<p>Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The only thing that happened was that both of them were dropped from campaigning in Delhi following the order of the Election Commission of India (ECI ) as star campaigners of the BJP.</p>

<p>Parvesh Chandra othered Muslims and accused them as predatory whereas Anurag Thakur allowed people to chant 'death to traitors'. Both of them indulged in hate speech which portrayed minorities as anti-national and unreliable.</p>

<p>These steps are cosmetic and do not hide the basic thinking within the party which is premised around othering Muslims and marking protests as illegitimate. This ugliness further draws strength from Leftist response which has failed to absorb resurgence of nationalism in daily life. It ends up vilifying institutions like the Army or the state in general.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Such politics pushes people to take a stand on silly controversies which are not related to bread and butter issues. The silence of senior BJP leaders on such issues is a repetition of the narrative leading to the demolition of Babri Mosque. The seniors remained silent on verbal poison while junior leaders lampooned anything and anyone they liked. The progression of this politics has happened with the marriage of idea of aggressive Hinduism with liberal use of sedition laws.</p>

<p>A school in Karnataka has recently been booked under sedition laws by the BJP state government because the play enacted by the students portrayed Narendra Modi in a bad light. Question is, since when it has become a crime in the country to charge a politician? Wasn’t’ Rajiv Gandhi accused of corruption? Wasn’t Nehru accused of dereliction of duty after losing war with China? Wasn’t Narasimha Rao blamed for the demolition of Babri Masjid? Wasn’t Vajpayee blamed for disastrous Kargil and Kandahar episode and not to forget inaction during Gujarat riots? Wasn’t Advani blamed for Parliament attack? Wasn’t Manmohan Singh vilified and attacked after tragic Mumbai terror attack? All these leaders were attacked and abused personally but not once anyone thought at that point of time that one may get booked under the sedition law for attacking the leadership of the country.</p>

<p>Ironically, it is being argued that since it works for the BJP electorally, it is good to go. Like <em>Shamshan</em> and <em>Kabristan </em>worked for BJP in 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. The debate does not address the issue of right and wrong in politics but what works or not. This approach can work in short-run, but will have disastrous consequences in long.</p>

<p>It has emboldened people to break codes of decency in public life and made it cool for people at large to talk in terms of communities which is so tragic because the first Lok Sabha election was fought against the very issues. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru campaigned on the issue of secularism and spoke against regionalism, linguistic politics, casteism and communalism. It was perhaps the only election which was fought on the vision of Constitution drafted by the founding father of the young nation.</p>

<p>&nbsp;After 70 years, India continues to wrestle with the idea of nationhood. It has become so contested that it has started to tear India’s social fabric apart. It's&nbsp;time that the vision of the Constitution is not sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics. BJP’s othering of Muslims for an electoral reason and hard Left’s irresponsible response on cultural and religious issues has torn India’s Centre apart. It is forcing people to take sides on stupid issues. It is pushing the boundary of civil conduct in public life. The politics is getting subservient to the social media echo chamber and it has started to impact the Indian economy too.</p>

<p>It cannot be expected of BJP to arrest othering of 18 crore people in India. Party is too trapped in the logic of electoral politics to create a new consensus. Congress is to adrift and still ideologically unclear on basic issues of economy and cultural politics.</p>

<p>The balance must be regained by the civil society itself which has acquired the capacity to create public opinion. The public cannot be held hostage to hate speech in the name of free speech which is vitiating political discourse on a daily basis.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;</em><br />
&nbsp;</p>


Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end.

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end. The only thing that happened was that both of them were dropped from campaigning in Delhi following the order of the Election Commission of India (ECI ) as star campaigners of the BJP. Parvesh Chandra othered Muslims and accused them as predatory whereas Anurag Thakur allowed people to chant 'death to traitors'. Both of them indulged in hate speech which portrayed minorities as anti-national and unreliable. These steps are cosmetic and do not hide the basic thinking within the party which is premised around othering Muslims and marking protests as illegitimate. This ugliness further draws strength from Leftist response which has failed to absorb resurgence of nationalism in daily life. It ends up vilifying institutions like the Army or the state in general. Such politics pushes people to take a stand on silly controversies which are not related to bread and butter issues. The silence of senior BJP leaders on such issues is a repetition of the narrative leading to the demolition of Babri Mosque. The seniors remained silent on verbal poison while junior leaders lampooned anything and anyone they liked. The progression of this politics has happened with the marriage of idea of aggressive Hinduism with liberal use of sedition laws. A school in Karnataka has recently been booked under sedition laws by the BJP state government because the play enacted by the students portrayed Narendra Modi in a bad light. Question is, since when it has become a crime in the country to charge a politician? Wasn’t’ Rajiv Gandhi accused of corruption? Wasn’t Nehru accused of dereliction of duty after losing war with China? Wasn’t Narasimha Rao blamed for the demolition of Babri Masjid? Wasn’t Vajpayee blamed for disastrous Kargil and Kandahar episode and not to forget inaction during Gujarat riots? Wasn’t Advani blamed for Parliament attack? Wasn’t Manmohan Singh vilified and attacked after tragic Mumbai terror attack? All these leaders were attacked and abused personally but not once anyone thought at that point of time that one may get booked under the sedition law for attacking the leadership of the country. Ironically, it is being argued that since it works for the BJP electorally, it is good to go. Like Shamshan and Kabristan worked for BJP in 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. The debate does not address the issue of right and wrong in politics but what works or not. This approach can work in short-run, but will have disastrous consequences in long. It has emboldened people to break codes of decency in public life and made it cool for people at large to talk in terms of communities which is so tragic because the first Lok Sabha election was fought against the very issues. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru campaigned on the issue of secularism and spoke against regionalism, linguistic politics, casteism and communalism. It was perhaps the only election which was fought on the vision of Constitution drafted by the founding father of the young nation. After 70 years, India continues to wrestle with the idea of nationhood. It has become so contested that it has started to tear India’s social fabric apart. It's time that the vision of the Constitution is not sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics. BJP’s othering of Muslims for an electoral reason and hard Left’s irresponsible response on cultural and religious issues has torn India’s Centre apart. It is forcing people to take sides on stupid issues. It is pushing the boundary of civil conduct in public life. The politics is getting subservient to the social media echo chamber and it has started to impact the Indian economy too. It cannot be expected of BJP to arrest othering of 18 crore people in India. Party is too trapped in the logic of electoral politics to create a new consensus. Congress is to adrift and still ideologically unclear on basic issues of economy and cultural politics. The balance must be regained by the civil society itself which has acquired the capacity to create public opinion. The public cannot be held hostage to hate speech in the name of free speech which is vitiating political discourse on a daily basis. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Hate speech is not free speech

<p>German Chancellor<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/merkels-coalition-in-crisis-talks-after-european-union-vote-debacle-221923/amp">&nbsp;Angela&nbsp;Merkel's</a> favoured successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer sparked outrage on social media on Tuesday with an apparent call for limits to free speech around elections.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The CDU chief's comment came after her party and its centre-left coalition partner SPD suffered their worst scores in Sunday's European election -- a result partly blamed on the fact that some 70 YouTube stars had urged Germans not to vote for either party.</p>

<p>Addressing the issue on Monday night, Kramp-Karrenbauer said if 70 newspaper editors had called to boycott parties ahead of an election, that would be classed "clearly as propaganda".</p>

