India - ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ slogan at India Gate lands woman in Jail.

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer whats your theory on the emotionalism of desis.

We are far too quick to get offended. We don't like what the other guy wears; we don't like his god(s); we don't like his places of worship; we don't like his way of worship; we don't like what he eats; we don't like the way he marries; we don't like the way his family runs; we don't like the way he educates his kids; we don't like....

I believe that we should put down with a heavy hand any public disturbance based on people's feelings being hurt.

 

[Nilgiri]

I believe that we should put down with a heavy hand any public disturbance based on people's feelings being hurt.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Already mentioned that in my previous reply. Actually it has been a few cases. They have been ruled on the basis that a clear call to tort-based action (given its tort consequences) crosses over to the realm of expression rather than mere speech.

You simply cannot make pre-emptive laws in the US that curtail free speech (expression is different and can be delineated by tort and other means).

No other constitution in the world says a government CANNOT do something....the wording is always fundamentally additive, not subtractive....the rights end up being negative and positive respectively in their inherent inalienable nature.

For example, in any other country, the govt simply needs to have enough votes to pass legislation that restricts free speech pre-emptively (I have brought this up before with @Joe Shearer regarding the story of "Minority Report")....it is a consensus thing in the end....it has already happened and is continuing to happen (example being numerous cases of what "harmful" speech should be illegal and prevented from ever happening...and this is not tort expression stuff like yelling fire in a crowded theater etc.).

The US is the only one that has stipulated, no matter what the consensus is in the govt of the day....people have fundamental rights that can never be taken away from them...period. Because those people had those rights before the govt came into existence...they were invested by an all together different (and arguably higher) authority.

You would need to read deeply into the works of Locke, Burke (both somewhat ironically not from the US themselves but from the colonial power that was rebelled against) and all the federalist papers (esp the debates on federalism vs non-federalism) to get why the US is a special case regarding this.

The very way the Magna Carta was merely "devolved" from imperial "god given" might and right (at essentially the imperial forces fancying/claiming them being the representation of the godhead morality on "thy kingdom come"), left a very sticky foul taste in a lot (in fact most) of the American founding fathers mouths...because they saw (firsthand) how it had built up in their case to excessive, quite unrestricted and unbounded tyranny.

A little care, here; the Magna Carta was 'devolved', if that is the phrase you like, from the Divine Right of Kings; that derived from the anointing of Saul, then of David, by the prophet Samuel; a recognition in scriptural terms of the special favour of the One God to anointed kings.

This was the royal right, not the imperial right.

Please remember that at this time, right up to the time that the aftermath of the French Revolution destroyed it, Empire meant Holy Roman Empire, itself a successor of the Western Empire. Imperial right, I venture to state, was different from the Royal right, being derived from the ostensible division of the administration of the Empire between Church and Imperium, the Church looking after matters spiritual, the Imperium looking after matters secular. Subtle, since the Emperor was also anointed, from Charlemagne onwards, from 800 AD onwards, but distinct, I believe, since the Emperor occupied a far higher position than any King whatsoever.

Thus even before they could finally liberate themselves from its clutches....they went right to the root of the issue and how to expunge that from ever happening again as best they could (if you see what is actually required now to remove a US amendment without a complete revolution/rejection/refounding process)....by founding the rights on something far beyond the reach of men. This is why the US constitution in the end, specifies what the govt can never be able to do. No other constitution before or after it was written in this specific way

.

@VCheng @Hamartia Antidote @KAL-EL @RabzonKhan @Desert Fox @jhungary @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Vibrio @LeGenD @gambit @GeraltofRivia @Atlas @bluesky @Skies @Signalian @The Sandman

@Indus Pakistan asked me once what was the difference between the two large cousin-countries of North America "ideologically" (given how similar they seem to be on the surface on many things)....well here it is in greater detail....but still somewhat of a nutshell (this is an extremely long topic to get into).

At least we claim what we are unlike some hypocrisy who fake fully advertises itself as democracy.

True.

Those founding fathers did a brilliant job, considering that it was done in 1776, and earlier even than the French Revolution.

What a nonsense post.

I've seen multiple people posting the flags of China and/or Russia on their cars, never any trooper or Police harass them.

 

[Nilgiri]

This was the royal right, not the imperial right.

Yes yes, ok my friend...I had a bit of the ole Star Wars soundtrack playing in the background while I wrote that...so scuuuuuuuuuse me.

BTW @Thəorətic "can't tag you again" muslim .... a lot of this forum (and more broad regional) emotionalism/thought process reminds me of all this heh:

 

[Maler]

Sultana should write her memoirs to Qasim from prison in India.

