In India today Free Speech advocates and various internet users are protesting against Indian regulations restricting Web content that is considered "harassing" or "hateful". The objective of the new rules is to prevent citizens from saying things that could “threaten the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order.” However, although India's constitution allows "reasonable restrictions" on freedom of speech, many lawmakers have stretched their limits and have banned books, movies, and other material that involved subjects such as religion, sex, and politics. Today, many citizens are growing angry at these new rules and that they say "The rules overly favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression”.
Brittney Kubina
Armel's 1:00 P.M. Discussion
This is true. If the Indian constitution even allows "reasonable restrictions" on freedom of speech I don't see why the government is doing this. Maybe it is the fact that they do not want the Indian people to rebel against the government like some middle eastern countries have been doing, but would it not be that putting these restrictions on a population make them rebel against their government?
ReplyDeleteXisyenelly Pellicia Armel 10:00 am
I do not see the problem in regulating free speech. It happens all the time. Certain people feel that certain types of expression do not belong in the pulic sphere. It is mainly due to cultural differences. If we truly would like to advocate free speech we would have to accept "vulgarities" and pornography in public. I do believe that hate and harrasment should be controled since it never leads to anything positive. The major issue is how the law is enforced and if we can prevent abusive use of it.
ReplyDeleteThomas Zabaleta
Armel 10 AM
I do agree with you Tom. I have a very good example of something that is happening in America today although it has nothing to do with India. There is a christian church (Westboro Baptist church) that goes around protesting at dead soldiers funerals, and they say that they believe the only reason why our soldiers are dying in Iraq is because the United States is accepting of homosexuals.One of the fathers tried suing the church, but the courts ruled it as a freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteXisyenelly Pellicia Armel 10:00
Although I think some regulation of free speech would be ideal, some regulation could lead to more and more regulations. China, for example, has a lot of restrictions and cannot do many things. America's policy of free speech has a lot of flaws, but restriction could to oppression
ReplyDeleteCorina Vong
Ryan @ 1
Regulation of free speech is important to some extent. As a citizen of India myself, I think I have an idea as to what degree they are regulating free speech in India. I know that society looks down upon many Western traditions in India, so I have a feeling they are regulating arbitrary ideas so that the country does not become modernized. I don't really agree with regulating even more in India, only because I am somewhat biased already.
ReplyDeleteShravya Nadella
Armel's 10:00 A.M. Discussion
I also agree that it is important to regulate freedom of speech. Just like in America, other countries should have the authority to regulate speech within their country. Although, I do see bad intentions for Indian officials banning certain web content so it is understandable that there would be protesters.
ReplyDeleteSam Ungruh. Armel @ 1
I do agree that free speech should be regulated especially if it is preventing violence or other hateful actions. However, I would like there to be a better way to regulate this without people using this as an excuse to censor anything that my go against their agenda or cause protests (so long as they're peaceful!).
ReplyDelete-Manuel A. Beltran, Ryan, Fri. at 1pm
Regulating free speech perhaps, PERHAPS could make a difference in this case.. But i controlling it on the internet is never going to be achievable. Historically hate speech could never be controlled on the internet, regardless of the country. The internet is to global a medium.
ReplyDelete^
ReplyDeleteAbu Bakr Agha, Fri 1pm
I believe that reasonable should mean that you can't threaten to harm another person or threaten to kill a group of people. People need to be free to say what they want to even if it's against the government. I believe that if you don't then the people will get angry and revolt anyways. An current example would be the Middle East and North Africa. They are tried to limit the peoples free speech but they still revolted against the government.
ReplyDeleteMaira Iqbal
Armel 1pm
This issue also ties in with net neutrality that is becoming a legal hot-button in America and elsewhere. As it stands, governments have their own freedom of speech laws but its hard to regulate content on the internet, whenever that's tried people tend to move their servers elsewhere to a place that's less likely to stop them. I would highly disagree with restriction on free speech though especially this kind. There are limitations on free speech in the United States, the famous example being how you can't yell "Fire" in a public area and expect to get away with it, but removing some freedom of speech rights can lend itself towards further government clampdowns.
ReplyDeleteCullen Baldwin
Ryan @ 11
I personally do not see anything wrong about restricting Web content. This is because there are a lot of cultural difference around the world that should be respected. Many other countries already have restrictions on the internet, such as France and China. I think another reason for restrictions on the Web is that there is just too many false and insecure contents on the Web that may manipulate Indian citizens.
ReplyDeleteKevin Ho
Armel 1p.m.