<p>"The question is... what are rules from the analogue realm and which rules should apply to the digital realm? "I'll tackle this discussion quite aggressively," said Kramp-Karrenbauer, or AKK as she is dubbed in Germany.</p>

<p>Her comments immediately sparked a storm on social media with #AKKRuecktritt (AKKresign), #annegate, #Zensur (censorship) and #Meinungsfreiheit (freedom of opinion) making up the top four topics trending on Twitter in Germany.</p>

<p>Many users pointed to article five in the German constitution guaranteeing freedom of opinion, speech and writing.The German Federation of Journalists also hit out against AKK's call, calling it "not just nonsense but also a violation of the constitution".</p>

<p>SPD general secretary Lars Klingbeil also warned that any attempt to limit freedom of expression "will definitely not be possible with my party". "This is absurd. Nobody would get upset if an actor or an athlete made an election recommendation", said Klingbeil.</p>

<p>Kramp-Karrenbauer later tried to downplay her comments, saying it was "ridiculous to insinuate that I want to regulate expressions of opinion".</p>

<p>Freedom of opinion is a precious value in a democracy. "But what we have to talk about are rules that apply during elections," she wrote on Twitter. AKK, 56, replaced&nbsp;Merkel&nbsp;as head of the CDU last December and is expected to seek the top job when&nbsp;Merkel's term ends in 2021.</p>

<p>The 70 Youtubers' call to vote against CDU, SPD and far-right AfD was a follow-up to an hour-long video rant from another online star Rezo, who blamed the centre-right-led coalition for failing to tackle poverty and climate change.</p>

<p>Put online on May 18, the clip had been viewed 12.6 million times by Tuesday, tumbling&nbsp;Merkel's party into the crisis-fighting mode.</p>


German Chancellor Angela Merkel's favoured successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer sparked outrage on social media on Tuesday with an apparent call for limits to free speech around elections.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's favoured successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer sparked outrage on social media on Tuesday with an apparent call for limits to free speech around elections. The CDU chief's comment came after her party and its centre-left coalition partner SPD suffered their worst scores in Sunday's European election -- a result partly blamed on the fact that some 70 YouTube stars had urged Germans not to vote for either party. Addressing the issue on Monday night, Kramp-Karrenbauer said if 70 newspaper editors had called to boycott parties ahead of an election, that would be classed "clearly as propaganda". "The question is... what are rules from the analogue realm and which rules should apply to the digital realm? "I'll tackle this discussion quite aggressively," said Kramp-Karrenbauer, or AKK as she is dubbed in Germany. Her comments immediately sparked a storm on social media with #AKKRuecktritt (AKKresign), #annegate, #Zensur (censorship) and #Meinungsfreiheit (freedom of opinion) making up the top four topics trending on Twitter in Germany. Many users pointed to article five in the German constitution guaranteeing freedom of opinion, speech and writing.The German Federation of Journalists also hit out against AKK's call, calling it "not just nonsense but also a violation of the constitution". SPD general secretary Lars Klingbeil also warned that any attempt to limit freedom of expression "will definitely not be possible with my party". "This is absurd. Nobody would get upset if an actor or an athlete made an election recommendation", said Klingbeil. Kramp-Karrenbauer later tried to downplay her comments, saying it was "ridiculous to insinuate that I want to regulate expressions of opinion". Freedom of opinion is a precious value in a democracy. "But what we have to talk about are rules that apply during elections," she wrote on Twitter. AKK, 56, replaced Merkel as head of the CDU last December and is expected to seek the top job when Merkel's term ends in 2021. The 70 Youtubers' call to vote against CDU, SPD and far-right AfD was a follow-up to an hour-long video rant from another online star Rezo, who blamed the centre-right-led coalition for failing to tackle poverty and climate change. Put online on May 18, the clip had been viewed 12.6 million times by Tuesday, tumbling Merkel's party into the crisis-fighting mode.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's successor sparks freedom of speech uproar

In this segment of 'India Election Watch' We Decodes Freedom Of Speech with some experts with Mr. Andrew Whitehead, Former BBC Senior Journalist; Mr. Arun Anand, Senior Journalist & Mr. Lord Meghnad Desai, Author & Professor Emeritus at LSE.

India Election Watch: Decodes Freedom Of Speech with some experts

Priyanka Sharma is a BJP worker in West Bengal. she got arrested for posting a meme on Mamata Banerjee. Finally Supreme Court ordered the release of her. Watch this video to know more.

India Election Watch: The Mamata Meme Story

<p>Nepal's government on Wednesday tabled draft legislation that would impose harsh <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/bill-introduced-by-nepal-pm-proposes-five-years-of-jail-for-posting-anti-government-content-on-social-media-197921">penalties for "improper" social media posts</a>, igniting concerns it could be used to suppress freedom of speech and stifle dissent.</p>

<p>Under the proposed law, the government would have the power to block social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube unless they register in Nepal.</p>

<p>And social media posts deemed defamatory or against national sovereignty could be punished with up to five years in jail and a fine of 1.5 million Nepalese rupees ($13,000).</p>

<p>No timetable was given for passing the bill, but activists have described it as an attempt to shackle criticism of the powerful communist government, which has a two-thirds majority in parliament.</p>

<p>"The bill is against the freedom of expression and justice as it criminalises online expression," Tara Nath Dahal of Freedom Forum, a media freedom organisation, told AFP.</p>

<p>The government has defended the bill, saying it is needed to ensure data and internet security.</p>

<p>"The bill was registered to manage social networking sites because the challenges caused by such sites are increasing," information minister Gokul Prasad Baskota told parliament.</p>

<p>Under the proposed law, the government can also instruct social network site operators to remove posts. Failure to do so could lead to a three-year jail term and a 30,000-rupee fine.</p>

<p>The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has called on the government to address concerns raised by rights groups.</p>

<p>"The proposed law put forward by the Nepal government is a blatant attempt to control and muzzle freedom of expression on social media," it said in a statement.</p>

<p>"Freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Nepal constitution, and this must be respected and protected by the government."</p>

<p>The ruling party has shown increasing intolerance for dissent since its landslide victory in 2017.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Another law barring civil servants from criticising government policies on social media was tabled earlier this month.</p>

<p>A popular folk singer was forced to take down a satirical anti-corruption song from YouTube last week after pressure from ruling party cadres.</p>

<p>Nepal, with a population of about 30 million, has an internet penetration of 57 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter have millions of users in the South Asian nation.</p>


Nepal's government on Wednesday tabled draft legislation that would impose harsh penalties for "improper" social media posts, igniting concerns it could be used to suppress freedom of speech and stifle dissent.

