A crucial element of what constitutes a crime is whats called *mens rea *or the intention and when it is translated into action *actus reas* The constitutional freedom of expression is expressly delimited by Art 19 (2), Murali might do himself a favour reading up on those discourses before making comments off the cuff
On 02/07/2008, Murali K Warier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 'Inflammatory discourse (as giving offense)' too should be covered under > freedom of speech. Isn't it easy enough to distinguish between offensive > speech and incitement to violence? The former is ok, the latter, not, of > course. Saying 'your religion sucks' is ok, but saying 'go out and kill <put > your favorite religionists here>' is not ok. > > It is ok to hate religions and religionists too, as long as your hate is > not transformed into actions that jeopardize other peoples' rights. It is > perfectly legit to hate Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Brahmins, Communists, > Neo-liberals, Dalits, Nairs ..... (I am sure everybody here agrees with a > partial list of the above) as long as these peoples' constitutional rights > are not violated. > > Only Communist states could penalize thought crimes. > > Best regards, > Murali > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't > want to hear. > > > -- Bobby Kunhu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
