Ill admit I don't know a ton about India's constitution. Do they have freedom of speech? How is it phrased?
Having a constitution means nothing if it is not enforced.
Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
131–140 of 213 posts
Re: Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes no sense. Democracy is not going to die because people spread false information. Newspapers have had the monopoly on spreading whatever information they deemed correct (whether it turned out to be or not) for decades and have now lost that and they are pissed. This is why there is a rise in apparent outcry that all of a sudden anyone and everyone can spread their message broadly where only a handful of org…
Democracy will definitely die if you spread false information because everyone is making decisions based on falsehoods.
So perhaps you are in favor of an elite group who can better discern the truth and guide the public with correct information?
Re: Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct. Nupur Sharma's comments on the Times Now news channel were incendiary enough that Times Now decided to delete the video of the debate she was featured in and also issue a statement: > Views expressed by BJP Spokesperson on Newshour@9 last night are her personal views. TIMES NOW does not endorse views of participants. We urge participants on our debates to maintain restraint and not indulge in unparlia…
If you watch the full debate, the Muslim panelists were continuously mocking Hindu Gods, Nupur got fed up and replied to them in the similar manner. What this fact checker cunningly did was to edit out the Muslim panellist mocking and simply showed her part of the clip. He has a mass following in Islamic nations and it got blown out of proportion.
Political leaders are expected to conduct themselves appropriately in public view because they are selected to represent all of their constituents. If a politician makes an appearance on live television and says something that is offensive to their constituents, they can expect political repercussions regardless of what anyone else said on the TV show.
That other people in the debate compared a Shivling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam) to roadside signs and poles does not excuse Nupur Sharma from the repercussions of what she said. Sharma made comments that she knew would be offensive to a religious minority, and she was expelled from her position as the national spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party because that was not the behavior the public expected from a high-ranking political figure.
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/bjp-suspends-nupur-s...
When someone like Mohammed Zubair makes a supercut of Sharma's comments to highlight the fact that a politician is not appropriately representing her constituents, it's not Zubair's fault that Sharma made those comments in the first place.
Re: Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct. Nupur Sharma's comments on the Times Now news channel were incendiary enough that Times Now decided to delete the video of the debate she was featured in and also issue a statement: > Views expressed by BJP Spokesperson on Newshour@9 last night are her personal views. TIMES NOW does not endorse views of participants. We urge participants on our debates to maintain restraint and not indulge in unparlia…
If you watch the full debate, the Muslim panelists were continuously mocking Hindu Gods, Nupur got fed up and replied to them in the similar manner. What this fact checker cunningly did was to edit out the Muslim panellist mocking and simply showed her part of the clip. He has a mass following in Islamic nations and it got blown out of proportion.
As bad as that is, and it is helpful you've provided some context here, I still don't think that's worthy of jail or any sort of formal state punishment. Which obviously is not a controversial take in most western countries. But more importantly I don't think it's an effective strategy to deal with the problem. Censorship rarely ever works unless you go full-bore and destroy plenty of good will and legitimate human progress in between.
Twitter has a great feature for that not where citizens can provide context / 'fact check' an article without deleting it. That's the best (and IMO only legitimate way) to deal with this stuff, countering bad information with better information. While still exposing publicly that this person is lying to you. As opposed to deleting or censoring it, you put up a big flag that says "there's more to this story".
Re: Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you watch the full debate, the Muslim panelists were continuously mocking Hindu Gods, Nupur got fed up and replied to them in the similar manner. What this fact checker cunningly did was to edit out the Muslim panellist mocking and simply showed her part of the clip. He has a mass following in Islamic nations and it got blown out of proportion.
Political leaders are expected to conduct themselves appropriately in public view because they are selected to represent all of their constituents. If a politician makes an appearance on live television and says something that is offensive to their constituents, they can expect political repercussions regardless of what anyone else said on the TV show. That other people in the debate compared a Shivling ( https://en.…
At the end of the day one is a human being who gets triggered on repeated offensive things. If you look-up, what she said was not incorrect since several Islamic scholars make the same claim. I guess the aggressive tone in what she said made all the difference.
For the record, Nupur does not represent any constituents in the purest sense. She was the spokesperson, that’s it. She is neither an MP nor MLA.
Re: Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Censorship: the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful , or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorsh...
I'm not sure that definition is relevant; it's too extreme to apply to the situation. By that definition the US censors speech such as incitement to violence, fraud, slander, and intellectual property. No place has ever been uncensored. Like everything in life, there's a matter of degree to it and a question of what is censored.
The US government does not remove instances of incitement to violence, fraud, or slander, and most intellectual property law is probably unconstitutional but that's a different issue.
Re: Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning instructions on how to make bombs would be censorship. Banning the making of bombs is not censorship.
The former is banned.
It absolutely is not. You can find books on bomb making in every library and book store in America.
To steel man you, exporting said books to certain countries is technically illegal under the same law that makes this wikipedia page technically illegal to serve to Iranian IP addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
Re: Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it fascinating that people defend censoring "misinformation" because people (supposedly) cannot discern it from "real" information. If we cannot trust the judgement of the common folk, why have a democracy at all?
> I find it fascinating that people defend censoring "misinformation" because people (supposedly) cannot discern it from "real" information. If we cannot trust the judgement of the common folk, why have a democracy at all? In the early 2010s there was a rash of "pranks" in India where people would forward accusations accusing men pictured with children of pedophilia to rile up mobs to assault and kill them. These acc…
[deleted]
Re: Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
"Hurting religious sentiments" by tweeting a screenshot of a 1983 movie is obviously not a war crime. Zubair is a journalist who was jailed for spurious reasons: > Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta on Tuesday said that questions arise on the Delhi Police for arresting journalist Mohammad Zubair for allegedly hurting religious sentiments even as suspended Bharatiya Janata Party Nupur Sharma is still fre…
[flagged]