Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Patrix
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 months ago
in Free to blog but accountable you are. The Supreme Court of India weighs in on blogging and online expression. on /home/dhananjay
Also, you might want to check out this post that highlights how companies and organizations tend to seek refuge in this law to stifle criticism:
http://kafila.org/2009/02/25/bloggers-and-defam...
It addresses your points about being a criminal case as well. The author is part of a collective of lawyers who engage with issues of law, legality and power.
http://kafila.org/2009/02/25/bloggers-and-defam...
It addresses your points about being a criminal case as well. The author is part of a collective of lawyers who engage with issues of law, legality and power.
1 reply
4 months ago
in Free to blog but accountable you are. The Supreme Court of India weighs in on blogging and online expression. on /home/dhananjay
The law is undoubtedly stifling in terms of freedom of speech in India given the myriad exceptions. You cite responsibility in expression but you do not define standards of responsibility. Any person or organization that faces criticism is bound to take refuge under the condition of 'offense' to squelch any such expression. Narendra Modi could effectively sue NDTV or Rajdeep Sardesai for their post-Godra riots coverage effectively squashing any investigative reporting. As long as one does not cause or lead to physical harm, any speech is justifiable.
1 reply
Dhananjay Nene
@Patrix
Per the press coverage which I pointed out to in this case the matter stemmed from a death threat issued in the forum. That makes it a matter for criminal investigation, not just civil libel or freedom of speech. From a legal perspective, getting a forum moderator (that the forum was moderatable is my assumption) to appear in a court is quite reasonable in this case.
From a non-legal perspective I would still go by http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_I... rather than cook up my own definitions. It is funny how we often cite our constitution when expressing our rights and conveniently forget it when realising our duties (refer to clause e). That someone violates it does not give everyone else the right to violate it as well. As I said, this is more of an ethical response not one based on law. Hence it could be likely that our opinions diverge. But that does not mean we get down to derogatory and/or hateful messages. There is a way to conduct that debate in an environment of responsible civility. Thats the responsibility I meant.
I remember in the NDTV / Chaitanya Kunte episode, someone called Barkha Dutt a (I am not using the word here since I do find it quite offensive but you can reverse search on google to get it if thats particularly important) "common name of the larval phase of development in insects of the order Diptera (flies)". That expression per your non physical harm definition could perhaps be quite justifiable. It certainly does not meet my personal preference of "responsible civility".
Per the press coverage which I pointed out to in this case the matter stemmed from a death threat issued in the forum. That makes it a matter for criminal investigation, not just civil libel or freedom of speech. From a legal perspective, getting a forum moderator (that the forum was moderatable is my assumption) to appear in a court is quite reasonable in this case.
From a non-legal perspective I would still go by http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_I... rather than cook up my own definitions. It is funny how we often cite our constitution when expressing our rights and conveniently forget it when realising our duties (refer to clause e). That someone violates it does not give everyone else the right to violate it as well. As I said, this is more of an ethical response not one based on law. Hence it could be likely that our opinions diverge. But that does not mean we get down to derogatory and/or hateful messages. There is a way to conduct that debate in an environment of responsible civility. Thats the responsibility I meant.
I remember in the NDTV / Chaitanya Kunte episode, someone called Barkha Dutt a (I am not using the word here since I do find it quite offensive but you can reverse search on google to get it if thats particularly important) "common name of the larval phase of development in insects of the order Diptera (flies)". That expression per your non physical harm definition could perhaps be quite justifiable. It certainly does not meet my personal preference of "responsible civility".
Thanks for the link. Definitely more interesting and a far more erudite explanation from a legal perspective than what I was able to muster. Very valid issues, but before and after these are resolved (and they should be resolved), Criminal charges are always likely to be treated differently than Civil charges. The solution is perhaps by working out the right gatekeeper for criminal charges, not by diluting the the yardsticks by which criminal charges once formally made should get treated.