Nepal's government on Wednesday tabled draft legislation that would impose harsh penalties for "improper" social media posts, igniting concerns it could be used to suppress freedom of speech and stifle dissent. Under the proposed law, the government would have the power to block social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube unless they register in Nepal. And social media posts deemed defamatory or against national sovereignty could be punished with up to five years in jail and a fine of 1.5 million Nepalese rupees ($13,000). No timetable was given for passing the bill, but activists have described it as an attempt to shackle criticism of the powerful communist government, which has a two-thirds majority in parliament. "The bill is against the freedom of expression and justice as it criminalises online expression," Tara Nath Dahal of Freedom Forum, a media freedom organisation, told AFP. The government has defended the bill, saying it is needed to ensure data and internet security. "The bill was registered to manage social networking sites because the challenges caused by such sites are increasing," information minister Gokul Prasad Baskota told parliament. Under the proposed law, the government can also instruct social network site operators to remove posts. Failure to do so could lead to a three-year jail term and a 30,000-rupee fine. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has called on the government to address concerns raised by rights groups. "The proposed law put forward by the Nepal government is a blatant attempt to control and muzzle freedom of expression on social media," it said in a statement. "Freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Nepal constitution, and this must be respected and protected by the government." The ruling party has shown increasing intolerance for dissent since its landslide victory in 2017. Another law barring civil servants from criticising government policies on social media was tabled earlier this month. A popular folk singer was forced to take down a satirical anti-corruption song from YouTube last week after pressure from ruling party cadres. Nepal, with a population of about 30 million, has an internet penetration of 57 percent. Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter have millions of users in the South Asian nation.

Nepal social media bill sparks freedom of speech concerns

<p>Myanmar's government under Nobel laureate <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/uk-calls-on-myanmars-suu-kyi-to-take-personal-interest-in-case-of-jailed-reuters-reporters-189584">Aung San Suu Kyi </a>has used repressive laws to prosecute peaceful critics, dashing hopes that its first democratic leader in decades would safeguard free speech, Human Rights Watch said on Friday.</p>

<p>Freedom of expression has been deteriorating since her administration came to power in 2016, with prosecutions creating a "climate of fear" among journalists, the rights group said in its report, "Dashed Hopes: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Myanmar".</p>

<p>"Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy promised a new Myanmar but the government still prosecutes peaceful speech and protests and has failed to revise old oppressive laws," Linda Lakhdhir, Asia legal adviser at Human Rights Watch and the report's author, said in a statement.</p>

<p>A government spokesman could not be reached for comment.</p>

<p>The military governments that ruled Myanmar for decades placed severe restrictions on free speech. Reforms undertaken by the quasi-civilian administration that came to power in 2010, including the abolition of censorship, had "positive implications for speech and assembly", HRW said.</p>

<p>However, the Suu Kyi-led government had made "only marginal changes" to oppressive legislation and continued to use "overly broad, vague, and abusive laws" to prosecute peaceful speech and assembly, it said.</p>

<p>Myanmar free speech group Athan, whose report was quoted by HRW, said some 140 cases had been filed since 2016 under the Telecommunications Act, at least half of which involved prosecution for peaceful speech.</p>

<p>Parliament made some amendments to section 66(d) of the act, which punishes anyone who "defames" someone using a telecommunications network with up to two years in prison but rejected calls to repeal the provision.</p>

<p>Reporters were especially vulnerable to prosecution and attacks, HRW said, with threats coming from authorities as well as nationalists and militant supporters of the government or army.</p>

<p>"The result has been a climate of fear among local journalists," the HRW report said.</p>

<p>Laws criminalising defamation, the Official Secrets Act, the Unlawful Associations Act, the 1934 Aircraft Act, and section 131 of the Myanmar Penal Code have all been used against journalists in recent years.</p>

<p>Reuters reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were sentenced to seven years in prison in September 2018 under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act. They had been working on an investigation into the killing of 10 Rohingya Muslim men and boys in Rakhine state.</p>

<p>"Aung San Suu Kyi's government has had a real opportunity to abolish the tools of oppression used by the military juntas, but has instead used them against peaceful critics and protesters,” Lakhdhir said.</p>

<p>"It's not too late to reverse course and take steps to fully protect speech and assembly in Myanmar," she said.</p>


Myanmar's government under Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has used repressive laws to prosecute peaceful critics, dashing hopes that its first democratic leader in decades would safeguard free speech, Human Rights Watch said on Friday.

Myanmar's government under Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has used repressive laws to prosecute peaceful critics, dashing hopes that its first democratic leader in decades would safeguard free speech, Human Rights Watch said on Friday. Freedom of expression has been deteriorating since her administration came to power in 2016, with prosecutions creating a "climate of fear" among journalists, the rights group said in its report, "Dashed Hopes: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Myanmar". "Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy promised a new Myanmar but the government still prosecutes peaceful speech and protests and has failed to revise old oppressive laws," Linda Lakhdhir, Asia legal adviser at Human Rights Watch and the report's author, said in a statement. A government spokesman could not be reached for comment. The military governments that ruled Myanmar for decades placed severe restrictions on free speech. Reforms undertaken by the quasi-civilian administration that came to power in 2010, including the abolition of censorship, had "positive implications for speech and assembly", HRW said. However, the Suu Kyi-led government had made "only marginal changes" to oppressive legislation and continued to use "overly broad, vague, and abusive laws" to prosecute peaceful speech and assembly, it said. Myanmar free speech group Athan, whose report was quoted by HRW, said some 140 cases had been filed since 2016 under the Telecommunications Act, at least half of which involved prosecution for peaceful speech. Parliament made some amendments to section 66(d) of the act, which punishes anyone who "defames" someone using a telecommunications network with up to two years in prison but rejected calls to repeal the provision. Reporters were especially vulnerable to prosecution and attacks, HRW said, with threats coming from authorities as well as nationalists and militant supporters of the government or army. "The result has been a climate of fear among local journalists," the HRW report said. Laws criminalising defamation, the Official Secrets Act, the Unlawful Associations Act, the 1934 Aircraft Act, and section 131 of the Myanmar Penal Code have all been used against journalists in recent years. Reuters reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were sentenced to seven years in prison in September 2018 under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act. They had been working on an investigation into the killing of 10 Rohingya Muslim men and boys in Rakhine state. "Aung San Suu Kyi's government has had a real opportunity to abolish the tools of oppression used by the military juntas, but has instead used them against peaceful critics and protesters,” Lakhdhir said. "It's not too late to reverse course and take steps to fully protect speech and assembly in Myanmar," she said.

Human Rights watch says Myanmar government using ‘abusive laws’ to punish critics

<p>In order to achieve the mission of &quot;tightening control&quot;&nbsp;over internet content, China banned 128,000 websites containing obscene information, a report said.</p>

<p>China is on a drive to control internet content in an effort to maintain &quot;social stability&quot; and reduce fake news that floats on the internet.</p>

<p>According to reports, 10,300 pornographic sites were also banned.</p>

<p>Chinese authorities also shut over 128,000 websites that contained &quot;harmful information&quot; last year and deleted 4.55 million posts.</p>

<p>The official Chinese news agency Xinhua published the&nbsp;information attributing official government data.</p>

<p>According to the news agency, with websites shutting down, 30.9 million &quot;illegal publications&quot;&nbsp;were also banned last year.</p>

<p>Also, 1,900 people were subjected to criminal penalties.</p>

<p>In 2016 several major portals run by companies like Tencent, Baidu, Weibo were&nbsp;fined by China&#39;s internet regulator for not properly censoring the content ahead of a major conference of the Chinese Communist Party.</p>

<p>The Chinese government is also making efforts to controls the &quot;academic work&quot;.</p>

<p>The authorities have&nbsp;refused Chinese journalists from accessing papers and books on sensitive topics like&nbsp;Tibet, Taiwan and the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square.</p>

<p>(With inputs from news agency)</p>


China is on a drive to control internet content in an effort to maintain 'social stability' and reduce fake news that floats on the internet

