5 ms·
We always complain about the Internet side of things, forgetting that in most cases these issues are caused by local laws, for whatever political, cultural, etc
by Jun8 15y ago
We always complain about the Internet side of things, forgetting that in most cases these issues are caused by local laws, for whatever political, cultural, etc. reason, are lagging behind the currently accepted human rights (this is hard to define rigorously but I'm sure we would all agree on a common core). Many examples of this can be given: China (of, course), but also many Arab countries, as well as Turkey (who had blocked YouTube at one point and continues to block other sites). And evidently, now India.
It is interesting that the US is an outlier among these countries in that the motivations of censorship here is motivated more by big business profit than politics.
"Indian officials have seen illustrations showing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi in compromising positions, as well as pigs running through Islam’s holy city of Mecca. The punishment for such offenses can be several years of jail time and financial penalties."
"Several years of jail time" for an offensive picture? There's something wrong about that.
- dm8 15y agoUS truly values the freedom of speech. In India there is freedom of speech too but it comes with certain conditions. People of key government positions, successful members of civil society etc. command certain respect. And you don't even call them by first name let alone vandalizing their pictures (unless they are cartoons in newspapers). Its still a traditional society. Flag burning is considered crime in India whereas in western countries it won't be problematic. You can also wear flag patterned clothes but in India you will be frowned upon by everyone including your friends and family.
- qq66 15y agoWhat you're speaking of doesn't sound like a very useful form of "freedom of speech." It's the right to criticize key government officials and other powerful people which is MOST important, because they wield so much power -- it's much less important to be able to publicly criticize your crazy neighbor Bob.
- dm8 15y agoYou can criticize government officials. A form of protest can be anything from organized rally to famous Gandhian methodology of fasting. But society in general shuns anything that is below belt and dignity. Be it your neighbor or local political leader or your own uncle.
- Locke1689 15y agoI don't understand how people still don't get this: you never have to protect the speech you like. No one needs freedom of speech to protect the speech everyone likes. As Noam Chomsky said, If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie paints the picture clearly: almost no one liked the Nazis or wanted them in Skokie, but that's precisely why their speech needs to be protected.