Waldron’s definition, hate speech refers to utterances that incite violence, hatred, or discrimination against people on the basis of their collective identity, be it race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality. This view is predicated on a philosophical defence which is perhaps best exemplified in the works of the scholar, Jeremy Waldron. But in attempting to draw a line, it might be valuable to study the basic thesis that undergirds a consensus across most liberal democracies - with the notable exception of the United States - on why states must deny protection to hate speech.
MADARAS SPEECH FREE
But that it is fraught with difficulties must not deter the Court from delineating what has long remained ambiguous.Ī working definition of hate speech will have to be gleaned by interpreting our laws in conjunction with the constitutional right to free speech. To be sure, this exercise has to be delicately handled. This case, therefore, represents something of an opportunity: to infuse clarity in our legislation by identifying the distinction between merely offensive speech and hate speech, and by making clearer still those categories of exceptional cases where the Constitution permits prior restraint. The Supreme Court’s own past precedent has scarcely helped clarify matters. The channel’s contempt for facts, and its attempt to denigrate Muslims, might appear to be an obvious case of hate speech, but our laws present several complications when an attempt is made to distinguish permissible speech from hateful criminal conduct. Media should not target minorities: Supreme Court Delineating the ambiguous
MADARAS SPEECH CODE
Therefore, even on the face of it, the episodes had brought the entire Muslim community into “public hatred and disrepute”, and, in the process, had breached the Programme Code that regulated cable television.
These assertions, the Court noted, were not only “insidious” but were also made in “wanton disregard of the truth”. For example, it claimed that the upper age limit for Hindus attempting the civil service examination was 32 years, while the age limit for Muslims was 35 that Muslims were entitled to nine attempts at the examination when Hindus were entitled only to six. To this allegation, the show added a number of evidently false statements. Jihadi conspiracy by Muslims to infiltrate India’s civil services
MADARAS SPEECH SERIES
But circumstances changed - following the Court’s original order, four episodes in the series were aired, portraying what the channel described as a
This decision marked a departure from an order delivered on August 28, when the Court said that it must be circumspect in imposing any prior restraint on speech, especially since statutory authorities were vested with powers to ensure compliance of the law. Supreme Court of India injuncted a Hindi-language television channel, Sudarshan News, from continuing its broadcast of a series titled “Bindas Bol”.
0 kommentar(er)
