Hacker News Reader

Comment by koshergweilo | Hacker News Reader

I admit I'm not super familiar with India's freedom of speech, is this a backslide or has it always been like this?

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 remembered inaccurately. It was a statue of the crucified Jesus, not Mary.

There is a difference between a law in paper and its enactment. There are various laws in the constitution of india that can be conveniently represented to prosecute someone on the basis of their speech. There is significant evidence of such happenings only increasing lately

Your point still stands, but there was never a formal prosecution or conviction (he fled to Finland before it got that far):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai

Thanks for the clarification (I was going by memory). So he was arrested, and presumably would have been prosecuted had he not escaped.

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 Latin Christian priests of regularly scamming devotees and defrauding miracles to make money, and build bigger and newer churchs or convents,[1] and mocked the Pope as "anti-science".[2] A church representative admitted Edamaruku had the "right to doubt", and Christian activists said that the backlash was not for debunking the alleged "miracle" but for the defamatory statements made live on television.[3]

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.

So you agree it should be criminal, so that the rich can get prosecuted for it as well?

> Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good

Everyone thinks so until their lives are ruined by someone else causing mischief. BTW have you stopped beating your wife yet?

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.

You say "baseless accusations" and "ridiculous statements".

I have seen "Christians" do what I can only describe as scamming other people regularly, not just the megachurch guys buying private jets with "donations", but also the Catholic Church selling(!) indulgences and sometimes "monetizing" "miracles". I see how other people might feel these activities are not scams at all, but at least to me, that's how I perceive them. I cannot comment on this particular story, as I am lacking background information, and thus do not want form an opinion without knowing the facts.

Calling the pope "anti-science" isn't that much of a stretch either, from my perspective.

And for context, neither do Britain or Canada.

Wasn’t Salman Rushdie’s satanic verses banned as well?

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.

Good point. What I mean by “not a democracy” is not democratic in a meaningful, functional sense. So if people can vote, but they’re not allowed to share political opinions freely, and specifically if the government decides what you’re allowed to say, then the voting becomes meaningless—or at least, less meaningful. My vote is not informed by what I know about the candidates or various political issues if I’m only allowed to read what the party in power allows me to read.

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 way to becoming an authoritarian regime, even if that censorship has public support in the short term. Eventually, the opposition is slowly but surely silenced altogether, and you end up with single-party authoritarian rule. Your vote doesn't matter if no one is allowed to campaign against the status quo.

Further, 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 is more sustainable for a democracy to take a firm stance against censorship of any form than to try to walk that line.

Very well said, I think. I would add that (1) and (2) overlap, as well. For example, speech railing against sharia might be classified as offensive to Muslims. But it becomes a political issue if a party or candidate supports a policy of allowing some limited form of sharia to have official status.

> 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.

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.

Also pure democracies don't really exist. for example the US is a democratic republic and the bill of rights has (until recently) stopped a lot of companies, people, and state governments from running over the rights of an individual to speak their mind (or religion or whatever) without fearing reprisal from the government. I'm afraid with the far right SCOTUS that we have currently though those individual rights are likely to be taken away to allow more police actions in our country as republicans increasingly push to remove hard won civil, racial, and gender equality rights.

Well, Germany censors the swastika - which has been used by eastern religions for millennia. I think democracy and free speech are different things. Absolute free speech is desired - but not all democracies implement it.

Either way, I don’t think India has ever had “free speech”. It has always been controlled speech.

> Absolute free speech is desired

Is it?

Curtailing the ‘freedom’ to be as offensive as one wants, consequences be dammed, is not something everyone agrees with.

Even the US places limits on free speech for these reasons.

The US doesn’t limit speech. Private platforms are self censoring. It has even upheld the right of citizens to burn the flag [0](reprehensible as it might be in the view of the majority).

0. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. For example, gag orders during court proceedings are temporary limitations on speech meant to ensure a fair trial.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order

And obviously, any speech that is intrinsically part of another crime would be punishable (e.g. telling somebody you're from the IRS so you could steal their return).

> US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons.

