
An Indian man in prison for cracking 'offensive' jokes - rishabhd
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46204954
======
Aloha
Stuff like this is why I keep standing up for free speech, even if I find what
the other person is saying to be reprehensible.

Breaching the wall of freedom of speech will almost invariably lead to these
kinds of prosecutions over time - people will eventually use speech laws to
regulate political opponents even.

~~~
justtopost
People forget the ACLU fought for the KKK for decades. I may not like what you
say, but as an american, I will fight and die for your right to say it. This
is the freedom that made the USA the melting pot and economic powerhouse it is
today.

~~~
gamblor956
The ACLU specifically fought for the right of KKK members to espouse racist
beliefs and to assemble as a group. They did not defend the KKK's practice of
lynching black and Jewish men.

------
winchling
And this man, who presumably wasn't trying to establish a Fourth Reich in
Scotland, was found guilty of 'grossly offensive' behaviour:

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pug-nazi-
salute-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pug-nazi-salute-
youtube-video-owner-guilty-hate-crime-mark-meechan-lanarkshire-a8265301.html)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Someone else posted about a very poor taste joke about Grenfell leading to an
arrest and people being put in custody, for real.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/05/police-
appea...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/05/police-appeal-video-
mock-up-grenfell-tower-burned)

That's mad. People who commit ABH, hit-and-runs, deal class A drugs and such
don't always get taken in to custody -- we regularly have reports (in our
local news) of people convicted who commit further crimes because they're out
on warrant/bail or only got a warning/fine -- making a bad joke that doesn't
physically harm anyone isn't an offense that should lead to imprisonment. You
tell them how insensitive it is, then you ignore them and leave them to wallow
in their own excrement.

>A spokesperson for the campaign group Justice4Grenfell said the video had
“caused great alarm and distress” //

Why did they watch it? They could probably say the same about Towering
Inferno, or an episode of Game of Thrones or myriad other things. It's all
getting ridiculous.

~~~
mayniac
>Why did they watch it? They could probably say the same about Towering
Inferno, or an episode of Game of Thrones or myriad other things. It's all
getting ridiculous.

...really?????

It was all over the news. We have the BBC on one screen at work constantly. I
saw the footage a few times the day after it happened completely
inadvertendly. Not to mention it being all over social media and pretty much
unavoidable.

"Just don't watch it" is an idiotic response.

~~~
vokep
It's a response to the BBC or anyone else rebroadcasting it too. I still
haven't seen it, maybe a screenshot, big deal, its pixels on a screen. Seeing
pixels on a screen should not cause great distress other than the _real_
distress that exists. If someone finds the knowledge that some racists did a
racist thing (that didn't actually harm anyone) extremely distressful, that
person should take extra care to avoid such information then, they are
abnormally sensitive. That is fine and understandable for an individual.

For everyone else, get over it.

------
commandlinefan
This is the world that the religious right wanted (but in their favor) in the
80's, that we all stood up to and rejected. How did we end up back here again?

~~~
intended
This question has vexed me all the while I have watched it unfold.

The first inkling I had that something was off, was a magazine article talking
about rising religiosity in middle eastern countries.

That’s the first time the movie, where humanity pushed back religion and
superstition, had tracking issues.

we saw that increasing wealth meant _even bigger_ displays of religious
dedication.

It turns out that a large part of the world has not had reason to go through
their version of the enlightenment.

But while they were gaining the ability to improve GDP, the west was busy
applying science to marketing, and business acumen to news reporting.

Effectively - we (humanity) used the tools of the enlightenment (science) to
improve marketing, and apply it to religion. We targeted weaknesses in human
thinking, and ruthlessly built bubbles of voters who didn’t need to fully
understand the world to succeed.

My conclusion is that we were naive.

~~~
hobs
Religiosity has had a stranglehold in "the west" and defined it at least a
thousand years. This is not a muslim problem.

The evangelicals are alive and well.

~~~
merpnderp
And thank god for that. Before western religion came to the forefront, the
idea of individual worth wasn’t really a thing and 99.9% of the world were
either some sort of slave or slavemaster.

~~~
hobs
Didnt downvote you, but Christianity has constant themes of slaves and
masters, being a slave to christ, and historically the cultures which adopted
christianity have continued to have slaves (pre and post adoption.)

Sooo, maybe? But I dont know if that point is well made.

~~~
merpnderp
It obviously wasn't a fast transition, but Christianity brought around the
concept of absolute religious equality. A novel idea to the world, and likely
the catalyst that changed thousands of years of slavery.

I know it isn't in fashion to credit Christianity with anything, but what
other philosophy of the era could have eventually ended slavery, given slavery
is likely the state of man ever since Grog the caveman threatened his brother-
son with a beating if he didn't fetch more water.

------
Tsubasachan
Makes me appreciate my own country where religion is a minority and offending
people is a legitimate art form.

