Hacker News Reader

Comment by leephillips | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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

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

And for context, neither do Britain or Canada.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com