Skip to main content

Free speech is increasingly under attack in the world's most populous democracy

Free speech is increasingly under attack in the world's most populous democracy.
BY SALIL TRIPATHI | Wall Street Journal, Mar 12 2010

Indians boast of living in the world's most populous democracy, and rightly so. Regular elections and vigorous public debate are a rebuke to anyone who thinks that liberty can't flourish in a large, largely poor, culturally and linguistically diverse country. But in one area of life officials' concerns for keeping peace between various religious and ethnic groups is threatening a core freedom: speech.

In a little-noticed case on Feb. 26, police in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh arrested Macha Laxmaiah, an author who writes using the pseudonym Krantikar ("revolutionary"), and his distributors, including Innaiah Narisetti, president of the Hyderabad-based nonprofit Center for Inquiry, for "hurting the sentiments of Muslims." Their alleged crime? The distribution of "Crescent Over the World," a book including contributions from Salman Rushdie, Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen, and a cartoon from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Mr. Narisetti is out on bail now; Mr. Laxmaiah remains in custody.

Continues here.

Narisetti is a friend of mine and a CFI representative.


Paul P. Mealing said…
It's worth reading the whole article.

We are unaware of how lucky we are, and that real democracy is the exception, not the rule.

The health of a democracy can be measured by its media - it's usually political censorship that's the problem, not religious censorship.

In a country like India it's about cultural identity. When people feel that their identity is threatened they are willing to die and kill for it. This is the cause of most conflicts in the world. Identity can be familial, national, political, religious, race or cultural. Humans have more ways to discriminate against 'others' than any other species. It's the bane of the human race.

Regards, Paul.
DM said…

we're PULLING THE PLUG on all you deluded atheist f*ckers....

you gonna burn, Stephen....
Martin said…
I appreciate that Narisetti is a close associate, but I think I would like to see the publication, and gained a greater understanding of the Indian legal code before I commented on this case, so I reserve my judgement here.

BTW: the core freedom being threatened here MUST either be 'free speech', OR 'freedom of speech' (these are different and should not be confused). Speech itself is not threatened in this context, you should still feel free to speak out as you see fit, on whatever subject, subject to the normal considerations of manners and taste.
Marypierce said…
This is the cause of most conflicts in the world. Identity can be familial, national, political, religious, race or cultural.

Dui Attorney
DM said…
hey stephen, look at the latest update which I will send to millions

have I said this before...
DM said…
repent and turn to God, stephen

and you will be saved from the FIRE...

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o