YAY!!! Freedom of speech alive and well in India.....

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
So, you admit you're lacking a brain? You can't provide a single one yet supposedly its so easy just using Google. Then, Mr Scarecrow, show us that you really have a brain, otherwise you're just making yourself the strawman argument.

Shitty op-eds aren't facts, by the way. Only moronic right wing dumbfucks fall for that stupidity. Provide objective evidence based factual debunking or else people are just going to keep mocking your complete failure of intelligence.



Braznor's asshole apparently, because that's where he's pulled all his "facts" and "truth" from.

Ha ha, all that for a hit smear job?
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
Modi declared publicly that a bus fire in 2002 resulting in the deaths of 59 Hindu pilgrims was terrorist arson committed by local Muslims. The next day, rioting started, resulting in the deaths of at least 1000 people, most of them Muslim.

Years later Indian courts convicted a bunch of Muslims in relation to the arson, but what caused the fire is still disputed, with outside investigators still saying it was an accident.

But even if Modi was correct and certain Muslims were responsible, he said it was Muslims before there was sufficient proof of who was responsible. And there was a direct relationship between his public statements and the rioting, which started the next day. And none of that is even addressing the controversial issue of how the riots were handled by police once started, which is to say, that even if there was nothing wrong in any of that, Modi remains responsible for stoking those riots.

Modi is like Trump in relation to 1/6, where he incites violent rioting and then technically isn't held criminally responsible because nothing they could find in his discharge of duties as a public official was technically a crime. It seems that no matter what legal system, fomenting a riot, in this case targetting "undesirable" groups with heated rhetoric which was reaonably likely to cause violence, is not a crime, particularly when done by a public official.

Yet Modi is guilty of being a fascist piece of shit. Ethnic and religious nationalism are clear and present dangers to democracy in the world, including both India and the US.

Get your facts correct, the pilgrims were burned on a train and not on a bus.

Also there is no dispute on the train burning or Modi innocence in India. Both issues have been adjudicated and decided upon in the Indian Courts. So your conjunctures on Modi's guilt and the train burning are nothing better than a conspiracy theory.

I'm sorry, but you are just another nobody in a long line of nobodies who make up these conspiracy theories about Modi.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
So your argument really is "because things got banned before it's fine for Modi to ban whatever he wants"?
Really?

DId you forgot your own post? You were calling the BJP and me as fascist for this ban. I pointed to you that other governments apart from BJP too have banned stuff. There are two points here.

1. There are very good reasons why certain things are banned in India.
2. You have a shit poor memory comparable to that of a goldfish.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
^^^ There's your fake news and disinformation campaign right there.

There is no fake news. The cops did not detain the students on the orders of the government. It was on the orders of the Education Institutes who didn't want to screen the documentary on their respective campuses. If they wanted to watch this rotten documentary by their own individual self on their phones, nothing would have happened.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
From some of his previous posts (and replies to such), it would seem he is in the US. Which makes those claims of, "well you'd have to BE there to know!" even funnier.

He's just a Modi bootlicker is all.


I'm Indian and I live in India.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
part of the problem is that all of the people in his admin at the time as governor and were there when this was going down, and then spoke publicly about Modi ordering the police to ignore and do nothing about the machete-wielding Hindu nationalist sociopaths...all ended up murdered by, I think, 2015 or so.


Thanks for the conspiracy theory.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,864
8,280
136
From some of his previous posts (and replies to such), it would seem he is in the US. Which makes those claims of, "well you'd have to BE there to know!" even funnier.

He's just a Modi bootlicker is all.

I had one Modi bootlicker talk to me once about how unreasonable the US citizenship oath is, that he's not allowed to protect India from aggression of the United States.

So he failed his citizenship test.. you know the part where you swear allegiance to the US and give up allegiance/ loyalty to all kind to any other country/ princely state etc.


Funny how none of the Modi Bootlickers are Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Parsies, Zorastrians, Radhaswamis. Only Hindus!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
I had one Modi bootlicker talk to me once about how unreasonable the US citizenship oath is, that he's not allowed to protect India from aggression of the United States.

So he failed his citizenship test.. you know the part where you swear allegiance to the US and give up allegiance/ loyalty to all kind to any other country/ princely state etc.


Funny how none of the Modi Bootlickers are Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Parsies, Zorastrians, Radhaswamis. Only Hindus!