Not Qasim, but to Ghazi 'Bajwa'!!! Or to the Sipah Salar e Aajm of ummati lashkar, Ghazi 'Reel' Shareef!!!

BJP ploy, nothing else!!!

 

[Cookie Monster]

Its not a paramount level like the US (which stipulates quite clearly, further laws cannot* be made to curtail it)....in fact nowhere near in any other country.

In the US it is held sacrosanct (and is enforced in the end by their supreme court)...whereas in every other claims-to-be-democracy (Europe, Canada, India what have you)....there is no such stipulation against making further laws to curtail it in some "greater good" way. This is key thing, because its already happened in the UK, Europe and Canada....things that would be impossible to curtail in the US because of its 1st amendment...and stare decisis of common law as well.

I am talking by the way, only about free speech. Freedom of expression in the US is not a guaranteed inalienable right...because it is a much larger sphere of action compared to speech (in fact the only exceptions in the US regarding free speech is when they cross over to include clearly tort-based expression...e.g yelling fire in a crowded theater kind of thing).

*It is also a key thing why the US constitution was written in the way it was...to specify clearly what the govt CANNOT do rather than what it can do (like is the default tone of every country that is not the US).

@VCheng

Thank you for eloquently proving my point! @Joe Shearer

test tagging @Thəorətic Muslim ...cool it worked!

The right to free speech is specified in the first amendment of the constitution. The first 10 amendments make up the Bill of Rights. As part of the US constitution, the Bill of Rights can be amended in two ways.
1) Either by a properly called Constitutional Convention(which has never been used since the original constitution was written)
2) Or by having the amendment passed(that alters or supersedes) in the same form by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, each with a 2/3 majority.

In either of those two above cases the amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. In fact there are currently six amendments that have not yet been ratified by enough states(one of them dates back to 1789). There is even precedent of one amendment repealing a previous amendment as was done with the amendment regarding prohibition of alcohol. I think it was the 18th amendment that prohibited alcohol and the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.

The constitution is written in a way where it allows for changes to be made. Article V of the constitution allows for this(see number 2 above). In fact legal scholars generally agree that the amending process of Article V can itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article V. So in conclusion though the first 10 amendments have never been altered or changed...in theory it can be done as per the framework provided by the constitution itself.

The reason it hasn't happened is again I would like to say(though it is just my opinion) is that the people(US citizens) assign an extreme value to the Bill of Rights since it is a symbol of their freedom written by the founding fathers themselves. However legally speaking, I don't see why it can't be done.

The court case which ruled that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater wouldn't qualify as an alteration of suppression of free speech...rather an interpretation of it.

 

[Tom M]

No freedom of expression in India.

This is not a democracy.

Is insulting Martyr's and disrupting a parade rehearsal the freedom of expression practiced in Pakistan, huh ??? If so you very well qualify to be a real democracy. LOL

 

[Nilgiri]

The court case which ruled that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater wouldn't qualify as an alteration of suppression of free speech...rather an interpretation of it.

Of course its interpretation. You have to interpret what freedom of speech is...and where it (speech) ends and where expression starts.

If the case you are referring to is Schenk vs US...you have to read presiding Justice (Holmes) comments on it thoroughly. For sake of brevity from wiki:

The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished.

Notice the word expressions? It is no longer considered only speech.

This is extremely different from what the UK, Canada, Western Europe have been engaging in (i.e overtly limiting what is explicitly covered by free speech in the US, that could never be touched by any US govt regarding legislation) for quite some time now simply because it is afforded to them in their faultily made, inferior (imo) constitutions (i.e no explicit statement of what a govt CANNOT do). i.e whatever the "issue" of "hateful" speech is (that carry no proven, established, self evident intent criminal result)...it can simply be voted upon legislatively (to create various anti-free speech for "greater good" statutes and precedents to be enforced upon the people). It is far more broad in scope than the US ever could do...and it is essentially open bounded (because there is not check or balance written explicitly against it....you just need enough votes)

Rest of your post, well I would have to go into lot more detail of how the first 10 amendments quite differ in nature (as have been commented on by a litany of SCOTUS judges) to any subsequent amendments. It would basically be tantamount to a revolution basically to repeal any of them. You sort of hint at it yourself.

That is again really different scale of thing needed compared to what is afforded so easily to do in every non-US country. They do not need to vote on repealing parts of the constitution to do what they have been doing, are doing now...and will continue to do. There is simply no relevant comparison....their constitution as it stands is not a safeguard like it is in the US for inherent inalienable pre-existing (to govt) rights invested in man.

 

[GHALIB]

Pakistani flags going up all over india.