Does it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fr...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

This one is partially overturned as it is argued to have been used to punish ideas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

I’m not sure that burning a flag is as reprehensible an act to everyone - it seems like something that would get people fired up a century ago.

I was under the impression that incitement to violence or encouraging suicide was not protected, but I am very far from expert.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex...

Edit: Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...

This list is quite amusing with the focus on schools.

> To make or distribute obscene materials

That's one of the stupidest ones IMHO. Free speech absolutists harping about how great the US is in that regard forget to mention that speech is okay when it's money, insulting people for their skin colour and a bunch of other edge cases most other developed countries disagree with, but heavens forbid boobs!

Oh, I’d assumed it was something more subversive than a nipple.

Puritans…

Germany doesn’t censor the swastika. It censors Nazi propaganda. So, you’re free to draw the swastika let’s say for Diwali. But if you use it for political purposes, it isn’t allowed for obvious reasons.

> They have a law criminalizing offending religious feelings.

Happens in the first world too! 2018: "In Europe, Speech Is an Alienable Right: [the European Court of Human Rights] upheld an Austrian woman’s conviction for disparaging the Prophet Muhammad."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...

I know it does. It’s a matter of degree. How bad does the threat to free expression have to be before a society is not a functional democracy? It’s a judgement call.

Although I know what you meant by 1st world (e.g. Western Europe / N. America), I found it funny because technically Austria isn’t in the first world and never has been. Since it never aligned itself with the US, Austria was considered a 3rd world country just like Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Hungry and Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World

India ranks 142nd on the World Press Freedom Index for 2021 [1] out of 180 countries tracked by Reporters sans frontières (RSF), a very embarrassing ranking for the world's most populous or largest democracy.

[1]: https://rsf.org/en/ranking

I remember stories of people beaten up for not standing for the anthem in the cinema, one of them was disabled wheelchair user. So I guess it is like that for a while especially after the Hindutvas got into power.

Oh yeah, freedom of speech flourished under Congress rule /s

Who was the only prime minister to invoke emergency?

The Nazis killed millions through their actions. Will that justify you killing even one?

RSS is the ideological parent of currently ruling political party (BJP). The second head and most powerful figure in RSS history was Golwalkar and he openly praised Hitler for 'fighting for his culture'.

https://thewire.in/politics/culture-ministry-ms-golwalkar-hi...

Indira wasn't a saint but Modi is evil personified.

Emergency was invoked and was soon revoked. If you are careful, you can see India is now again under Emergency since 2015. And things are getting worse. The difference between 1975 and 2015 is that earlier it was declared openly but in present case it wasn't declared, rather it was systemically implemented by developing a hate mongering Hindutva brigade. Press freedom was gone for may be one year during 1975. But now? It is gone for good 5 years. In 1975, no particular community was targeted. Now? Every muslim is at risk. Heck, even Hindus who are anti-Modi are at risks. During 1975, journalists were able to protest against Indira Gandhi. And now? You'd be put in jail for whatever reason. No journlist can dare to oppose Modi.

India is in worse condition now than it was in 1975.

That case seems more like defacto censorship vs dejure censorship. Both terrible but this article (and my question) focuses more on dejure censorship

If we start to get a lot of comments here, pay attention. You'll likely see confirmation of recent trends in India. I suspect we're already seeing that, even with the few comments that have been posted so far.

I thought it will be different from Twitter and YouTube comments, sad to see Indian IT professionals being part of that too.

It's only less pronounced for American IT professionals defending the US reputation as y'all have more of a contrarían streak. I think if anything Americans online are more prone to criticize their own country than other places specifically because we have decent freedom of speech.

... for now. The right wing SCOTUS is likely to begin upholding racist, sexist, and political decisions as okay in republicans states, they (the 5 far right members) have made no qualms about putting out feelers for such cases in the past, we are just beginning to see how bad it's going to get with challenges to Roe v. Wade (soon to be completely upended), voters rights, and various other cases in the pipeline

Majority of Indians IT professionals or majority who has attended college in India are upper caste folks, the main supporters of current ruling party. So the trend is not surprising.

Many of them migrated to West and continue to do the same caste things even in silicon valley. Google the Cisco caste discrimination incident.