~~~
i_am_nomad
Offending _certain_ people, no doubt. I'm sure there are some groups of people
in your country against whom no offense is permitted.

~~~
merpnderp
I’m guessing there’s only one country where you’re legally permitted to offend
every single group, no matter what. If there’s another I’ve never heard of it.

------
bruceb
For those who don't read the article, here is the amusing part:

"Ironically, earlier this year, Mr Iyer-Mitra tweeted that a criminal case
should be filed against American historian Audrey Truschke for allegedly
abusing a Hindu god and "hurting sentiments".

"Bog her down in the legal system - can't leave on bail," he wrote. He has
also tweeted about putting human rights activists and Communists in prison.
One of his friends told me that most of his tweets were written in jest and
"he now possibly regrets posting some of them".

When you call for jailing people based on opinions, well you never know when
your opinion is the one out of favor with those with power.

------
Yetanfou
The same thing happens in Sweden where an artist named Dan Park has been
sentenced to 3 months in prison [1, Swedish] for breaking the 'hets mot
folkgrupp' (incitement against a specific group) law. This is not the first
time he was sentenced to prison for his work, in 2014 he got 6 months for
another piece. The mentioned law is controversial in that it criminalises
speech or other forms of expression which is subjectively deemed to be
offensive against groups without specifying what it takes to actually violate
the law which makes it open to wide interpretation. Dan Park is critical of
the Swedish migration policies and uses controversial imagery to attract
attention to what he considers to be important issues. This used to be
possible without running the risk of imprisonment until an amendment to the
law was passed in 1982 [3].

This is the law text used [2]:

"Den som i uttalande eller i annat meddelande som sprids hotar eller uttrycker
missaktning för folkgrupp eller annan sådan grupp av personer med anspelning
på ras, hudfärg, nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse eller
sexuell läggning, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två år
eller om brottet är ringa, till böter.

Är brottet grovt döms till fängelse i lägst sex månader och högst fyra år. Vid
bedömande av om brottet är grovt skall särskilt beaktas om meddelandet haft
ett särskilt hotfullt eller kränkande innehåll och spritts till ett stort
antal personer på ett sätt som varit ägnat att väcka betydande uppmärksamhet."

This translates to:

"Anyone who in speech or any other form of expression threatens or expresses
contempt for a group of persons identified by race, skin colour, national or
ethnic origin, creed or sexual orientation is sentenced for incitement against
a group to prison for up to two years or if the crime is of a lesser degree,
to a fine.

For serious crimes the sentence is imprisonment for at least six months and no
more than four years. In assessing whether the offence is serious, particular
attention should be paid to whether the message had a particularly threatening
or infringing content and was spread to a large number of persons in a manner
that was designed attract significant attention."

[1] [https://nyheteridag.se/dan-park-efter-fangelsedomen-
vansinne...](https://nyheteridag.se/dan-park-efter-fangelsedomen-vansinne-att-
jag-blir-domd/)

[2] [https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K16P8S1](https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K16P8S1)

[3] [https://lagen.nu/prop/1981/82:58#B2](https://lagen.nu/prop/1981/82:58#B2)

------
lujim
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Ahhhhhh goes down smooth every time.

~~~
grouseway
Lets not be too smug. Plenty of Americans who speak out on any type of
political issue receive death threats. Sure it's not from the state but does
that make a difference if you have to live in fear?

Here is one example, but you've probably seen this lots of times.

[https://www.wmay.com/2018/10/02/cartoonist-says-hes-
getting-...](https://www.wmay.com/2018/10/02/cartoonist-says-hes-getting-
death-threats-over-kavanaugh-cartoon/)

The irony is the type of people doing this are probably also the types with
bumper stickers praising the constitution.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>Sure it's not from the state but does that make a difference if you have to
live in fear?

It makes a massive difference!

If some random person tries to kill you and you blow their brains out in self
defense the court will almost certainly back you up (assuming it's legitimate
self defense). If random person someone tries to kill you and the police
happen to be nearby they will probably intervene.

In contrast, if the state comes after you you're screwed. If you defend
yourself you're even more screwed. You can't even call the cops.

~~~
grouseway
The effect is the same: keep your mouth shut. It's not worth going to prison
and it's not worth getting shot.

I was just trying to point out how people don't really support freedom of
speech when it comes to something that makes them angry - which is often the
important stuff to be talking about.

------
esaym
Truly troubling. I feel like the only person on Earth right now that knows
what free speech even is and is actively trying to engage in its protection is
Jordan Peterson. And sadly, he is no activist, but just a psychologist that
doesn't really want to be involved in the controversy. But nobody else seems
to be joining him.

I find it hard to believe there were days where you could be killed if you did
not acknowledge supreme authority of a Catholic pope or some other monarch
figure. People refused to do that on the bounds that God only is supreme. They
could have "lied" and kept their life. But they choose to be jailed and
beheaded for their belief. And right now in America, we have half of the
population that sits somewhere on the "right wing" spectrum that refuses to
speak on the grounds that what they say might go against an ideology on the
left. I wonder how this will turn out. When will men become men again? I feel
like I should lead the way, but I'd rather sit here in front of a computer...

~~~
hnaz
Don't know about the US, but the lack of freedom of speech in the EU is really
troubling: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-
corre...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-
convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html)

~~~
lostmsu
Wow. That case is really concerning. She was basically prosecuted for applying
modern label to past events: calling a muslim figure marrying 9yo a pedophile.

------
monochromatic
The BBC is acting awfully high and mighty about this, given that similar
results could have happened in the UK.

~~~
lujim
By 'could happen' do you mean 'already happened'? What about the guy with the
pug?

