Sorry for the delay. No, the promise was not an April fool’s joke. I just got busy with a lot of stuff, one of them being my flight back to India.
So on to the first question, by froginthewell, who asked way back:
Would you say there should be a legislation that will punish this judge? If so of what kind? Or is this to be viewed as okay in the interest of free speech? Thanks.
Firstly, freedom of speech does not mean that an employee can exercise it on an employer’s time. It also does not mean that you can exercise it on my property without my consent. For example, this is my blog and it is upto me what comments I let you make here. Forcing me to give a forum for everyone is actually a violation of my freedom of speech.
The judge has his freedom of speech as a citizen. But he is also an employee of the government and ultimately, us. We are certainly entitled to put restrictions on his speech as a condition of his employment. In fact, we should. The freedoms of ordinary citizens depend on the idea that a private citizen can do everything except those that are specifically prohibited, while government officials can do only what is specifically permitted.
Of course, it is not always clear where to draw the line between a government official’s private life and public life, and it is not always clear how much freedom to permit an official in his public life. We put the restriction that those in the military cannot publicly discuss their political views at all, though they certainly can hold and express views privately, and they can vote. It would be silly to put exactly the same restriction on a politician.
But then, what restrictions can we in fact put? In a secular country, a politician as a private citizen has a right to practise his religion, but as a government official, he has no right to favour one religion over another or do anything that makes it sound like religion is part of government policy. But what do we do when a politician uses religious imagery and quotes from the Bhagavad Geeta to pep up citizens for a war? (Let us assume that the war itself is just.) Religious texts do have a significance that go beyond religion, and they extend into philosophy and literature too. In these cases, we have to draw the lines on a case by case basis – and though I have a morbid fear of doing things on a case-by-case basis, here I can see that it is unavoidable.
Secularism has very different implementations in the US and India.
In India though you cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, it is acceptable to bring religion into aspects of your public life – for e.g. you can have a little shrine to a goddess in your office or in a public school, it is ok for a student to come in wearing a tilak from puja and a Christian teacher can wear a cross. Also it is ok for a politician to preside over a temple dedication or attend a religious ceremony in his/her official capacity.
In the US (for better or for worse) secularism implies that no religious sentiment whatsoever can be brought into the public square – this includes any religious symbols or signs of faith. This includes no Christmas trees in public places and teachers are not allowed to wear crosses into class in public schools (many documented cases of this).
So the principle of secularism is implemented very differently in the US and India and though I like the US system, I think they go overboard sometimes and their system would probably never fly in India where religion is a part of the social fabric of the country.
Ck,
That you are factually incorrect is one thing. But seriously, what is the relevance of your comment? Are you trying to prove that you have lived in two countries? Or, are you trying to prove that you watch the O’Reilly Factor more than Mr O himself?
And Ravi, I was expecting a post where you would try to arrive at some optimal position where the equilibrium between individual rights and “perceived public good ” is discussed. I assume, that was the intention of the question, too.
Would you care to point out the factual incorrectness or do we have to take your word for it? ;). I think its relevant to point out that ‘secularism’ has different interpretations in different countries – something to consider when trying to ‘draw a line’
Thanks. But actually when I said “in the interest of free speech…” I was rather loose and did not mean that it would conflict with citizens’ freedom of speech otherwise. While I agree with the above arguments, or in general, appreciate 7*6’s statement that libertarianism allows individuals to contract away rights as long as they don’t give away their right to liberty ( so in particular an employee contracts away certain rights to assume office ) . What I had meant was the following :
There is a formidable case made out by many that the only fair, consistent and feasible regulation on *public* right to speech is to allow free speech in the usual classical liberal sense. You yourself say “But it seems to me that the right to free speech in the US works only because it is absolute. If we make an exception for one case, people cite it and ask for an exception for themselves too.” – in your American national flag post. I was wondering if a similar thing wouldn’t hold in cases like this, too. In a legal setting as this the idea of going case-by-case doesn’t make me very comfortable. I hadn’t thought of the question in the angle Nilu suggested; but I guess it assumes particular significance in a situation as this.
Life is like that. Everything is relative and case-by-case.
I am very much for a case-by-case analysis of privatization projects too.
Same goes for property rights.
So , is the end of your libertarianism? Inevitably “case by case” leads to regulations and regulators which you so despise.
Awaiting the answers to the other questions.
I am building a large INDIA news website.
I found your blog today and loved the things that you write about! Would you
be willing to write 1-3 small articles about India related topics that I can
include on our site?
We will gladly link back to your blog from the page that your article is on.
– We have high ambitions for this site and will be generating quite a bit of traffic.
Would you like to trade links? (Our site is: http://www.India-News.in)
I would love for your contribution,
There has to be a normative standard for the general populatin of every country so I disagree that a case by case basis would work but there are varying circumstances such as where death has occured. Was it murder or an accident? I do understand what CK was trying to say about secularism in the US compared to say another country. A law is a law and it can be enforced by the government as it sees fit and where politics and religion conflict is seen all over the place and one example that I may get flogged for is Gay marriage. This is a descriminatory policy under a secular proviscion under US law. If I interpreted it incorrectly I apologize.
What do you say about this :
Bloggers can be nailed for views
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Bloggers-can-be-nailed-for-views/articleshow/4178823.cms#write
By and large, the article is misleading. Bloggers are obviously liable for their own views. We can debate over whether a particular law is just or not – for example Article 295A shouldn’t be there at all. But if it is there, then it must be as applicable to bloggers as to anyone else.
The question before the supreme court was whether bloggers are liable for views of commenters on their blog. The SC seems to have said yes. I think that is too harsh.
Well if blog as property analogy is extended then aren’t blog owners responsible for commentators.
Not so fast. Suppose that you rent out your property to someone. Would you be:
1) Liable if the tenant causes sound smell or noise pollution to neighbours?
2) Liable if your tenant conspires to carry out bomb blasts and prepares bombs on your property?
If you are aware of your tenant’s activities then yes, if not, not so sure (may be we can have a fiduciary liability in that case)