I doubt it. On an average around 70% of seats are reserved (affirmative action) for lower caste students. The difference of admission cutoffs is like day and night. I wouldn't be surprise that people from upper caste don't feel particularly well, for being lawfully, indefinite discrimination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India

> On an average around 70% of seats are reserved (affirmative action) for lower caste students.

In which alternate reality?

The Wikipedia link is correct, but you are only seeing one side.

Getting into engineering schools requires coaching, which majority can't afford. Second, surviving there requires additional skills that state board educated Dalits and lower castes don't have.

You can Google for the number of Dalits and lower castes really getting admitted or finishing the course.

https://qz.com/india/2001747/iit-kharagpur-professor-abusing...

Freedom & freedom of speech aren't equivalent ideas, and most of us Indians do not correctly identify the subtle difference. Hence speech and opinions come under vicious attack instead of productive participation.

India sees journalism taking camps (since the era of Mrs. Indira Gandhi' premiership). There are national newspapers & media channels who very overtly align with the political parties. Speaking your mind out comes with its own consequences.

Sure even the freest of speech is not free of consequences, but this seems to be a case of the state punishing a specific person for his speech. Partisan media is one thing but this seems to be something entirely different

Let me tell you my anecdotal experience. Modi came in power in 2014 and till than I was BJP (Modi's party) supporter.

Then I began to see how dangerous Modi is to society as a whole. In short, he is modern, complex sophisticated version of Nazi ideology. He carefully raised an army of hindu rightwing members who are bigots, intolerant and full of hate. He doesn't belive in democracy, freedom of speech, human rights, tolerance, diversity, press freedom and stuffs like that. Anyway...

Earlier I (and every other Modi opponent I know) would openly criticize him on various SM platofrms or whatsapp groups. Now we just stay silent. We now dont even talk anything against him even in familiar circles. Why? Because we are afraid. You may get beaten. You may be arrested. You may be shunned.

I live in an apartment in Delhi and there is a whatsapp group for that apartment where we share and discuss apartment related issues. Some Modi supporters often post highly inflammble propagandist anti muslims post on regular basis. One guy politely objected to it. He was immediatly declared anti-hindu and anti India. He was removed from the group. He was 'politely' told that he should be careful in future. The friendly neighbors have turned foes.

Even I was cornered and declared anti-national many times (luckily by people who were otherwise friendly to me.) This is happening all around in India. If you aren't Modi supporter, just keep your mouth shut.

That's right from the Nazi playbook, and extremely scary...

And PM of India also does a regular monologue which is broadcasted across all govt news channels, radio stations, translated to multiple languages, sent through mobile app of govt/pm. They even spam you on your emails if you ever used your email to deal with govt services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Ki_Baat

And yet he is so coward that he always avoid interviews, except for may be 2-3 interviews (read PR stunts) which were conducted by sycophants like Rajat Sharma who has dedicated his life to Modi.

Other than that, he never faced any open interview in his 8 years tenure as a PM of biggest democracy.

the instances of the Indian government censoring the internet are numerous and well documented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_India

No, it hasn't been a backslide, it has been always like this.

While media in the west will pick certain stories, you can find such events all across the political spectrum.

A much lauded and young people supported newcomer party used the police against the members of the party in power at the national level as soon as they came to power in a state and got hold of the police there.

It is sad but when courts won't act in time, this abuse of law will keep happening.

I was curious about this myself and wondering if Modi is on his way to being the next Putin/Xi and declaring himself dictator for life.

Absolute freedom of speech is a US Bill of Rights thing, and we backslide when it comes to political or sexual speech, e.g. with political Islam in the 21st century; Communism/Socialism/Anarchism in the early 20th century; and constantly when it comes to anything sexual, especially information about birth control, anything gay, anything involving miscegenation, or anything else that embarrasses a judge or gives him an erection.

The difference between the US and other places is that these things are usually reverted after a few decades by appeal to a clearly written first amendment. The most dangerous assault on US freedom of speech has been copyright, which has become an pretense to monitor all communications since sending information about birth control or sending porn through the mail ceased to be a public priority.

