Live data from Hacker News

Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

theguardian.com

141–150 of 213 posts

Re: Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

#141
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India never had freedom of speech. Opposition newspapers are often harassed and shut down. They have a law criminalizing offending religious feelings. This is not an exaggerated paraphrase, that’s what the law says. A scientist was convicted under this law a few years ago for demonstrating that a “weeping” statue of the Virgin Mary was not actually weeping blood. The truth was offensive, so the law applied. EDIT: I r…

He was gone after not because of proving it false, but because he accused the church of purposefully lying I believe. One could call it not much different but it isn't the exact same as being prosecuted for debunking a "miracle" From wikipedia: he skeptic-rationalist author Sanal Edamaruku proved that the water stemmed from a faulty sewage system, which seeped due to capillary action. However, Edamaruku also accused…

Even though the allegations are indeed defamatory and slanderous in nature, they shouldn't be prosecutable period.

The only exception to be made if he divulged very specific details for scams/frauds that perpetuated by certain individuals mentioned by name, then these individuals have every right to sue him and ask for a generous compensation for the damages the defendant inflicted on their reputation and good name by making these baseless accusations.

Other than this specific case, he shouldn't face trial for these ridiculous statements no matter how incendiary or inflammatory they might be perceived by certain groups or elements of the general public.

Re: Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

#142
post #123

Quoted post unavailable.

In the 1960s/1970s the left had complete free speech on campuses. It was perfectly acceptable to be a Maoist. Real leftists like Chomsky have never been de-platformed.

I'm curious to know what the right effectively suppressed in 1980-2010, which is the time frame you mention. Those were pretty free decades.

I do not recall censorship. Also, the current "left" is not really left outside of cultural wedge issues. They are elitists and academics with useless degrees protecting their income streams and they despise the actual working class.

Re: Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

#143
post #123

Quoted post unavailable.

Actually, it was the American left (Tipper Gore and friends) who led the censorship movement of the 80s and early 90s. I am in my late 40s and I was quite liberal in my youth and I don't remember any censorship from the right.

Re: Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

#144
post #42
post #6

Boris Johnson arrived in India. Rabble-rousers know that the world's media attention will follow; and they use this opportunity to garner some of the spotlight. It's just a shameless ploy to get their names out. Such is democracy, I guess. And the Guardian doesn't help by adding flame bait such as this: "In the capital, Delhi, bulldozers have demolished the homes of Muslims accused of rioting." Illegal construction,…

> Illegal construction, encroachment on public land will sometimes get this response. Illegal construction is rampant in india. Please contextualize the act of bulldozing with the riots that happened. Let's not be blind to the clear use of power and authority to specifically root out people of a certain cast. The level of politics being played out in India is nearing to the intellect of a badly scripted bollywood mov…

And somewhere else in India, Hindu houses and temples just got bulldozed:

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bulldozer-razes-300-ye...

> Let's not be blind to the clear use of power and authority to specifically root out people of a certain cast.

I hate to remind you of this basic fact that religion != caste (spelled with an "e").

Re: Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

#145
As an Indian, the situation is a bit more complicated than what the article frames it as. Religion (and caste) have always been a sensitive issue, to the extent that there are multiple laws preventing people from "inciting" others (and yes, these laws are often abused by whichever government happens to be holding power, including the ones before the current government) - this is especially true for public figures like this guy here. Given that, calling this "unconstitutional" would be a bit of a stretch (abuse of power? maybe).

Further, the term "arrest" would be factually incorrect. India has a concept of detention — police can legally detain any individual on suspicion (even without a warrant/crime) upto a period of 24 hours — post which the detainee is presented to a magistrate where the detention can be legally challenged.

> a court in Kokrajhar denied him bail, ordering him to be held in custody for three days

Instead of an actual arrest this seems to be an extended detention (approved a court).

> arrest coincided with the arrival of the British prime minister

> He was taken across the country to Assam in India’s north-east

Considering these statements, instead of being arrested for his tweet, the context makes it seem more like the police felt he could be a threat given the arrival of Johnson, and they decided to preemptively detain him in a far corner of the country.

Regardless of whether I'm correct or not, it won't be the first time this has happened.

((Please ignore the typos/formatting, I typed this on a phone))

Edit: Just saw the article also mentions

> In the capital, Delhi, bulldozers have demolished the homes of Muslims accused of rioting

While this is true, it also needs to be mentioned that Delhi is not under BJP government (the ruling party).

Re: Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

#146
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And bulldozing happens in non Muslim areas as well. Sometimes even middle class homes illegally built. Just as cities in the US clear homeless encampments.

"who destroyed government or private property during a protest, strike or riot, and that if necessary, the property of the accused would be seized and auctioned to recover the money" — Narottam Mishra, Home Minister https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61042315.amp If you’re a Muslim living in an illegally-built home and you were _accused_ of being involved in riots, they will bulldoze your life. The extremists…

> If you’re a Muslim living in an illegally-built home and you were _accused_ of being involved in riots, they will bulldoze your life.

Just like they did with these Muslims and their Shiva temples: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bulldozer-razes-300-ye...

Re: Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

#148
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defamation should not be criminal imo.

That would give the rich the ability to defame the poor at will.

Defamation lawsuits are mostly filed by wealthy or influential individuals against common citizens. It is a tool to keep everyone that can’t afford decades-long legal battles obedient and shut. Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good to most people, especially vocal journalists.

Re: Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

#149
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Along with several others of his works, and tons of other books, such as The deVinci Code . For various reasons such as being “poorly researched”. Here is a list of over 50 banned books: https://sflc.in/read-me-not-list-banned-books-india But there are others. This is not a democracy.

Why do you assume a democracy can't censor? All that a democracy is is a form of government where people elect some part of the legislature and the executive. If the electorate wants censorship, then the electorate will get censorship. If the electorate doesn't care much either way about censorship, but the people they elect do, then they will get censorship.

There's liberal and illiberal democracy, and I think for the majority of people here when democracy is mentioned, the former is the one that comes to mind not the latter.

It's all about freedoms and liberties after all.

Re: Indian lawmaker arrested after tweet criticising Narendra Modi

#150
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume a democracy can't censor? All that a democracy is is a form of government where people elect some part of the legislature and the executive. If the electorate wants censorship, then the electorate will get censorship. If the electorate doesn't care much either way about censorship, but the people they elect do, then they will get censorship.

There are two kinds of censorship: 1) Censorship of "offensive" content (for some definition of "offensive"), applied equally to all people. 2) Censorship of political opponents, either overtly (as in Russia) or under the guise of censoring "offensive" content. A democracy can theoretically sustain itself while engaging in censorship of type 1. A democracy that has chosen to engage in censorship of type 2 is on its w…

> A democracy that has chosen to engage in censorship of type 2 is on its way to becoming an authoritarian regime, even if that censorship has public support in the short term.

Depends on who the political opponents are. There's a vast gulf between single-party rule, and a oligopoly of parties that censor their opponents, but not eachother. The former is seen in a place like Russia, the latter is what we have seen for decades in many Western countries. (See: The Red Scare as a great example of this.)

> I would argue that it is very difficult to prevent type 1 censorship from turning into type 2 censorship, because the party in power is always incentivized to use any tools they have to stay in power.

It's actually easy, what you need is a strong bureaucracy that maintains social norms, due to its inertia. As long as we can all shake hands and agree to treat, say, commies as a common enemy, but treat eachother as gentlemen, that sort of status quo can be maintained indefinitely.

That bureaucratic inertia is what will protect you from despotism, not the letter of the law.

Post reply on HN