In order to achieve the mission of "tightening control" over internet content, China banned 128,000 websites containing obscene information, a report said. China is on a drive to control internet content in an effort to maintain "social stability" and reduce fake news that floats on the internet. According to reports, 10,300 pornographic sites were also banned. Chinese authorities also shut over 128,000 websites that contained "harmful information" last year and deleted 4.55 million posts. The official Chinese news agency Xinhua published the information attributing official government data. According to the news agency, with websites shutting down, 30.9 million "illegal publications" were also banned last year. Also, 1,900 people were subjected to criminal penalties. In 2016 several major portals run by companies like Tencent, Baidu, Weibo were fined by China's internet regulator for not properly censoring the content ahead of a major conference of the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese government is also making efforts to controls the "academic work". The authorities have refused Chinese journalists from accessing papers and books on sensitive topics like Tibet, Taiwan and the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square. (With inputs from news agency)

China shut 128,000 'harmful' websites in 2017: Report

<p>The Bombay high court on&nbsp;Thursday slammed rightist group for asking ban on&nbsp;Sanjay Leela directed Padmavati and sending death threats to&nbsp;artists on Thursday.</p>

<p>Referring to the threats made to them, a bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said that it was distressing to know that a person makes a feature film and several people work tirelessly towards it but are not able to release it because of continued threats.</p>

<p>The bench further asked that &ldquo;In which other country do you see threats given to artists and performers? What have we come to?&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>

<p>The court also emphasized that this was censorship of a different kind and it is damaging India&rsquo;s image.</p>

<p>Judges added that &ldquo;In this country, we have come to a situation where people cannot voice their opinions. Every time a person says he or she wants to voice their opinion, somebody or a fringe group says they would not allow it. This does not augur well for the state.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>

<p>&ldquo;What concerns us is India&rsquo;s image and reputation as a democratic country. We are the largest democracy. We cannot take pride in the happenings of such incidents a day in and day out. We are cutting a very sorry figure,&rdquo; the judges said.</p>

<p>Judge also stressed on the fact that if this is happening to well-financed people and what would happen to the poor?</p>

<p>The strong remarks were made while the judges were hearing a petition filed by family members of Dabholkar and Pansare.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Family members of Dabholkar and Pansare seeking court Supervision on the murder probe of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare.</p>

<p>The court also slammed CBI and CID for not arresting the main suspects of the murder of Dabholkar who was killed in 2013 and Pansare who was killed in 2015.</p>

<p>&quot;We cannot allow such serious matters to linger for years. We cannot allow constitutional rights to be taken away. Enough damage has been caused already. Has any senior official from the two agencies bothered to find out why the probe is not getting any head away?&quot; the court asked.</p>

<p>The case has now been posted for next hearing on December 21.</p>

<p>According to reports, Padmavati may release in February after its producers decided to postpone the movie.</p>


It is distressing to know that a person makes a feature film and several people work tirelessly towards it but are not able to release the film because of continued threats, Court said

The Bombay high court on Thursday slammed rightist group for asking ban on Sanjay Leela directed Padmavati and sending death threats to artists on Thursday. Referring to the threats made to them, a bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said that it was distressing to know that a person makes a feature film and several people work tirelessly towards it but are not able to release it because of continued threats. The bench further asked that “In which other country do you see threats given to artists and performers? What have we come to?” The court also emphasized that this was censorship of a different kind and it is damaging India’s image. Judges added that “In this country, we have come to a situation where people cannot voice their opinions. Every time a person says he or she wants to voice their opinion, somebody or a fringe group says they would not allow it. This does not augur well for the state.” “What concerns us is India’s image and reputation as a democratic country. We are the largest democracy. We cannot take pride in the happenings of such incidents a day in and day out. We are cutting a very sorry figure,” the judges said. Judge also stressed on the fact that if this is happening to well-financed people and what would happen to the poor? The strong remarks were made while the judges were hearing a petition filed by family members of Dabholkar and Pansare. Family members of Dabholkar and Pansare seeking court Supervision on the murder probe of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare. The court also slammed CBI and CID for not arresting the main suspects of the murder of Dabholkar who was killed in 2013 and Pansare who was killed in 2015. "We cannot allow such serious matters to linger for years. We cannot allow constitutional rights to be taken away. Enough damage has been caused already. Has any senior official from the two agencies bothered to find out why the probe is not getting any head away?" the court asked. The case has now been posted for next hearing on December 21. According to reports, Padmavati may release in February after its producers decided to postpone the movie.

Bombay High Court slams  rightist group seeking ban on Padmavati

<p>The film Padmavati has raised much rubble in India. While everyone is talking about Rani Padmavati&#39;s pride and honour, no one is telling that Allaudin was a brutal emperor. For the sake of better historical perspective, it is crucial to discuss what was the condition of India during the time of Khilji rule and why Padmavati did Jauhar. Without reading about Khilji and Padmavati&#39;s history, it is difficult to know about the controversy.</p>

<p>My argument is, Allaudin Khilji was not a glamorous king. Instead, he was a brutal one. I am sure that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has not done any homework to establish this.</p>

<p>Without knowing the history, it is difficult to understand the present situation.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Recently, Mr Bhansali showed his movie to a few media persons and it has become an issue now. &nbsp;How can he, in a special screening, show the movie to a group of people of his preference without getting the certificate? Even the Rajput communities who are protesting against the movie wanted such special screening but Mr Bhansali never had time for that.</p>

<p>This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. So many people have entered the controversy now. Even those who were not even popular have become popular now. Such people are doing things like threatening Deepika and announcing a bounty of 10cr on Mr Bhansali. These people, particularly, Lokendra Singh Kalvi is looking only for cheap publicity.</p>

<p>Actually, this has become the easiest way to appear on TV. As soon as the people have given the statement, then immediately he will become the hero on media and he will start appearing on news debates. Using such foul language makes them celebrity overnight and even media helps them.</p>

<p>How Mr Bhansali has portrayed Khilji will become clear only after watching the movie. To understand his personality, we have to read about him in various popular books on him written by famous historians.</p>

<p>There is this book, &#39;Khilji Kalin Bharat&#39; written by world-renowned historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, which has the documented the history from 1290 to 1320.</p>

<p>This book incorporates translation of Ziauddin Barni, Amir Khusrow, Emasi (or Imasi), Yahya, Ibn Battuta, Farishta and Abdullah.</p>

<p>Historians are unanimous about the fact that Khilji was a cruel ruler. He has killed many to acquire and invade. For Allaudin, beheading and torturing someone was a game. There was a huge section of society which was suffering during his rule. After reading the book it is very clear that Khilji is even more dangerous than ISIS leader Baghdadi and Taliban terrorists.</p>

<p>700 years ago Rani Padmavati did Jauhar. The release has been postponed but still, Karni Sena wants the special screening for themselves. Rajput communities are not trusting Mr Bhansali on the content of the movie.</p>

<p>This row is not going to end anytime sooner. History has a portrayal of Padmavati&#39;s Jauhar and Khilji&#39;s brutality.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi&#39;s Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In medieval history, killing innocents was very common to win the throne.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi&#39;s Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. He killed both of Jalaluddin&#39;s sons, its written on page 46 of Rizvi&#39;s book. Khilji also killed one of his cousin Akat Khan by beheading him.</p>

<p>Allaudin never respected any religion, something which Rizvi mentions again on page 47 of his book.</p>