Vaguely defined "hate speech" is creeping up on becoming a reason for government censorship through the backdoor of "hate crime." "Hate crimes" are proved by proving a regular old crime was committed, then poring through the history of the person who committed the crime looking for "hate speech." "Hate speech" could certainly eventually expand to be indistinguishable from lèse majesté. A certain type of mind can see criticism of the President as a "hate crime."

"freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"

The current Modi government is held to a much higher standard than the previous congress dynasty.

Freedom of speech is much worse in non BJP states like Tamil Nadu.

There is a huge cabal of bureaucracy, media, academia, judiciary and foreign institutions that profited handsomely under the corruption ecosystem built by the congress.

They are infuriated by the people's choice of a more honest and a non-dynast like Modi.

Until 2014, BJP was the only democratic party in India which wasn't run by a authoritarian person. Current BJP is now the most authoritarian party where Modi-Shah call the shots. Can you name even a single person who is critical of Modi and still is in BJP? Who opposed ANY decision of Modi government?

If you think Gandhi dynasty was corrupt then why Modi wasn't able to put them in jail? Why didn't he press any charges against them? Again, if you believe Gandhis were corrupt then you should also believe Modi got innocents murdered. He committed genocide and there is no bigger crime than genocide.

I opposed Congress when it was in power without any fear. Initially I opposed Modi too but not anymore. Why? Because I'm scared for my life. That is the difference between Congress and BJP.

Question is, if Modi is culprit, why he is not in jail. Congress was in power for atleast 5 years or so, post Godhara. That's how the country is. There is no rule of law and for sure there was never rule of law for politicians). If you have lived in India, you would know there is no difference in Modi or Congress or anyone else. Politicians are gangsters. Modi has done what congress did early. Congress consolidated Muslim votes at the expense of Hindu sentiments, and Modi has done exactly opposite. He has consolidated Hindu votes at the expanse of Muslim sentiments. They are all same. I wonder how was it possible (I mean where the courage stems from) that supposedly minority group can burn alive hundreds of pilgrims without thinking of consequences. How did kashmiri muslims assumed that there'll be no repercussions of kicking out Hindus from Jammu (oh they didn't leave due to minor inconvenience). The resentment wasn't build in a day(I believe Congress was ruling India in 1990). What did congress government do? Nothing. So to conclude, congress and BJP are equivalent.

Fundamentally they are same but their depth of crimes aren't same. Congress did appease minorities but it never was like 'let us kill all muslims'. Fundamentally and ideologically, congress is neither anti hindu or anti muslim. However BJP/RSS has always been ideologically against muslims. It is in their blood. It is the party of religious bigots. If you read the history of RSS, you'll find RSS was established not to fight british but to fight muslims.

There has always been riots in India. But 2 incidents - 1984 sikh massacre and 2002 gujarat genocide stand out. Why? Because these two were STATE SPONSORED. That is big point here. However, unlike BJP, Congress wasn't arch-enemy of Sikhs. After 1984, congress didn't do anything to hurt sikhs. They even kind of apologized for that. But BJP? It has always been anti-muslims (although Vajpayee wasn't pro violence) and under Modi regime, covert genocide of muslims is going on strongly.

As for Godhra, it wasn't merely against Hindus. It was against the right-wing hindu extremists who demolished Babri masjids. Subtle but important difference. Being Hindu is one thing. Being anti-muslim Hindu extremist is another.

And what happened to culprits of Godhra incident? They all are in jails. What happened to 2002 culprits? They are running the country and they have upped the game of muslim genocide. And that is why we are even having discussion here.

The extent of crimes of BJP and congress aren't same. They both are ugly but BJP is evil personified.

I am Hindu and all my family members and friends are staunch BJP supporters. And yet as Modi opponent, I feel scared. A hindu is scared of criticising Modi. That has never been the case during Congress. Even in 1975, people were able to oppose Indira Gandhi but that is unimaginable now.

And I am saying this as someone who has been hardcore member of RSS for all my life. I am now 44 yr old and I started to drift away from RSS/BJP since Modi came into scene.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com