tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post3869574769118368367..comments2024-03-27T17:16:12.789+05:30Comments on The Leap Blog: How to improve freedom of speech in IndiaAjay Shahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835842741008200034noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-66540585998018717082013-06-01T09:36:54.845+05:302013-06-01T09:36:54.845+05:30In India freedom of speech is curbed by the consti...In India freedom of speech is curbed by the constitution amendment itself and can be used against anyone if government feels offended, which is subjective<br />http://brainsickthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/free-speech/mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00864380347521951091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-91187781609845383982013-02-18T11:46:28.572+05:302013-02-18T11:46:28.572+05:30Jaggi's post with quotes from SC on the Nandy ...Jaggi's post with quotes from SC on the Nandy case is frightening. How does one deal with this issue of bad quality of judges? I guess lawmakers have to clarify the laws and not leave them open to wide interpretation, given the quality of judges. It should certainly give pause to people supporting things like Lok Pal which would give more power to such people in judiciary?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-45359611148846157662013-02-18T09:41:20.966+05:302013-02-18T09:41:20.966+05:30awesome comment! Bravo!
also agree wholeheartedly...awesome comment! Bravo!<br /><br />also agree wholeheartedly on the Tharoor criticism....he is still a diplomat who is simply focusing on (at times, balancing) 2 objectives: creating a good public image for himself and creating a good image for himself in Sonia Gandhi's eyes.<br /><br />He is probably doing some work in his constituency but that's it...Shailesh Sarafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643157152168525829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-26612425927270685222013-02-17T23:01:04.848+05:302013-02-17T23:01:04.848+05:30I thought Tharoor was quite disappointing in the i...I thought Tharoor was quite disappointing in the interview. He is improving though. I saw him show up in the media in defense of the govt's move for censorship of certain links (via Google). And, he had to beat a hasty retreat when he was informed that majority of the links were offensive against politicians (and not against religious sensitivities like he was claiming).<br /><br />The problem is that he is always going to be a diplomat. He will never, ever speak up in an unqualified manner for something. It is his job to lead. Unfortunately, a diplomat does not lead and Tharoor has not transitioned from a UN diplomat to a govt leader. Apparently, his bio says that he was in charge of image management at the UN. Oh Lord, please save us from such people.<br /><br />Blaming the media was again quite pathetic. Unfortunately, in our country, we think that someone who can put two sentences together is saying something profound, when all they are doing is beating around the bush. Our entire elite is like that these days. Superficial, no depth, no steadfastness, no sincerity.<br /><br />Its not all lost though. Manish Tewari and Jay Panda were far more clear and unambiguous in their statements. Love the fact that Jay Panda is not merely suggesting changes, but a clear repeal of the problematic portions. Bravo! Jay for PM!!<br /><br />What is ironic about these laws is that they themselves cause the most offense to the people who love freedom, and that is the greatest offense of all. So by their own interpretation, these laws are the most guilty. What irony! If ever there was a black hole in the legal system, this is it! A law that offends the majority by saying that offense is to be punished! The law framer should be in jail according to the law he/she framed. I wonder why people don't file counter FIRs on people who asked that Nandy be arrested? They were quite offensive to far more people, were they not? Lets take this to the logical conclusion in the courts... everyone in jail. I should file an FIR against court orders that banned something, because that was offensive. I suppose I would have to threaten violence, if that is what is needed to be taken seriously.Viveknoreply@blogger.com