<p>Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi also mentioned about Allaudin&#39;s brutality and said that he did all notorious things to save his power.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/image-1-20171124014537.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>&#39;Khalji Kaleen Bharat&#39;, a book written by Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi. (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>On page 29, there is a mention that there was a Hindu deity made of brass metal; it was kept in a temple in Madhya Pradesh that was destroyed and the metal was converted into various things and was sent to Delhi.</p>

<p>Also on page 68, its mentioned that during the rule of Khilji, he made various policies to suppress Hindus.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If Mr Bhansali has taken all the points from history and uses Padmavati&#39;s name, then he has to take care of many other things written in history books, and after knowing all the things only he must glamourise the character of Khilji.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There are many people who are supporting their argument by saying that it is freedom of expression and speech. Article 19(1) gives freedom of speech but same way article 19(2) says Indian security and integrity must be kept in mind while talking about freedom of speech and expression.</p>

<p>It means freedom of expression is good but one must know his responsibilities and should act with maturity.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)</em></p>


History must not be distorted in the name of 'Freedom of Expression', characters who have dark history, such as Alauddin Khilji must not be glamourised.

The film Padmavati has raised much rubble in India. While everyone is talking about Rani Padmavati's pride and honour, no one is telling that Allaudin was a brutal emperor. For the sake of better historical perspective, it is crucial to discuss what was the condition of India during the time of Khilji rule and why Padmavati did Jauhar. Without reading about Khilji and Padmavati's history, it is difficult to know about the controversy. My argument is, Allaudin Khilji was not a glamorous king. Instead, he was a brutal one. I am sure that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has not done any homework to establish this. Without knowing the history, it is difficult to understand the present situation. This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. × Recently, Mr Bhansali showed his movie to a few media persons and it has become an issue now. How can he, in a special screening, show the movie to a group of people of his preference without getting the certificate? Even the Rajput communities who are protesting against the movie wanted such special screening but Mr Bhansali never had time for that. This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. So many people have entered the controversy now. Even those who were not even popular have become popular now. Such people are doing things like threatening Deepika and announcing a bounty of 10cr on Mr Bhansali. These people, particularly, Lokendra Singh Kalvi is looking only for cheap publicity. Actually, this has become the easiest way to appear on TV. As soon as the people have given the statement, then immediately he will become the hero on media and he will start appearing on news debates. Using such foul language makes them celebrity overnight and even media helps them. How Mr Bhansali has portrayed Khilji will become clear only after watching the movie. To understand his personality, we have to read about him in various popular books on him written by famous historians. There is this book, 'Khilji Kalin Bharat' written by world-renowned historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, which has the documented the history from 1290 to 1320. This book incorporates translation of Ziauddin Barni, Amir Khusrow, Emasi (or Imasi), Yahya, Ibn Battuta, Farishta and Abdullah. Historians are unanimous about the fact that Khilji was a cruel ruler. He has killed many to acquire and invade. For Allaudin, beheading and torturing someone was a game. There was a huge section of society which was suffering during his rule. After reading the book it is very clear that Khilji is even more dangerous than ISIS leader Baghdadi and Taliban terrorists. 700 years ago Rani Padmavati did Jauhar. The release has been postponed but still, Karni Sena wants the special screening for themselves. Rajput communities are not trusting Mr Bhansali on the content of the movie. This row is not going to end anytime sooner. History has a portrayal of Padmavati's Jauhar and Khilji's brutality. Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. × In medieval history, killing innocents was very common to win the throne. Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. He killed both of Jalaluddin's sons, its written on page 46 of Rizvi's book. Khilji also killed one of his cousin Akat Khan by beheading him. Allaudin never respected any religion, something which Rizvi mentions again on page 47 of his book. Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi also mentioned about Allaudin's brutality and said that he did all notorious things to save his power. 'Khalji Kaleen Bharat', a book written by Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi. (Others) × On page 29, there is a mention that there was a Hindu deity made of brass metal; it was kept in a temple in Madhya Pradesh that was destroyed and the metal was converted into various things and was sent to Delhi. Also on page 68, its mentioned that during the rule of Khilji, he made various policies to suppress Hindus. If Mr Bhansali has taken all the points from history and uses Padmavati's name, then he has to take care of many other things written in history books, and after knowing all the things only he must glamourise the character of Khilji. There are many people who are supporting their argument by saying that it is freedom of expression and speech. Article 19(1) gives freedom of speech but same way article 19(2) says Indian security and integrity must be kept in mind while talking about freedom of speech and expression. It means freedom of expression is good but one must know his responsibilities and should act with maturity. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)

Opinion: Alauddin Khilji was brutal; Bhansali should not glamourise him

<p>Facebook is challenging a gag order from a US court that prevents&nbsp;the company from talking about three government search warrants. The tech giant said these warrants&nbsp;pose a threat to freedom of speech, according to court documents.</p>

<p>Facebook said it wants to notify three users about the search warrants seeking their communications and information and give these users an opportunity to object to the warrants, according to a filing in a Washington, DC appeals court.</p>

<p>&#39;We believe there are important First Amendment concerns with this case, including the government&#39;s refusal to let us notify three people of broad requests for their account information in connection with public events,&#39; Facebook said.</p>

<p>The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees certain rights including freedom of speech.</p>

<p>William Miller, a spokesman for US prosecutors, declined to comment.</p>

<p>Facebook decided to challenge the gag order around the three warrants because free speech was at stake and because the events underlying the government&#39;s investigation were generally known to the public already.</p>

<p>The precise nature of the government&#39;s investigation is not known. One document in the case said the timing of proceedings coincides with charges against people who protested President Donald Trump&#39;s inauguration in January.</p>

<p>More than 200 people were arrested in Washington the day Trump was sworn in. Masked activists threw rocks at police, and multiple vehicles were set on fire.</p>

<p>Tech firms comply with thousands of requests for user data annually made by governments around the world, but in extraordinary circumstances, companies such as Microsoft and Twitter have challenged government secrecy orders.</p>

<p>Facebook recently fought a secrecy order related to a disability fraud investigation, losing in April in New York state&#39;s highest court.</p>

<p>Companies and privacy advocates argue that gag orders rely on outdated laws and are applied too often, sometimes indefinitely, to bar them from notifying customers about government requests for their private online data. Facebook says about half of US requests are accompanied by a non-disclosure order prohibiting it from notifying affected users.</p>

<p>In April, a local judge in Washington denied Facebook&#39;s request to remove the gag order there, according to the document. Facebook is appealing and has preserved the relevant records pending the outcome, the document said.</p>

<p>&#39;The government can only insulate its actions from public scrutiny in this way in the rarest circumstances, which likely do not apply here,&#39;said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates for digital rights.</p>

<p>Facebook is getting support in court papers from several organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as eight tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple.</p>

<p>The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in Washington for local matters, is scheduled to hear the case in September, according to an order obtained by BuzzFeed News.&nbsp;</p>


Facebook wants to notify three users about search warrants for their communications and give them an opportunity to make legal objections

