What's new

Maharashtra police to crack whip on those who ‘like’ offensive Facebook posts

People need to know when comparing USA constitution to India, Usa is not india nor is india same as usa,might be democracy but our views and rules are different,don't apply your laws in india and say if India doesn't stand by such US values then it's strangling free speech, it doesn't work that way, there is a thing called moderation in India, while usa has no moderation.
What about gun rights of usa, since you compare indian constitution? should india give right to bear arms to its citizens as USA does?
Whe choose what suits us best,we don't have to choose what others think is best for us.

we are not saying abide by US laws.. democracy and freedoms that are espoused within a democracy was not created by the US. don't give up that right my man... don't give in to those who say " chalta heh this time"... they will slowly take more and more away. and opinion on facebook is not against free speech. thoughts are not antithetical to free speech
 
Gun rights in US are enshrined in their constitution. 2nd Amendment, fyi. Indian Constitution has no such gun rights, but Article 19 clearly states what rights, as citizens of Republic of India, we all have. And that is what we, here, are defending.
That is why i said don't compare both, you have gun laws, we don't see the difference, freedom of speech in usa has no moderation, here you can have it as long as you dont hurt others sentiments.we are a moderate society,Usa is a unmoderated society.
 
I am not avoiding your question, you are just understanding what I've submitted to you.

go ahead mr. constitutional attorney , tell me where opinion was stifled in your constitution.
I am not against trial but I am against false arrest.
what do mean by " What happen to land of law that you were supporting last time ???"
I don't know how many were arrested but I know the leadership was not
what does single party multi party have to do with this...it does not matter to me. arrest everyone who was behind the riots
Try to keep the post in NORMAL conversation. No need to rant. Or just avoid me i will do same.

Read again I am understanding but you are not even reading.

False arrest ??? Call in protective custody. They need protection. Apparently they are not in US. There is threat to their life. There will be a trial. Nobody goes to jail directly.

Devyani case !!!! Yu said she broke law of land in US. She need to be punished right ??? Same here.

Rioters are arrested. No party leader said anything offensive publicly. Now you want them arrested :woot: what happen to their rights ???
pS I am not supporting them
And read post 37 with bolded part
 
we are not saying abide by US laws.. democracy and freedoms that are espoused within a democracy was not created by the US. don't give up that right my man... don't give in to those who say " chalta heh this time"... they will slowly take more and more away. and opinion on facebook is not against free speech. thoughts are not antithetical to free speech
I am ok for freedom of speech but if it crosses the limits where it can lead to real social problems and riots then its unacceptable.
 
That is why i said don't compare both, you have gun laws, we don't see the difference, freedom of speech in usa has no moderation, here you can have it as long as you dont hurt others sentiments.we are a moderate society,Usa is a unmoderated society.

If yours/ my forefathers and freedom fighters followed your logic they would have never spoken up against the Raj and the queen rule. Gun laws is not a " democratic principle" , it is just localized law. democratic freedoms are core principles regardless of country
 
That is why i said don't compare both, you have gun laws, we don't see the difference, freedom of speech in usa has no moderation, here you can have it as long as you dont hurt others sentiments.we are a moderate society,Usa is a unmoderated society.
Again, wrong interpretation of the Constitutional rights. Read and understand what those rights are. Your right to freedom of speech & expression is absolute, unless you break a law. Even there, interpretation of "reasonable restriction" is up for debate and will be decided upon merit of each case. Now tell me, what law did the facebook post and the 'like' break?
 
Read it again. It pertains that these rights shall not interfere with the country's ability to pass laws or enforce existing laws. Nowhere does it say that the Rights are limited in nature.
This is all law gobbledygook, you need to understand the language of the lawyers to really interpret what is written. uninformed minds have known to and will always misinterpret this language.
My dear friend do explain following to me
Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of
any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law
, in so far as such
law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence
.
PS: i studied law a little bit ;)
 
Article 19 of the Constitution of India

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—

(1) All citizens shall have the right—
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; 9 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of
any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law
, in so far as such
law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence
.
(3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making
any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or
public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by
the said sub-clause.
(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making
any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or
public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub-clause.
(5) Nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from
making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the
rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general
public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making
any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular,
nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in
so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,—
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising
any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or 10 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or
controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service,
whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.

Now tell me, what law did the facebook post or 'like' of it, break, wrt, the freedom of speech and expression?
Akbaruddin Owaisi was booked for Hate speech and inciting riots and insulting hindu gods and religion, you might not feel a thing about it, but we take a strong exception for it in India.
The reason Motherfucker is normal word in usa while, here people get bashed for saying such words to someone you dont know.
It is how we are,take it or leave it.
 
