8 ms·

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

leephillips 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
    - leephillips 4y ago
      Very well said, I think. I would add that (1) and (2) overlap, as well. For example, speech railing against sharia might be classified as offensive to Muslims. But it becomes a political issue if a party or candidate supports a policy of allowing some limited form of sharia to have official status.
    - vkou 4y ago
      > 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. Depends on who the political opponents are. There's a vast gulf between single-party rule, and a oligopoly of parties that censor their opponents, but not eachother. The former is seen in a place like Russia, the latter is what we have seen for decades in many Western countries. (See: The Red Scare as a great example of this.) > 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's actually easy, what you need is a strong bureaucracy that maintains social norms, due to its inertia. As long as we can all shake hands and agree to treat, say, commies as a common enemy, but treat eachother as gentlemen, that sort of status quo can be maintained indefinitely. That bureaucratic inertia is what will protect you from despotism, not the letter of the law.
  - FerociousTimes 4y ago
    There's liberal and illiberal democracy, and I think for the majority of people here when democracy is mentioned, the former is the one that comes to mind not the latter. It's all about freedoms and liberties after all.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    Also pure democracies don't really exist. for example the US is a democratic republic and the bill of rights has (until recently) stopped a lot of companies, people, and state governments from running over the rights of an individual to speak their mind (or religion or whatever) without fearing reprisal from the government. I'm afraid with the far right SCOTUS that we have currently though those individual rights are likely to be taken away to allow more police actions in our country as republicans increasingly push to remove hard won civil, racial, and gender equality rights.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- gautamdivgi 4y ago
  Well, Germany censors the swastika - which has been used by eastern religions for millennia. I think democracy and free speech are different things. Absolute free speech is desired - but not all democracies implement it. Either way, I don’t think India has ever had “free speech”. It has always been controlled speech.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    > Absolute free speech is desired Is it? Curtailing the ‘freedom’ to be as offensive as one wants, consequences be dammed, is not something everyone agrees with. Even the US places limits on free speech for these reasons.
    - gautamdivgi 4y ago
      The US doesn’t limit speech. Private platforms are self censoring. It has even upheld the right of citizens to burn the flag [0](reprehensible as it might be in the view of the majority). 0. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - vharuck 4y ago
        US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. For example, gag orders during court proceedings are temporary limitations on speech meant to ensure a fair trial. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order And obviously, any speech that is intrinsically part of another crime would be punishable (e.g. telling somebody you're from the IRS so you could steal their return).
        lostlogin 4y ago
        > US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. Does it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fr... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California This one is partially overturned as it is argued to have been used to punish ideas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
  - leephillips 4y ago
    Very well said, I think. I would add that (1) and (2) overlap, as well. For example, speech railing against sharia might be classified as offensive to Muslims. But it becomes a political issue if a party or candidate supports a policy of allowing some limited form of sharia to have official status.
  - vkou 4y ago
    > 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. Depends on who the political opponents are. There's a vast gulf between single-party rule, and a oligopoly of parties that censor their opponents, but not eachother. The former is seen in a place like Russia, the latter is what we have seen for decades in many Western countries. (See: The Red Scare as a great example of this.) > 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's actually easy, what you need is a strong bureaucracy that maintains social norms, due to its inertia. As long as we can all shake hands and agree to treat, say, commies as a common enemy, but treat eachother as gentlemen, that sort of status quo can be maintained indefinitely. That bureaucratic inertia is what will protect you from despotism, not the letter of the law.
- FerociousTimes 4y ago
  There's liberal and illiberal democracy, and I think for the majority of people here when democracy is mentioned, the former is the one that comes to mind not the latter. It's all about freedoms and liberties after all.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Also pure democracies don't really exist. for example the US is a democratic republic and the bill of rights has (until recently) stopped a lot of companies, people, and state governments from running over the rights of an individual to speak their mind (or religion or whatever) without fearing reprisal from the government. I'm afraid with the far right SCOTUS that we have currently though those individual rights are likely to be taken away to allow more police actions in our country as republicans increasingly push to remove hard won civil, racial, and gender equality rights.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
gautamdivgi 4y ago
Well, Germany censors the swastika - which has been used by eastern religions for millennia. I think democracy and free speech are different things. Absolute free speech is desired - but not all democracies implement it. Either way, I don’t think India has ever had “free speech”. It has always been controlled speech.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  > Absolute free speech is desired Is it? Curtailing the ‘freedom’ to be as offensive as one wants, consequences be dammed, is not something everyone agrees with. Even the US places limits on free speech for these reasons.
  - gautamdivgi 4y ago
    The US doesn’t limit speech. Private platforms are self censoring. It has even upheld the right of citizens to burn the flag [0](reprehensible as it might be in the view of the majority). 0. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - vharuck 4y ago
      US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. For example, gag orders during court proceedings are temporary limitations on speech meant to ensure a fair trial. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order And obviously, any speech that is intrinsically part of another crime would be punishable (e.g. telling somebody you're from the IRS so you could steal their return).
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        > US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. Does it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fr... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California This one is partially overturned as it is argued to have been used to punish ideas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States