Facebook is challenging a gag order from a US court that prevents the company from talking about three government search warrants. The tech giant said these warrants pose a threat to freedom of speech, according to court documents. Facebook said it wants to notify three users about the search warrants seeking their communications and information and give these users an opportunity to object to the warrants, according to a filing in a Washington, DC appeals court. 'We believe there are important First Amendment concerns with this case, including the government's refusal to let us notify three people of broad requests for their account information in connection with public events,' Facebook said. The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees certain rights including freedom of speech. William Miller, a spokesman for US prosecutors, declined to comment. Facebook decided to challenge the gag order around the three warrants because free speech was at stake and because the events underlying the government's investigation were generally known to the public already. The precise nature of the government's investigation is not known. One document in the case said the timing of proceedings coincides with charges against people who protested President Donald Trump's inauguration in January. More than 200 people were arrested in Washington the day Trump was sworn in. Masked activists threw rocks at police, and multiple vehicles were set on fire. Tech firms comply with thousands of requests for user data annually made by governments around the world, but in extraordinary circumstances, companies such as Microsoft and Twitter have challenged government secrecy orders. Facebook recently fought a secrecy order related to a disability fraud investigation, losing in April in New York state's highest court. Companies and privacy advocates argue that gag orders rely on outdated laws and are applied too often, sometimes indefinitely, to bar them from notifying customers about government requests for their private online data. Facebook says about half of US requests are accompanied by a non-disclosure order prohibiting it from notifying affected users. In April, a local judge in Washington denied Facebook's request to remove the gag order there, according to the document. Facebook is appealing and has preserved the relevant records pending the outcome, the document said. 'The government can only insulate its actions from public scrutiny in this way in the rarest circumstances, which likely do not apply here,'said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates for digital rights. Facebook is getting support in court papers from several organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as eight tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in Washington for local matters, is scheduled to hear the case in September, according to an order obtained by BuzzFeed News.

Facebook fights US gag order that it says kills free speech

<p>&ldquo;Can someone find me an article by Arundhati Roy on the atrocities on minorities in Bangladesh, Pakistan and situation in Tibet?&rdquo; asked one of my Facebook friends in his status. This question, needless to say, is a nonquestion. The answer &ndash; no, we haven&rsquo;t, because she never wrote one &ndash; is right there on the face of the question.</p>

<p>I tried to Google Roy&rsquo;s writing on the said issues and indeed found none. Even if she had written something, those do not get caught in Google&rsquo;s net. Her not criticising China or Pakistan for many is a tell-all sign that she is not neutral and therefore, can be ignored. Interestingly, the burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists. The jingoist newscaster&rsquo;s general silence about violence against minorities and underprivileged people does not make him any less an expert when it comes to criticising such incidences in other countries. The Nation never wants to know about Dalit massacre!&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>But that is a different question altogether. Let us rather push the question of neutrality a little further and examine why neutrality is important for an author&rsquo;s credibility. The doctrine of neutrality asserts that unless one criticises other countries (by that I mean China and Pakistan, not the US! Come on!) for their violation of human rights, her criticism of Indian state&rsquo;s human rights violation does not stand valid. In other words, one loses her credibility if she specialises in the field of human rights violation in India.</p>

<p>Such standard for judging one&rsquo;s credibility is surprising because in almost every other field specialisation is valued. In fact, if you look in other countries for people who are famous for their human rights campaigns, you find them specialising on human rights violation in one country &ndash; usually their motherland. Liu Xiaobo, for example, who won Nobel Prize for his struggle against the authoritarian regime in China, did not write much on India&rsquo;s human rights situation (a more accurate statement is that Google did not turn up any of Xiaobo&rsquo;s writing on India, as it did not any of Ray&rsquo;s writing on China). Does that make Liu&rsquo;s criticisms any less valid? I think not.</p>

<p>Why then, the neutrality argument has gained so much credibility among the public? Why does the labeling of the author rather than the critical understanding of her argument become so important? The strategy of author labeling usually becomes important when readers cannot comprehend the author&rsquo;s arguments entirely. The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it. For example, while reading a popular article on physics, I may end up believing the results without verifying the analysis, if it is written by a famous physicist.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>There is also a flip side -- readers may refuse to buy author&rsquo;s argument simply because it clashes with their long cherished values. In the latter case, the author labeling helps discredit her argument because the readers do not have enough command over the subject to discredit the argument itself. These two scenarios are the sides of the same coin. In both cases the reader does not completely understand the logic &ndash; he simply accepts or rejects the author&rsquo;s view based on the labels attached to her. In the former, he uses the author&rsquo;s label to believe in her writing, while in the latter he uses the label to discredit her.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Such labels are easily available when it comes to subjects which are taught in the universities. A reader believes in an article on a medical breakthrough if the author has a degree in medicine. The question becomes much more difficult when it comes to say, for instance, morality. Institutional labels in such cases come in a clash with people&rsquo;s value system; nobody is going to follow an author&rsquo;s sermon on morality just because she is a professor of ethics.&nbsp;</p>

<p>So it is not simply a question of whether the author&rsquo;s credential comes from an institution like university whose primary function is to label one&rsquo;s expertise. The important thing is the political intensity of the question the author raises. Of course, in a post-Foucauldian world, no knowledge system, let alone Physics, can be seen as non-political. But the disciplines differ in degree of subtlety with which they embody the knowledge politics. The discussion of Physics is less political than the discussion of the state as the latter has larger implication for the polity.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, such statement regarding subtlety of politics in physics should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, it was the discussion of astrophysics which landed one man in jail (Galileo Galilei) and another on the burning&ndash;stake (Giordano Bruno) not more than five hundred years ago! Nevertheless, at least in the current context, issues such as democracy or human rights are more politically charged than say discussion of physics.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself &ndash; sometimes literally.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself ? sometimes literally. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Whenever an author takes a political position through her writing, she is bound to displease a section of the society. The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself &ndash; sometimes literally. The easiest way to take down the author is to give her a label. The label keeps changing with time as the label of heretic makes way for the label of anti-national (or China-Pak sympathiser for that matter). But the implication remains the same &ndash; label the voice of dissent as the one with vested interest. They used to be devil&rsquo;s agents discrediting the church, now they are foreign agents discrediting the Indian state.</p>

<p>This strategy of author labeling is a conscious political game &ndash; it shifts the terms of the debate from what is being said to who is saying it. This works well with a frenzied mob. Tearing down some arguments is always more difficult than labeling one in an unfavorable colour and requires intensive usage of one&rsquo;s capacity for reasoning. This is more so in a state of mass paranoia when people love to embrace jingoistic slogans over logical arguments. In the current age of information boom, this is truer than ever. The flood of unverified information in all social media makes it almost impossible for a common man to verify the authenticity of every piece of information he receives through his social media. As the line between fact and fiction gets thinner in common perception, fact-based debates become more redundant and usage of labels gets stronger.&nbsp;</p>

<p>India now stands at a critical juncture as the liberals are finding it increasingly hard to hold the line against the jingoistic fervor. Nevertheless, making the voices of dissent survive is critical for the country&rsquo;s future as a thriving democracy. Changing the terms of the debates from labeling the authors to dissecting the contents of discussion can be one small step in this big battle. &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Strategy of author labeling is a conscious political game: it shifts the terms of the debate from what is being said to who is saying it