My dear friend do explain following to me

PS: i studied law a little bit ;)
Good. I have no idea about law, but I read. So clarify this.
It simply means, your right is absolute, unless you break a law. Laws can be passed or repealed based on the whims of a government in power. So what was an offense during the "Emergency" times is no longer an offence. What is an offence in Kashmir or the North East, would not be an offence elsewhere. So the laws are different, but the right remains absolute. Now the "reasonable restrictions" part is debatable, and one can make a very good arguments to do away with that in the present context of the debate.
 
Try to keep the post in NORMAL conversation. No need to rant. Or just avoid me i will do same.

Read again I am understanding but you are not even reading.

False arrest ??? Call in protective custody. They need protection. Apparently they are not in US. There is threat to their life. There will be a trial. Nobody goes to jail directly.

Devyani case !!!! Yu said she broke law of land in US. She need to be punished right ??? Same here.

Rioters are arrested. No party leader said anything offensive publicly. Now you want them arrested :woot: what happen to their rights ???
pS I am not supporting them
And read post 37 with bolded part

how is being arrested for opinion equal to protective custody? in protective custody the person being protected has right to not choose to be.

how this as devyani case...I am submitting " facebook post/ opinion" is not breaking the law of your constitution

You are misunderstanding the highlighted parts. what the highlighted parts are saying is an individual cannot incite an offense i.e. they cannot say go burn down this guys house. an opinion about a historical figure is not an incitement- violence was not asked as a follow up within that opinion... you get it now?

publically not saying but internally approving it does not absolve those leaders. investigation must be done to see if they had their tacit and covert approval
 
Again, wrong interpretation of the Constitutional rights. Read and understand what those rights are. Your right to freedom of speech & expression is absolute, unless you break a law. Even there, interpretation of "reasonable restriction" is up for debate and will be decided upon merit of each case. Now tell me, what law did the facebook post and the 'like' break?
It is not about facebook like, its about using such media to incite riots.
 
Akbaruddin Owaisi was booked for Hate speech and inciting riots and insulting hindu gods and religion, you might not feel a thing about it, but we take a strong exception for it in India.
The reason Motherfucker is normal word in usa while, here people get bashed for saying such words to someone you dont know.
It is how we are,take it or leave it.
Owaisi's speech was indeed hate mongering. No brainer there.
Lol about 'motherfvcker'. BC, MC, CKD, LKB etc all these choice words are cool with you then? They mean much vulgar things than a simple MF'er!!
But your telling me "take it or leave it", makes no sense. As an Indian, I do NOT accept this stupidity, although, I do respect your right to have such an opinion, begrudgingly ;)
 
It is not about facebook like, its about using such media to incite riots.

so if an indian newspaper writes scathing opinion about shivaji... it is incitement? you will ask that like pakistan that media channel should be shut down and journalist arrested? that is where you want your country to go next?
 
If yours/ my forefathers and freedom fighters followed your logic they would have never spoken up against the Raj and the queen rule. Gun laws is not a " democratic principle" , it is just localized law. democratic freedoms are core principles regardless of country
Patanjali yoga sutras say moderation
“Ati Sarvatra Varjayet “ is a part of a sloka emphasising the importance of limiting oneself to appropriate limits and to not to be extravagant. The sloka gives examples of
  1. The Rakshasa Emperor Bali who was bound by his limitless sacrifice- the sacrifice he made to Vamana against the advice of his teacher Sukracharya,
  2. Suyodhana, the eldest son of Dhrutaraashtra , died of limitless pride/self- respect.
  3. Ravana died of limitless lust
  4. Hence beware and be limited in your wants and desires.
finding fathers of Indian constitution took into account indian spirituality and it's morals and the constitution was drafted accordingly,
Any thing excess is bad, for both body or society.Therefore,moderation in everything so that you dont overdo it.
America has no such values so it let's people run amok on the name of free this and that.
 
Patanjali yoga sutras say moderation
“Ati Sarvatra Varjayet “ is a part of a sloka emphasising the importance of limiting oneself to appropriate limits and to not to be extravagant. The sloka gives examples of
  1. The Rakshasa Emperor Bali who was bound by his limitless sacrifice- the sacrifice he made to Vamana against the advice of his teacher Sukracharya,
  2. Suyodhana, the eldest son of Dhrutaraashtra , died of limitless pride/self- respect.
  3. Ravana died of limitless lust
  4. Hence beware and be limited in your wants and desires.
finding fathers of Indian constitution took into account indian spirituality and it's morals and the constitution was drafted accordingly,
Any thing excess is bad, for both body or society.Therefore,moderation in everything so that you dont overdo it.
America has no such values so it let's people run amok on the name of free this and that.

yo bro-- founding fathers = the ones who wrote your constitution. not fables ...
 
Back
Top Bottom