Comment by vthallam | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vthallam | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Beyond your first 2 arguments I don't believe a thing you said is true or relevant.

> The Indian government has been curbing free speech and attempting to increase its control on speech over time.

Any specific examples please?

> If not for the Supreme Court, which runs on its own pace and rhythm, India would've become an authoritarian "democracy"

That's a very stretchy argument. India is not even 2% closer to authoritarian state and with 10's of political parties and a very strong democracy, I don't think we need to worry about that.

> India has a restricted form of free speech, where vague terms like public order, affecting the sentiments of others on religious grounds

Every country has that. Go say like "X religion is bad or the way things happen with Y religion people is crazy". You don't get to use your freedom of speech to incite anger in the masses.

> India doesn't yet have a data privacy law either

This is true. India should have a privacy law and I hope it comes sooner than later. But, India is just getting there in terms of digital penetration. So it will take time obviously. Just don't look at the West and feel bad.

>Every country has that. Go say like "X religion is bad or the way things happen with Y religion people is crazy". You don't get to use your freedom of speech to incite anger in the masses.

No they don't. The US is pretty unique in having absolute freedom of speech, but plenty of countries leave religion unprotected.

The US does not have "absolute freedom of speech". Try sending a believable death threat to a federal politician on twitter (don't, the secret service will track you down and arrest you- it happens more than you think)

You have the absolute right to say what you want, and the words you say to your target in your threat are not punishable. That is what free speech means in the US.

However, the act of threatening someone is punishable, and it does not matter whether they are a politician or an ordinary person. What matters is that you committed the act of threatening to kill someone, and that is a crime regardless of the medium or act through which the threat is conveyed.

This is not what freedom of speech means.

You can, ie, argue how death penalties should be applied to politicians who violate a certain rule.

You cannot and should not be able to threaten one specific individual. If anything, we need more of that kind of enforcement. So many deaths could be prevented if only all jurisdictions handled this matter as seriously as the Secret Service does.

EDIT: wording

What does "absolute freedom of speech" mean exactly? I'm well aware that "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can say anything to anyone at any time. But the parent is referencing something that I'm pretty sure does not exist.

> The US is pretty unique in having absolute freedom of speech

Does hate speech against a religious community protected under freedom of speech in the US? Because my comment earlier was in that context.

Yes. Unless that language specifically incites immediate violence and actually results in the incited actions[+], it is protected under the First Amendment.

[+]Generally, under First Amendment law, such speech is treated as both speech and as action, and it is the action of inciting violence that is punished.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com