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

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

^^^ 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

Super power democracy in action.

Thank you Quaid e Azam.

 

[GumNaam]

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

I've only seen you spunk monkeys crying to the moderators. And we already know our problems and are actively working at remedying them unlike you spunk monkeys who choose live in a world high on the stench of cow dung fumes where everything is hunky dory and india is the center of the solar system held together by modi waves!

apni do kaurri ki auqaat may rayh...

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I've only seen you spunk monkeys crying to the moderators. And we already know our problems and are actively working at remedying them unlike you spunk monkeys who choose live in a world high on the stench of cow dung fumes where everything is hunky dory and india is the center of the solar system held together by modi waves!

apni do kaurri ki auqaat may rayh...

What’s wrong with this lady yelling Pakistan Zindabad? Will she bring down the Indian government?

Is the Indian state so scared of Kashmiri and Indian Muslim sympathies with Pakistan?

India has a lot of complexes about Pakistan, it cannot tolerate any freedom of speech.

 

[GumNaam]

What’s wrong with this lady yelling Pakistan Zindabad? Will she bring down the Indian government?

Is the Indian state so scared of Kashmiri and Indian Muslim sympathies with Pakistan?

India has a lot of complexes about Pakistan, it cannot tolerate any freedom of speech.

indians are insecure in general.

 

[Cookie Monster]

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.

Right indeed it would be tantamount to a revolution but it would be LEGAL to add an amendment that can change any of the other amendments...including the first 10. There is nothing in the US constitution that forbids the changing of it. There is article V that ALLOWS the changing and modification of the constitution. The founding fathers were not idiots. They very well knew that throughout time the constitution may require change and so they made it accordingly.

Again I would like to differentiate here between what's LEGAL and what's common practice/deeply entrenched public belief. Let's look at two examples...
1) Privacy laws and the massive surveillance of American citizens by the NSA.
--> Bcuz phones didn't exist back then obviously there is no direct mention regarding those in the US constitution. However there is the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search or seizure. This mass surveillance of calls and texts of American citizens by the NSA is an unwarranted search and therefore a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment right.

2) Gun laws and the rising number of mass shootings in the US.
--> The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms and potentially banning guns(to try and reduce mass shootings) would be a violation of this right to bear arms.

In case one...the violation is already taking place...and yet there isn't as much a widespread backlash/protests as u see in the second case...which hasn't even happened yet. Just talking about banning guns invites protests and opposition of the highest order.

It all depends on how much significance ppl place on certain things. So when it comes to modifying the first 10 amendments, it just so happens to be that the ppl place very high significance on those in comparison to any other amendments that came after. Changing those first 10 amendments would be LEGAL, which is the same as other countries changing their laws(it just requires a different method) regarding free speech. It's just that the ppl(US citizens) would most likely not allow that.

 

[Tom M]

She has a democratic right to protest.

However that only applies in free countries.

India is a fascist Hindutva state.

Sure she has. And in every democratic or non democratic country the protesters are arrested and vacated from the site of protest and neither India nor Pakistan is an exception.

Remember 2014 Lahore Model town those poor souls too had the democratic right to protest. But yeah, you are never a Fascist state. LOL

 

[Cookie Monster]

Sure she has. And in every democratic or non democratic country the protesters are arrested and vacated from the site of protest and neither India nor Pakistan is an exception.

Remember 2014 Lahore Model town those poor souls too had the democratic right to protest. But yeah, you are never a Fascist state. LOL

They had the right for peaceful protest...not violent protest. U cannot attack the police and claim it as ur "right to protest". Stop trolling.

 

[Trango Towers]

That's a nice way to get arrested. Do not vandalize amar jawan jyoti.


Try throwing slippers at any armed forces memorial (if any) in your country. And raise the slogan Hindustan zindabad. Add to that, the person doing that is a Hindu.

MENTALLY UNSTABLE.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

LOL.

And even that has been covered. It's just that you didn't take the right electives. If I mention it, @Nilgiri will have conniption fits.

Incidentally, I majored in History, but my minor was Pol. Sc.

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

Never went to sleep.

 

[Tom M]

They had the right for peaceful protest...not violent protest. U cannot attack the police and claim it as ur "right to protest". Stop trolling.

Does it apply to Indian police as well, huh ??? That we are completely withing our rights in suppressing violent protesters anywhere within our country.

 

[Jackdaws]

Of course freedom of speech is not absolute in India; it is subject to certain restrictions. I would prefer if it was. People should shout and cry anything.

Yes, USA allows complete freedom of speech and expression which is why even burning the American flag is legal there.

I am sure the woman will be let go and in this case it was not what she said but rather that she was disturbing the peace which led to her detention. I even doubt she was formally arrested.

 

[Cookie Monster]

LOL.

And even that has been covered. It's just that you didn't take the right electives. If I mention it, @Nilgiri will have conniption fits.

I'm completely lost as to what u r talking about here.

Incidentally, I majored in History, but my minor was Pol. Sc.

I love history...though I didn't wanna pick it as a major bcuz I feared I might not get anywhere with it financially speaking. Luckily I also loved math and sciences. So after hopping around a bit from Computer Science to Computer Engineering to Math and then Chemistry...my college forced me to graduate in that

I was a senior by units by that time...and they said that I have to sit down with a counselor and figure out how to graduate on time. That was also partly why I couldn't have a minor bcuz I was about to hit my unit cap. Also ended up going slightly over four years due to these shenanigans and my damn indecisiveness.

Never went to sleep.

Just grab some chai or coffee

 

[GumNaam]

Sure she has. And in every democratic or non democratic country the protesters are arrested and vacated from the site of protest and neither India nor Pakistan is an exception.

Remember 2014 Lahore Model town those poor souls too had the democratic right to protest. But yeah, you are never a Fascist state. LOL

shahbaz sharif is on trial for murder. which indian leader ever got prosecuted for murdering demonstrators? none! LOL

 

[Cookie Monster]

Does it apply to Indian police as well, huh ??? That we are completely withing our rights in suppressing violent protesters anywhere within our country.

I see where u r going with this...u r still trolling. Instead of being a sane person and saying "this is horrible, the lady wasn't mentally unstable and they shouldn't charge her for saying Pakistan Zindabad"...u r doing WHATABOUTISM. Go ahead and look up that term. Not just that...u r also planning on dragging in Kashmir and derailing the thread from its original topic. I'm not interested in ur trolling...feel free to not reply to this...in fact I would prefer if u didn't.

 

[Tom M]

I see where u r going with this...u r still trolling. Instead of being a sane person and saying "this is horrible, the lady wasn't mentally unstable and they shouldn't charge her for saying Pakistan Zindabad"...u r doing WHATABOUTISM. Go ahead and look up that term. Not just that...u r also planning on dragging in Kashmir and derailing the thread from its original topic. I'm not interested in ur trolling...feel free to not reply to this...in fact I would prefer if u didn't.

Sure it is as HORRIBLE as the following.

Pakistani man arrested for pro-India slogan