5 ms·

Interesting comparison with US Constitution... "In the U.S., if there is a compelling necessity to achieve an important governmental or societal goal, a law abr

Interesting comparison with US Constitution... "In the U.S., if there is a compelling necessity to achieve an important governmental or societal goal, a law abridging freedom of speech may pass muster. But in India, such law cannot pass muster if it is in the interest of the general public. Such law has to be covered by one of the eight subject matters set out under Article 19(2). If it does not, and is outside the pale of 19(2), Indian courts will strike down such law"

ta82828 12y ago
On the other hand, India has hate speech laws, which are anathema to the U.S. view on free speech.
- diminoten 12y ago
  The reason the US doesn't have hate speech laws are pretty much the same as the reasoning given in this ruling. It's just a matter of how far a culture is willing to push these ideas.
  - ta82828 12y ago
    The reason I brought it up is because the quoted text seemed to boast that Indian courts protect freedom of speech more strongly than U.S. courts. On a second reading, however, I have no idea what that text is actually trying to say.
    - GauntletWizard 12y ago
      I think your initial reading is right; Whether the judges are correct with their dig at the US's concept of freedom of speech is a matter of debate.
phkahler 12y ago
I was surprised at that. As far as I know, nothing has ever passed muster. The classic "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre" is probably (my opinion) only true if it actually causes harm to someone. Of course it may cause "harm" to the business, but that would be a civil matter. If someone was trampled to death it could be criminal. In other words, our first amendment rights stop where it directly (not theoretically) causes harm. Or something like that. IANAL of course.
- thatcat 12y ago
  In US, other non-protected speech includes threats and obscenity. If you're calling out bureaucrats in public be careful not to use any obscenity or you might find yourself charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor criminal charge. No harm is required.
  - SeanLuke 12y ago
    The legal usage of the term "obscenity" differs from the common usage of the term. I believe you are confusing obscenity with profanity.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - thatcat 12y ago
      You're right, I looked up obscenity and it applies to screen/print media rather than directly spoken language and is based on local interpretations of what is offensive to average people and not considered artistic. I wonder how this can possibly work on mediums as diverse as the internet.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Except any free speech aimed at any politician while not in a designated "Free Speech Zone." This causes me such angst even discussing it. It has to be the most egregious affront to free speech in my lifetime - and the Supreme Court not only upheld the right to enforce them, but to only enforce them on people with ideas unfriendly to the politician in question. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/27/supreme-court-bush-protest-speech/9172707/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/27/supre...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - brownbat 12y ago

ta82828 12y ago

On the other hand, India has hate speech laws, which are anathema to the U.S. view on free speech.

diminoten 12y ago
The reason the US doesn't have hate speech laws are pretty much the same as the reasoning given in this ruling. It's just a matter of how far a culture is willing to push these ideas.
- ta82828 12y ago
  The reason I brought it up is because the quoted text seemed to boast that Indian courts protect freedom of speech more strongly than U.S. courts. On a second reading, however, I have no idea what that text is actually trying to say.
  - GauntletWizard 12y ago
    I think your initial reading is right; Whether the judges are correct with their dig at the US's concept of freedom of speech is a matter of debate.

phkahler 12y ago

I was surprised at that. As far as I know, nothing has ever passed muster. The classic "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre" is probably (my opinion) only true if it actually causes harm to someone. Of course it may cause "harm" to the business, but that would be a civil matter. If someone was trampled to death it could be criminal. In other words, our first amendment rights stop where it directly (not theoretically) causes harm. Or something like that. IANAL of course.

thatcat 12y ago
In US, other non-protected speech includes threats and obscenity. If you're calling out bureaucrats in public be careful not to use any obscenity or you might find yourself charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor criminal charge. No harm is required.
- SeanLuke 12y ago
  The legal usage of the term "obscenity" differs from the common usage of the term. I believe you are confusing obscenity with profanity.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - thatcat 12y ago
    You're right, I looked up obscenity and it applies to screen/print media rather than directly spoken language and is based on local interpretations of what is offensive to average people and not considered artistic. I wonder how this can possibly work on mediums as diverse as the internet.
themartorana 12y ago
Except any free speech aimed at any politician while not in a designated "Free Speech Zone." This causes me such angst even discussing it. It has to be the most egregious affront to free speech in my lifetime - and the Supreme Court not only upheld the right to enforce them, but to only enforce them on people with ideas unfriendly to the politician in question. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/27/supreme-court-bush-protest-speech/9172707/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/27/supre...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- brownbat 12y ago