Braznor
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2005
- 4,619
- 409
- 126
That documentary was released in January 2023.
I think he is trying to make the argument that India bans all kind of shit under different governments so this is totally cool. Which completely misses the point.
That would be a terrible argument to make!
Like arguing that it's ok for China to censor stuff now because they censor stuff about Tiananmen square.
Not even Braznor is that much of an idiot.
Evidence of his idiocy says otherwise
Have you not read his drivel before?
Consider the source…
Having fun? A pity it has to end now. What you are all doing is arguing from the view of a free speech absolutist. But I'm sorry, but the world does not work that way. This view of you all does not apply even in the US.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/887/absolutists
Critics of absolutism champion balancing approach
Critics of the absolutist approach argue that the First Amendment should be interpreted within the scope of the entire Constitution. Many rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights can directly conflict with others; reconciling these conflicts is what politics, especially judicial politics, is about.
The critics usually champion a balancing approach, arguing that courts should weigh the competing social and individual interests in unfettered expression against legitimate social and individual interests in protecting against obscenity, actual threats of injury, and incitement to imminent lawless action.
A majority of the Supreme Court has never endorsed the absolutist position. Rather, the Court has consistently held that certain types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment or can be regulated when offsetting social or individual interests are involved. For example, so-called fighting words can be prohibited. Advertising can be regulated to prevent fraud or deception. In addition, libel, slander, blackmail, and obscenity, although speech, are not constitutionally protected.
Absolutism in any sense does not work very well and India's view is free speech is constitutionally protected, but it has to be balanced in terms of social, individual and security costs. Anything that can trigger large scale unrest in society in India is rightly regulated. In our security circumstances, we have no alternative.
Your jaundiced demand of unfettered absolute freedom of speech regardless of consequences is naive at best and malicious at worst. What you are all advocating is that the Indian government allows its society to be torn apart all in the name of purity of freedom of speech.
Chasing purity is the one goal that humans can never attain and yet at the same time, gives us the greatest of grief in our attempts to achieve it.
If we followed your advice, then my society will be torn apart because there is no shortage of bad actors here just waiting to tear my society apart. In comparison to this, we, Indians, prefer our governments approach, thank you very much.
So you may all shove that jaundiced view of yours up where the sun doesn't shine.

