3 ms·

US 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, success

by dm8 15y ago

US 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 ago
What 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 ago
  You 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 ago
    I 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.

by dm8 15y ago

qq66 15y ago

What 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 ago
You 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 ago
  I 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.