“Can someone find me an article by Arundhati Roy on the atrocities on minorities in Bangladesh, Pakistan and situation in Tibet?” asked one of my Facebook friends in his status. This question, needless to say, is a nonquestion. The answer – no, we haven’t, because she never wrote one – is right there on the face of the question. I tried to Google Roy’s writing on the said issues and indeed found none. Even if she had written something, those do not get caught in Google’s net. Her not criticising China or Pakistan for many is a tell-all sign that she is not neutral and therefore, can be ignored. Interestingly, the burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists. The jingoist newscaster’s general silence about violence against minorities and underprivileged people does not make him any less an expert when it comes to criticising such incidences in other countries. The Nation never wants to know about Dalit massacre! The burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists. × But that is a different question altogether. Let us rather push the question of neutrality a little further and examine why neutrality is important for an author’s credibility. The doctrine of neutrality asserts that unless one criticises other countries (by that I mean China and Pakistan, not the US! Come on!) for their violation of human rights, her criticism of Indian state’s human rights violation does not stand valid. In other words, one loses her credibility if she specialises in the field of human rights violation in India. Such standard for judging one’s credibility is surprising because in almost every other field specialisation is valued. In fact, if you look in other countries for people who are famous for their human rights campaigns, you find them specialising on human rights violation in one country – usually their motherland. Liu Xiaobo, for example, who won Nobel Prize for his struggle against the authoritarian regime in China, did not write much on India’s human rights situation (a more accurate statement is that Google did not turn up any of Xiaobo’s writing on India, as it did not any of Ray’s writing on China). Does that make Liu’s criticisms any less valid? I think not. Why then, the neutrality argument has gained so much credibility among the public? Why does the labeling of the author rather than the critical understanding of her argument become so important? The strategy of author labeling usually becomes important when readers cannot comprehend the author’s arguments entirely. The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it. For example, while reading a popular article on physics, I may end up believing the results without verifying the analysis, if it is written by a famous physicist. The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it. × There is also a flip side -- readers may refuse to buy author’s argument simply because it clashes with their long cherished values. In the latter case, the author labeling helps discredit her argument because the readers do not have enough command over the subject to discredit the argument itself. These two scenarios are the sides of the same coin. In both cases the reader does not completely understand the logic – he simply accepts or rejects the author’s view based on the labels attached to her. In the former, he uses the author’s label to believe in her writing, while in the latter he uses the label to discredit her. Such labels are easily available when it comes to subjects which are taught in the universities. A reader believes in an article on a medical breakthrough if the author has a degree in medicine. The question becomes much more difficult when it comes to say, for instance, morality. Institutional labels in such cases come in a clash with people’s value system; nobody is going to follow an author’s sermon on morality just because she is a professor of ethics. So it is not simply a question of whether the author’s credential comes from an institution like university whose primary function is to label one’s expertise. The important thing is the political intensity of the question the author raises. Of course, in a post-Foucauldian world, no knowledge system, let alone Physics, can be seen as non-political. But the disciplines differ in degree of subtlety with which they embody the knowledge politics. The discussion of Physics is less political than the discussion of the state as the latter has larger implication for the polity. However, such statement regarding subtlety of politics in physics should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, it was the discussion of astrophysics which landed one man in jail (Galileo Galilei) and another on the burning–stake (Giordano Bruno) not more than five hundred years ago! Nevertheless, at least in the current context, issues such as democracy or human rights are more politically charged than say discussion of physics. The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself – sometimes literally. × Whenever an author takes a political position through her writing, she is bound to displease a section of the society. The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself – sometimes literally. The easiest way to take down the author is to give her a label. The label keeps changing with time as the label of heretic makes way for the label of anti-national (or China-Pak sympathiser for that matter). But the implication remains the same – label the voice of dissent as the one with vested interest. They used to be devil’s agents discrediting the church, now they are foreign agents discrediting the Indian state. This strategy of author labeling is a conscious political game – it shifts the terms of the debate from what is being said to who is saying it. This works well with a frenzied mob. Tearing down some arguments is always more difficult than labeling one in an unfavorable colour and requires intensive usage of one’s capacity for reasoning. This is more so in a state of mass paranoia when people love to embrace jingoistic slogans over logical arguments. In the current age of information boom, this is truer than ever. The flood of unverified information in all social media makes it almost impossible for a common man to verify the authenticity of every piece of information he receives through his social media. As the line between fact and fiction gets thinner in common perception, fact-based debates become more redundant and usage of labels gets stronger. India now stands at a critical juncture as the liberals are finding it increasingly hard to hold the line against the jingoistic fervor. Nevertheless, making the voices of dissent survive is critical for the country’s future as a thriving democracy. Changing the terms of the debates from labeling the authors to dissecting the contents of discussion can be one small step in this big battle.

The burden of neutrality in an intolerant age

China&#39;s Internet regulator has launched a new campaign to clean up the comments sections on websites to prevent the spread of what it calls harmful information and to encourage what it considers more helpful, well-intentioned comments to appear.<br />
<br />
The Chinese government already exercises widespread controls over the Internet and has sought to codify that policy in Law.<br />
<br />
In a statement late on Tuesday, the Cyberspace Administration of China said the crackdown on comments sections was aimed at tackling &quot;outstanding problems&quot;.<br />
<br />
Deputy head of the administration, Ren Xianliang, was quoted as saying in a statement that they wanted to carry out a large-scale &quot;cleanse&quot; of the comments sections and make it easier for people to report illegal or harmful content.<br />
<br />
&quot;Proactively foster a healthy, positive internet culture, and let cultured comment, rational posts and well-intentioned responses become the order of the day online,&quot; Ren said.<br />
<br />
Online media must make sure their stories are not simply &quot;click-bait&quot; and that they fulfil their responsibilities to society and make sure they properly control online comments to &quot;allow the Internet to better benefit the people&quot;, Ren added.<br />
<br />
Officials say internet restrictions, including the blocking of popular foreign sites like Google and Facebook, are needed to ensure security in the face of rising threats, such as terrorism.<br />
<br />
Foreign governments and business groups have pointed to restrictions on the Internet as a broader trade issue.<br />
<br />
(Reuters)

Beijing says the idea is to 'proactively foster a healthy, positive internet culture'

China's Internet regulator has launched a new campaign to clean up the comments sections on websites to prevent the spread of what it calls harmful information and to encourage what it considers more helpful, well-intentioned comments to appear. The Chinese government already exercises widespread controls over the Internet and has sought to codify that policy in Law. In a statement late on Tuesday, the Cyberspace Administration of China said the crackdown on comments sections was aimed at tackling "outstanding problems". Deputy head of the administration, Ren Xianliang, was quoted as saying in a statement that they wanted to carry out a large-scale "cleanse" of the comments sections and make it easier for people to report illegal or harmful content. "Proactively foster a healthy, positive internet culture, and let cultured comment, rational posts and well-intentioned responses become the order of the day online," Ren said. Online media must make sure their stories are not simply "click-bait" and that they fulfil their responsibilities to society and make sure they properly control online comments to "allow the Internet to better benefit the people", Ren added. Officials say internet restrictions, including the blocking of popular foreign sites like Google and Facebook, are needed to ensure security in the face of rising threats, such as terrorism. Foreign governments and business groups have pointed to restrictions on the Internet as a broader trade issue. (Reuters)

