles to make money, and build bigger and newer churchs or convents,[1] and mocked the Pope as "anti-science".[2] A church representative admitted Edamaruku had the "right to doubt", and Christian activists said that the backlash was not for debunking the alleged "miracle" but for the defamatory statements made live on television.[3]
- Kab1r 5y ago
  Defamation should not be criminal imo.
  - markdown 5y ago
    That would give the rich the ability to defame the poor at will.
    - MrBlueIncognito 5y ago
      Defamation lawsuits are mostly filed by wealthy or influential individuals against common citizens. It is a tool to keep everyone that can’t afford decades-long legal battles obedient and shut. Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good to most people, especially vocal journalists.
      - markdown 5y ago
        So you agree it should be criminal, so that the rich can get prosecuted for it as well? > Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good Everyone thinks so until their lives are ruined by someone else causing mischief. BTW have you stopped beating your wife yet?
- FerociousTimes 5y ago
  Even though the allegations are indeed defamatory and slanderous in nature, they shouldn't be prosecutable period. The only exception to be made if he divulged very specific details for scams/frauds that perpetuated by certain individuals mentioned by name, then these individuals have every right to sue him and ask for a generous compensation for the damages the defendant inflicted on their reputation and good name by making these baseless accusations. Other than this specific case, he shouldn't face trial for these ridiculous statements no matter how incendiary or inflammatory they might be perceived by certain groups or elements of the general public.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
givemeethekeys 5y ago
And for context, neither do Britain or Canada.
gautamdivgi 5y ago
Wasn’t Salman Rushdie’s satanic verses banned as well?
- leephillips 5y ago
  Along with several others of his works, and tons of other books, such as The deVinci Code. For various reasons such as being “poorly researched”. Here is a list of over 50 banned books: https://sflc.in/read-me-not-list-banned-books-india https://sflc.in/read-me-not-list-banned-books-india But there are others. This is not a democracy.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Why do you assume a democracy can't censor? All that a democracy is is a form of government where people elect some part of the legislature and the executive. If the electorate wants censorship, then the electorate will get censorship. If the electorate doesn't care much either way about censorship, but the people they elect do, then they will get censorship.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Good point. What I mean by “not a democracy” is not democratic in a meaningful, functional sense. So if people can vote, but they’re not allowed to share political opinions freely, and specifically if the government decides what you’re allowed to say, then the voting becomes meaningless—or at least, less meaningful. My vote is not informed by what I know about the candidates or various political issues if I’m only allowed to read what the party in power allows me to read.
    - lolinder 5y ago
      There are two kinds of censorship: 1) Censorship of "offensive" content (for some definition of "offensive"), applied equally to all people. 2) Censorship of political opponents, either overtly (as in Russia) or under the guise of censoring "offensive" content. A democracy can theoretically sustain itself while engaging in censorship of type 1. A democracy that has chosen to engage in censorship of type 2 is on its way to becoming an authoritarian regime, even if that censorship has public support in the short term. Eventually, the opposition is slowly but surely silenced altogether, and you end up with single-party authoritarian rule. Your vote doesn't matter if no one is allowed to campaign against the status quo. Further, I would argue that it is very difficult to prevent type 1 censorship from turning into type 2 censorship, because the party in power is always incentivized to use any tools they have to stay in power. It is more sustainable for a democracy to take a firm stance against censorship of any form than to try to walk that line.
naoqj 5y ago
> They have a law criminalizing offending religious feelings. Happens in the first world too! 2018: "In Europe, Speech Is an Alienable Right: [the European Court of Human Rights] upheld an Austrian woman’s conviction for disparaging the Prophet Muhammad." https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
- leephillips 5y ago
  I know it does. It’s a matter of degree. How bad does the threat to free expression have to be before a society is not a functional democracy? It’s a judgement call.
- true_religion 5y ago
  Although I know what you meant by 1st world (e.g. Western Europe / N. America), I found it funny because technically Austria isn’t in the first world and never has been. Since it never aligned itself with the US, Austria was considered a 3rd world country just like Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Hungry and Mexico. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
baybal2 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

imdhmd 5y ago

There is a difference between a law in paper and its enactment. There are various laws in the constitution of india that can be conveniently represented to prosecute someone on the basis of their speech. There is significant evidence of such happenings only increasing lately

stickfigure 5y ago

Your point still stands, but there was never a formal prosecution or conviction (he fled to Finland before it got that far): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai

leephillips 5y ago
Thanks for the clarification (I was going by memory). So he was arrested, and presumably would have been prosecuted had he not escaped.