This is just the beginning. More Pakistans to carved out of india in the near future.

qayamat tak wait karo

 

[GumNaam]

qayamat tak wait karo

sounds familiar, where oh where have I heard that...hmmm, let's see let's see... OH YES, nehru said that Jinnah...and yet here we are.

 

[Cookie Monster]

You would need to read deeply into the works of Locke, Burke (both somewhat ironically not from the US themselves but from the colonial power that was rebelled against) and all the federalist papers (esp the debates on federalism vs non-federalism) to get why the US is a special case regarding this.

The very way the Magna Carta was merely "devolved" from imperial "god given" might and right (at essentially the imperial forces fancying/claiming them being the representation of the godhead morality on "thy kingdom come"), left a very sticky foul taste in a lot (in fact most) of the American founding fathers mouths...because they saw (firsthand) how it had built up in their case to excessive, quite unrestricted and unbounded tyranny.

Thus even before they could finally liberate themselves from its clutches....they went right to the root of the issue and how to expunge that from ever happening again as best they could (if you see what is actually required now to remove a US amendment without a complete revolution/rejection/refounding process)....by founding the rights on something far beyond the reach of men. This is why the US constitution in the end, specifies what the govt can never be able to do. No other constitution before or after it was written in this specific way.

@VCheng @Hamartia Antidote @KAL-EL @RabzonKhan @Desert Fox @jhungary @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Vibrio @LeGenD @gambit @GeraltofRivia @Atlas @bluesky @Skies @Signalian @The Sandman

@Indus Pakistan asked me once what was the difference between the two large cousin-countries of North America "ideologically" (given how similar they seem to be on the surface on many things)....well here it is in greater detail....but still somewhat of a nutshell (this is an extremely long topic to get into).

I have read John Locke's work and not just him but also of other enlightenment thinkers. In fact the US constitution heavily draws from the enlightenment thinkers bcuz Thomas Jefferson himself(he mainly wrote the US constitution) was very much influenced by these enlightenment thinkers. Rosseau's concept of direct democracy and Locke's ideas of the people getting to choose their leaders or that the power lies with the people are the corner stone. Others' influence includes Volitaire's religious freedom, Beccaria's belief that the accused have rights, and one of the well known ones Montesquieu's ideas of separation of powers and checks and balances.

While I was in college I chose electives where I got to study the US government, which was centered around the constitution and the works of enlightenment thinkers(bcuz the US constitution culminated from those ideas). I ended up taking a good mix of political science, philosophy, and history. I got to study various different forms of governments too in my comparative government class, this included UK(Constitutional Monarchy), India(Parliamentary Republic), and Iran(Theocratic Republic).

As for Magna Carta...it came up a few times in all these various classes I took. It is the oldest document that marked the beginning of limiting the powers of what was once held as the divine right of the King. So in short...I have read many(not all) of these works by various different scholars. I was just a couple classes away from having either a history minor or a political science minor when I graduated in my major. In hindsight I should've gotten one of those minors just to have it...but back then I didn't care much. I just took these classes as a hobby and bcuz I was interested. Idk if that qualifies as a deep reading of the works of Locke and Burke...I suppose that would be subjective anyways.

My main interest has always been science/math related and that's what I ended up choosing as my major but I was always interested in trying to figure out a better system...one that can be fool proof(it's a tall order). The journey from monarchy to democracy is indeed progress but despite separation of church and state and separation of powers...one thing u still find coupled in ALL forms of government is MONEY and POWER. This problem exists even in the US, which champions democracy around the world. My interest in this started with the problem of corruption that plagues the Pakistani government but overtime it grew in scope. Now I would like to come up with a system(in theory) just bcuz we should always be trying to better what we have no matter how perfect or imperfect it is to begin with...BUT I DIGRESS...I have rambled on for too long.

@Joe Shearer wake up...it's morning now.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Is insulting Martyr's and disrupting a parade rehearsal the freedom of expression practiced in Pakistan, huh ??? If so you very well qualify to be a real democracy. LOL

She has a democratic right to protest.

However that only applies in free countries.

India is a fascist Hindutva state.

 

[GHALIB]

She has a democratic right to protest.

However that only applies in free countries.

India is a fascist Hindutva state.

first become a functioning democracy .
india is not a banana republic with failed economy , it is a thriving democracy .

 

[GumNaam]

first become a functioning democracy .
india is not a banana republic with failed economy , it is a thriving democracy .

^^^ india's functioning democracy in action

^^^ india's thriving democracy in action

^^^ india's thriving economy in action

^^^ india's banana republic military in action

 

[GHALIB]

^^^ india's thriving democracy in action

^^^ india's thriving economy

^^^ india's banana republic military

ha ha ha ................
if i start posting your reality , you will immediately run to moderators .