All your anecdotes are based on hearsay only to be believed by the idiots of P&N.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,864
8,280
136
All your anecdotes are based on hearsay only to be believed by the idiots of P&N.

Have you forgotten you come from a culture of satee - The biggest religious crime in the world?

1675057487786.png

The biggest idiot is you power fed by your own visions of grandeur!

Keep making delusional posts, we don't have to wait for Saturday night live for laughs here!
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
Have you forgotten you come from a culture of satee - The biggest religious crime in the world?

View attachment 75574

The biggest idiot is you power fed by your own visions of grandeur!

Keep making delusional posts, we don't have to wait for Saturday night live for laughs here!

Sati stopped in India a long long time ago. Now I don't know which part of the world you hail from, but back in those times, all nations of the world committed barbarian acts such slavery, lynching. Sati was successfully reformed out of Indian society at that time and this success continues today.

So your attempts to flog me with a historical crime fails just as hard as your anecdotes.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,649
26,746
136
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



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.

Bad actors like your current PM and his Hindu nationalist party for instance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
Can I assume that if the protestors in England against the documentary begin to disrupt civil society the government will be justified to use force to end the protest?

Can I assume the documenty can be shown in India so long as it is viewed without violence?

1. Do you ask for such guarantees when any other group of people organize protests? I'm very interested in why you think this protest may end in violence in the UK.

2. There have been plenty of privatized screens of the documentary already, apart from the usual protests, no violence has come out of the screening of the documentary by the opposition and other people. But we can expect a renewed vigor for violence to be incoming from the people WHO LOVE this documentary, NOT from those who are protesting against it.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
Bad actors like your current PM and his Hindu nationalist party for instance?

Thats right, keep your slander up. Plenty of people have slandered Modi, but he has always emerged on the top. As for Modi being a bad actor. atleast one thing for sure can be said positively about him and I'm sure you'll agree with me: Atleast Modi doesn't have a son like Hunter.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,649
26,746
136
Thats right, keep your slander up. Plenty of people have slandered Modi, but he has always emerged on the top. As for Modi being a bad actor. atleast one thing for sure can be said positively about him and I'm sure you'll agree with me: Atleast Modi doesn't have a son like Hunter.

Clearly you don’t know what slander is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
1. Do you ask for such guarantees when any other group of people organize protests? I'm very interested in why you think this protest may end in violence in the UK.
I am not asking for anything. I wanted to ask you that if a protest flares into violence, does the government of England need to play by different rules than the government of India played by or should the British government do as India did. I am not suggesting Indian protestors in England will act violently. The question is hypothetical. Not sure why you didn’t read my question that way.


. There have been plenty of privatized screens of the documentary already, apart from the usual protests, no violence has come out of the screening of the documentary by the opposition and other people. But we can expect a renewed vigor for violence to be incoming from the people WHO LOVE this documentary, NOT from those who are protesting against it.

Such expectations are based on judgments made of past experiences. You see in this thread many who have made a completely different judgment. Such differences of opinion often imply bias and of a nature that it regularly seems it is the opposite view that is the one that is biased.

What I think we can say with some certainty is that different protests have different sorts of emotions behind them. Personally, I would expect a greater likelihood of violence from a group of Proud Boys protesting against Antifa than I would a group of grandmothers protesting police brutality. There may be similar degrees of difference in Indian students protesting Modi than Indians protesting a documentary in England.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
I am not asking for anything. I wanted to ask you that if a protest flares into violence, does the government of England need to play by different rules than the government of India played by or should the British government do as India did. I am not suggesting Indian protestors in England will act violently. The question is hypothetical. Not sure why you didn’t read my question that way.




Such expectations are based on judgments made of past experiences. You see in this thread many who have made a completely different judgment. Such differences of opinion often imply bias and of a nature that it regularly seems it is the opposite view that is the one that is biased.

What I think we can say with some certainty is that different protests have different sorts of emotions behind them. Personally, I would expect a greater likelihood of violence from a group of Proud Boys protesting against Antifa than I would a group of grandmothers protesting police brutality. There may be similar degrees of difference in Indian students protesting Modi than Indians protesting a documentary in England.

1. I have no objections if the British government deals with violent protesters with the full force of law. This view of mine applies whether they are protests for Modi, against Modi or whatever happens to be the flavor of the protest. Troublemakers must be nipped in the bud.

2. We are concerned about this documentary being used to provoke riots or terrorists as justification, not protests.