3 ms·

The problem is that the laws in India are very poorly worded, often misunderstood and arbitrarily applied. All of this gives the overworked & corrupt Indian po

The problem is that the laws in India are very poorly worded, often misunderstood and arbitrarily applied. All of this gives the overworked & corrupt Indian police almost limitless discretion on what to enforce & against whom. It also provides a sufficiently motivated grudge bearer an easy way to Shut up someone (or worse) that is making an unpopular argument. There are several laws in this ugly bucket - "Hurting the religious sentiments of a group" "Defamation..." "Obscene content" "Promoting Enemity between religions" "Inciting Violence..." The extremely vague "IT Act" also adds a digital dimension to this nonsense - where you have people Jailed for "liking" Facebook posts http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/03/freedom_on_the_net_the_countries_where_you_can_go_to_jail_for_liking_something.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/03/freedom_on_... Just a terrible mess over there legally.... As if this was not enough rationalists are always in danger in a place like India (having personally been affected by this I can attest that this is infact very real - two reasonable people can argue but it is hard to talk to some one threatening you). One more link to put the very real threat this gentlemen faces in context:http://www.in.com/news/current-affairs/cbi-files-fir-in-narendra-dabholkar-murder-case-52790476-in-1.html http://www.in.com/news/current-affairs/cbi-files-fir-in-nare... Dr Dabholkar was gunned down in broad daylight, while out for a walk on a busy road.

sriku 12y ago
Counsellors ("shrinks" in the US?) recognize that nobody can "hurt your feelings" unless you permit them to as well. i.e. there is contribution on the side of those "feeling hurt" as well as the party "doing the hurting". Given that, we need to divide the accusation into three parts - a) was there any intention to "hurt the feelings of people", b) were there any lies uttered as an instrument that could have effected hurt and c) should we consider the "hurt" felt when facts are being revealed valid for legal purposes. In the case of Sanal, (b) is certainly not the case since he's talking about facts he found in his investigation, and we need only examine (a) and (c). Sanal is certainly not inciting violence between religious groups even by accident. So that's out. Sanal is a "myth buster" in the public eye - i.e. has permanently adopted a skeptical stance in matters of "miracles". Given the amount of evidence he's personally seen in this matter, we might at least give him the human allowance of a snarkiness that might have developed and which he might have expressed. Maybe mild cause for (a) perhaps, but insignificant in my opinion given his reputation. Rgd (c), I think this whole category of "hurt" ought to be legally excludable and as far as I've read there doesn't seem to be any constitutional provision to do so. Truth hurts people when it shatters a belief that they have attached their self worth to. If someone feels "hurt" when presented with facts (at least facts at hand, leaving aside "historical facts" for the moment), this kind of hurt should not be cause for legal action. I wish the "duty of a citizen of India to develop a scientific temper" were interpreted in this manner when it comes to actionable forms of hurt. edit: tpyo (b) -> (a)

sriku 12y ago

Counsellors ("shrinks" in the US?) recognize that nobody can "hurt your feelings" unless you permit them to as well. i.e. there is contribution on the side of those "feeling hurt" as well as the party "doing the hurting". Given that, we need to divide the accusation into three parts - a) was there any intention to "hurt the feelings of people", b) were there any lies uttered as an instrument that could have effected hurt and c) should we consider the "hurt" felt when facts are being revealed valid for legal purposes. In the case of Sanal, (b) is certainly not the case since he's talking about facts he found in his investigation, and we need only examine (a) and (c). Sanal is certainly not inciting violence between religious groups even by accident. So that's out. Sanal is a "myth buster" in the public eye - i.e. has permanently adopted a skeptical stance in matters of "miracles". Given the amount of evidence he's personally seen in this matter, we might at least give him the human allowance of a snarkiness that might have developed and which he might have expressed. Maybe mild cause for (a) perhaps, but insignificant in my opinion given his reputation. Rgd (c), I think this whole category of "hurt" ought to be legally excludable and as far as I've read there doesn't seem to be any constitutional provision to do so. Truth hurts people when it shatters a belief that they have attached their self worth to. If someone feels "hurt" when presented with facts (at least facts at hand, leaving aside "historical facts" for the moment), this kind of hurt should not be cause for legal action. I wish the "duty of a citizen of India to develop a scientific temper" were interpreted in this manner when it comes to actionable forms of hurt. edit: tpyo (b) -> (a)