bruceb 5y ago

He was gone after not because of proving it false, but because he accused the church of purposefully lying I believe. One could call it not much different but it isn't the exact same as being prosecuted for debunking a "miracle" From wikipedia: he skeptic-rationalist author Sanal Edamaruku proved that the water stemmed from a faulty sewage system, which seeped due to capillary action. However, Edamaruku also accused Latin Christian priests of regularly scamming devotees and defrauding miracles to make money, and build bigger and newer churchs or convents,[1] and mocked the Pope as "anti-science".[2] A church representative admitted Edamaruku had the "right to doubt", and Christian activists said that the backlash was not for debunking the alleged "miracle" but for the defamatory statements made live on television.[3]

Kab1r 5y ago
Defamation should not be criminal imo.
- markdown 5y ago
  That would give the rich the ability to defame the poor at will.
  - MrBlueIncognito 5y ago
    Defamation lawsuits are mostly filed by wealthy or influential individuals against common citizens. It is a tool to keep everyone that can’t afford decades-long legal battles obedient and shut. Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good to most people, especially vocal journalists.
    - markdown 5y ago
      So you agree it should be criminal, so that the rich can get prosecuted for it as well? > Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good Everyone thinks so until their lives are ruined by someone else causing mischief. BTW have you stopped beating your wife yet?
FerociousTimes 5y ago
Even though the allegations are indeed defamatory and slanderous in nature, they shouldn't be prosecutable period. The only exception to be made if he divulged very specific details for scams/frauds that perpetuated by certain individuals mentioned by name, then these individuals have every right to sue him and ask for a generous compensation for the damages the defendant inflicted on their reputation and good name by making these baseless accusations. Other than this specific case, he shouldn't face trial for these ridiculous statements no matter how incendiary or inflammatory they might be perceived by certain groups or elements of the general public.
- rndgermandude 5y ago

givemeethekeys 5y ago

And for context, neither do Britain or Canada.

gautamdivgi 5y ago

Wasn’t Salman Rushdie’s satanic verses banned as well?

leephillips 5y ago
Along with several others of his works, and tons of other books, such as The deVinci Code. For various reasons such as being “poorly researched”. Here is a list of over 50 banned books: https://sflc.in/read-me-not-list-banned-books-india https://sflc.in/read-me-not-list-banned-books-india But there are others. This is not a democracy.
- vkou 5y ago
  Why do you assume a democracy can't censor? All that a democracy is is a form of government where people elect some part of the legislature and the executive. If the electorate wants censorship, then the electorate will get censorship. If the electorate doesn't care much either way about censorship, but the people they elect do, then they will get censorship.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    Good point. What I mean by “not a democracy” is not democratic in a meaningful, functional sense. So if people can vote, but they’re not allowed to share political opinions freely, and specifically if the government decides what you’re allowed to say, then the voting becomes meaningless—or at least, less meaningful. My vote is not informed by what I know about the candidates or various political issues if I’m only allowed to read what the party in power allows me to read.
  - lolinder 5y ago
    There are two kinds of censorship: 1) Censorship of "offensive" content (for some definition of "offensive"), applied equally to all people. 2) Censorship of political opponents, either overtly (as in Russia) or under the guise of censoring "offensive" content. A democracy can theoretically sustain itself while engaging in censorship of type 1. A democracy that has chosen to engage in censorship of type 2 is on its way to becoming an authoritarian regime, even if that censorship has public support in the short term. Eventually, the opposition is slowly but surely silenced altogether, and you end up with single-party authoritarian rule. Your vote doesn't matter if no one is allowed to campaign against the status quo. Further, I would argue that it is very difficult to prevent type 1 censorship from turning into type 2 censorship, because the party in power is always incentivized to use any tools they have to stay in power. It is more sustainable for a democracy to take a firm stance against censorship of any form than to try to walk that line.

naoqj 5y ago

> They have a law criminalizing offending religious feelings. Happens in the first world too! 2018: "In Europe, Speech Is an Alienable Right: [the European Court of Human Rights] upheld an Austrian woman’s conviction for disparaging the Prophet Muhammad." https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...

leephillips 5y ago
I know it does. It’s a matter of degree. How bad does the threat to free expression have to be before a society is not a functional democracy? It’s a judgement call.
true_religion 5y ago
Although I know what you meant by 1st world (e.g. Western Europe / N. America), I found it funny because technically Austria isn’t in the first world and never has been. Since it never aligned itself with the US, Austria was considered a 3rd world country just like Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Hungry and Mexico. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World

baybal2 5y ago