China Internet regulator to eliminate online comments

<p>At least a dozen countries are considering, or have enacted laws restricting online speech, a trend that is alarming policy-makers and others who see the internet as a valuable medium for debate and expression.<br />
<br />
Such curbs are called out as a threat to the open internet in a report on internet governance set to be released today at an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development meeting in Cancun, Mexico.<br />
<br />
The report, reviewed by Reuters, warns of dangers for the global internet, including intrusive surveillance, rising cyber-crime and fragmentation, as governments exert control of online content.<br />
<br />
It was prepared by the London-based Chatham House think-tank and the Centre for International Governance Innovation, founded by former BlackBerry Ltd co-chief Jim Balsillie.<br />
<br />
China and Iran long have restricted online speech. Now limitations are under discussion in countries that have had a more open approach to speech, including Brazil, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bolivia, Kenya and Nigeria.<br />
<br />
Advocates said some of the proposals would criminalise conversations online that otherwise would be protected under the countries&#39; constitutions.<br />
<br />
Some use broad language to outlaw online postings that &quot;disturb the public order&quot; or &quot;convey false statements&quot; - formulations that could enable crackdowns on political speech, critics said.<br />
<br />
&quot;Free expression is one of the foundational elements of the internet,&quot; said Michael Chertoff, former US secretary of Homeland Security and a co-author of the internet governance report. &quot;It shouldn&#39;t be protecting the political interests of the ruling party or something of that sort.&quot;<br />
<br />
Turkey and Thailand also have cracked down on online speech, and a number of developing world countries have unplugged social media sites altogether during elections and other sensitive moments. In the US as well, some have called for restrictions on Internet communications.<br />
<br />
Speech limitations create business and ethical conflicts for companies like Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc&#39;s Google platforms for debate and political organising.<br />
<br />
&quot;This is the next evolution of political suppression,&quot; said Richard Forno, assistant director of University of Maryland, Baltimore County Center for Cybersecurity. &quot;Technology facilitates freedom of expression, and politicians don&#39;t like that.&quot;<br />
<br />
<strong>Fighting deliquencies</strong><br />
<br />
Tanzania and Ethiopia have passed laws restricting online speech. In other countries, including Pakistan, Brazil, Bolivia and Kenya, proposals are under discussion or under legislative consideration, according to a review of laws by Reuters and reports by Internet activist groups.<br />
<br />
In Bolivia, President Evo Morales earlier this year said that the country needs to &quot;regulate the social networks.&quot; A bill has been drafted and is ready for introduction in the legislature, said Leonardo Loza, head of one of Bolivia&#39;s coca growers&#39; unions, a supporter of the proposal.<br />
<br />
&quot;It is aimed at educating and disciplining people, particularly young Bolivians, and fighting delinquency on social networks,&quot; Loza said. &quot;Freedom of expression can&#39;t be lying to the people or insulting citizens and politicians.&quot;<br />
<br />
A bill in Pakistan would allow the government to block internet content to protect the &quot;integrity, security or defense&quot; of the state. The legislation, which has passed a vote in Pakistan&#39;s lower house of Parliament, is supposed to target terrorism, but critics said the language is broad.<br />
<br />
It comes after Pakistan blocked YouTube in 2012 when a video it deemed inflammatory sparked protests across the country and much of the Muslim world.<br />
<br />
Earlier this year, YouTube, which is owned by Google, agreed to launch a local version of its site in the country. But now, the internet report said, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority can ask the company to remove any material it finds offensive.<br />
<br />
<strong>Companies in the cross-fire</strong><br />
<br />
US internet companies have faced mounting pressure in recent years to restrict content. Companies&#39; terms of service lay out what users can and cannot post, and they said they apply a single standard globally. They aim to comply with local laws, but often confront demands to remove even legal content.<br />
<br />
The new laws threaten to raise a whole new set of compliance and enforcement issues.<br />
<br />
&quot;There&#39;s a technical question, which is, could you comply if you wanted to, and then the bigger meta question is why would you want to cooperate with this politicised drive to suppress freedom of expression,&quot; said Andrew McLaughlin, Google&#39;s former director of global policy and now leading content organisation at Medium.<br />
<br />
Facebook, Twitter and Google declined to comment for this story.<br />
<br />
(Reuters)</p>


A dozen countries want to enact laws that criminalise online conversations

At least a dozen countries are considering, or have enacted laws restricting online speech, a trend that is alarming policy-makers and others who see the internet as a valuable medium for debate and expression. Such curbs are called out as a threat to the open internet in a report on internet governance set to be released today at an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development meeting in Cancun, Mexico. The report, reviewed by Reuters, warns of dangers for the global internet, including intrusive surveillance, rising cyber-crime and fragmentation, as governments exert control of online content. It was prepared by the London-based Chatham House think-tank and the Centre for International Governance Innovation, founded by former BlackBerry Ltd co-chief Jim Balsillie. China and Iran long have restricted online speech. Now limitations are under discussion in countries that have had a more open approach to speech, including Brazil, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bolivia, Kenya and Nigeria. Advocates said some of the proposals would criminalise conversations online that otherwise would be protected under the countries' constitutions. Some use broad language to outlaw online postings that "disturb the public order" or "convey false statements" - formulations that could enable crackdowns on political speech, critics said. "Free expression is one of the foundational elements of the internet," said Michael Chertoff, former US secretary of Homeland Security and a co-author of the internet governance report. "It shouldn't be protecting the political interests of the ruling party or something of that sort." Turkey and Thailand also have cracked down on online speech, and a number of developing world countries have unplugged social media sites altogether during elections and other sensitive moments. In the US as well, some have called for restrictions on Internet communications. Speech limitations create business and ethical conflicts for companies like Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google platforms for debate and political organising. "This is the next evolution of political suppression," said Richard Forno, assistant director of University of Maryland, Baltimore County Center for Cybersecurity. "Technology facilitates freedom of expression, and politicians don't like that." Fighting deliquencies Tanzania and Ethiopia have passed laws restricting online speech. In other countries, including Pakistan, Brazil, Bolivia and Kenya, proposals are under discussion or under legislative consideration, according to a review of laws by Reuters and reports by Internet activist groups. In Bolivia, President Evo Morales earlier this year said that the country needs to "regulate the social networks." A bill has been drafted and is ready for introduction in the legislature, said Leonardo Loza, head of one of Bolivia's coca growers' unions, a supporter of the proposal. "It is aimed at educating and disciplining people, particularly young Bolivians, and fighting delinquency on social networks," Loza said. "Freedom of expression can't be lying to the people or insulting citizens and politicians." A bill in Pakistan would allow the government to block internet content to protect the "integrity, security or defense" of the state. The legislation, which has passed a vote in Pakistan's lower house of Parliament, is supposed to target terrorism, but critics said the language is broad. It comes after Pakistan blocked YouTube in 2012 when a video it deemed inflammatory sparked protests across the country and much of the Muslim world. Earlier this year, YouTube, which is owned by Google, agreed to launch a local version of its site in the country. But now, the internet report said, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority can ask the company to remove any material it finds offensive. Companies in the cross-fire US internet companies have faced mounting pressure in recent years to restrict content. Companies' terms of service lay out what users can and cannot post, and they said they apply a single standard globally. They aim to comply with local laws, but often confront demands to remove even legal content. The new laws threaten to raise a whole new set of compliance and enforcement issues. "There's a technical question, which is, could you comply if you wanted to, and then the bigger meta question is why would you want to cooperate with this politicised drive to suppress freedom of expression," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's former director of global policy and now leading content organisation at Medium. Facebook, Twitter and Google declined to comment for this story. (Reuters)

Curb on online speech threat to open internet, says international report