[lujim]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Ahhhhhh goes down smooth every time.

[gamblor956]

Not sure why the US Constitution is relevant to a case under Indian law involving Indian citizens in India?

[anonlastname]

obviously because having such a clause in Indian law would resolve this situation

[gamblor956]

India, like most other Commonwealth countries, does not have the American First Amendment tradition, and their free speech laws are more restrictive.

Defamation, for example, and discussions of religion, are especially dangerous grounds since what would be protected speech in the US (and generally non-controversial) is not protected in India and could even lead to riots, lynching, etc.

[lujim]

I get the impression that you are asking that not because you don't know the answer, but because this is a politically motivated topic for you and you don't like the implication.

[gamblor956]

No, I really don't know the answer to why someone is bringing up a point of Constitutional law in a case governed by an entirely different set of laws. Commonwealth countries like India have very different definitions of free speech rights than the US, and India has some of the most restrictive free speech laws of the former British colonies.

To be more blunt: in India, people can and have been imprisoned for saying negative things about other religions, and those punishments were upheld by the courts.

In America, people might get jailed at the local level in certain parts of the country by an overzealous sheriff if they badmouth Christianity. And then they get released within a few hours, or a few days tops. And then they sue and receive a settlement in the millions of dollars to compensate them for the violation of their civil rights.

So really, not at all similar.

[lujim]

I was using this particular case as an example of why those of us in the U.S should be grateful for the First Amendment.

You understood that from the beginning but it rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. Let me guess, you think that offensive speech shouldn't fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment? That would be a real shocker.

[grouseway]

Lets not be too smug. Plenty of Americans who speak out on any type of political issue receive death threats. Sure it's not from the state but does that make a difference if you have to live in fear?

Here is one example, but you've probably seen this lots of times.

https://www.wmay.com/2018/10/02/cartoonist-says-hes-getting-...

The irony is the type of people doing this are probably also the types with bumper stickers praising the constitution.

[dsfyu404ed]

>Sure it's not from the state but does that make a difference if you have to live in fear?

It makes a massive difference!

If some random person tries to kill you and you blow their brains out in self defense the court will almost certainly back you up (assuming it's legitimate self defense). If random person someone tries to kill you and the police happen to be nearby they will probably intervene.

In contrast, if the state comes after you you're screwed. If you defend yourself you're even more screwed. You can't even call the cops.

[grouseway]

The effect is the same: keep your mouth shut. It's not worth going to prison and it's not worth getting shot.

I was just trying to point out how people don't really support freedom of speech when it comes to something that makes them angry - which is often the important stuff to be talking about.

[testvox]

It makes a huge difference. Living in fear is still better then living in a jail cell. You sound like the judge from the article,

> The top court judge said jail was the safest place for him if he feared for his life, a remark which rights group Amnesty International found "deeply worrying".

[lujim]

Well not to worry. There are plenty of Americans that openly advocate to make offensive speech illegal. THEN it will be time to live in fear of the state because a cartoon could have resulted in some prison time.