[Indyan]

I'm in two minds regarding this. This reminds me of the clampdown in many of the middle-eastern countries during the Arab spring. On Principle I don't believe that the state should be allowed to place such restrictions on civilian freedom. However, I can't deny that the measures worked. The protest had become extremely violent and needed to be defused instantly. This measure possibly saved lives.

[rmc]

Yes, it helped with the peace. But what effect did it have on justice? Those are not the same thing.

[mtgx]

You may not always want peace. Could Americans have "peacefully" convinced the Brits to turn back and leave them alone?

[flangloria]

Oh please. This isn't the same. What these guys were trying to do, was to bully the state into placing their community above the rest.

[meric]

Could the revolt have been defused by Britain granting more voting power to American colonial authorities? Or would they continue to demand placing their community above the rest by being completely autonomous?

[gambiting]

Poland is the prime example of getting rid of unwanted government(communist in this case) without resorting to violence, and that's despite the entire country being under martial law with severe restrictions on travel and trade for a few years. It can be done.

[kushti]

Indians made this (see Gandhi & Indian independence movement), but I don't sure "americans"(mostly english people living overseas those days) were capable for that(especially with taking natives genocide & slavery into account).

[Manishearth]

In India's case Britain was already in a situation where it half-wanted to leave (due to the war, etc). This was not the case with the US.

I'm pretty sure India would have had a violent movement too if WW2 hadn't happened and Indians had better access to firearms and stuff. Violence was less of an option because the British government deliberately ensured that the locals were suppressed. Whereas in the U.S. the British were exploitative of the colonies, but they did not suppress the people (until the movement started); after all, those were their own people.

We did, in fact, have a violent movement, in 1857, just that it didn't work out too well.

I don't think that "Indians are less violent" is really an argument to be made here.

[kushti]

How much time have you spent in India? I've been for half an year there, and 1.5 months in US. My feeling is americans are MUCH more aggressive in general

[Manishearth]

Born and brought up in the US, been in India for the last ... 8 years. (Indian origin).

That's quite anecdotal at best. My experience has not been the same, I've seen ample violent elements in both places. Indians are generally subtler in our social cues, and that might make Americans "louder" (which feels like aggression), but certainly not more violent.

It also might matter which area of either country you've lived in. Boston(-ish) and Mumbai here.

An acceptable argument for India being more nonviolent would be the entire NAM movement among other initiatives, but there are still many, many other reasons why India's nonviolent independence movement worked -- Indians being nonviolent, if true, would be a small contributor to it, not the main reason. Besides, like I said, we had a violent independence movement and failed. Technically, two, if you count the INA, which actually managed to liberate many areas.

[kang]

There is a certain threshold below which this will work and beyond which it will backfire bad; if the majority is big, the message spreads nevertheless and more underground and uncontrollable ways.

Also, this is not justice & anti-freedom.

[retube]

Like almost all policy & law there are trade-offs. Good governance is about enacting policy which attempts to benefit as many people as possible on average (but there will always be losers).

People need to understand that issues are NOT black and white, and that "the thin end of the wedge" often needs to be broached in order to benefit wider society.

[mrits]

"This measure possibly saved lives."

Plugging everyone into the matrix will also save lives.

[dharmach]

In general, freedom of expression, communication should not be curbed but that freedom also brings in misinformation, rumour, and anti-social activities. When panic can cause unnecessary destruction, government should be able to control communication channels for a short period of time. Remember, if government is wrong, it will not be able to hide the truth for a long.

[wolfgke]

> Remember, if government is wrong, it will not be able to hide the truth for a long.

The truth that the NSA is massively spying was hidden for a very long time (or rather: Hardly anybody really believed those who told the truth).