Hate speech law does not prevent of exercising the freedom of speech but it has been found for reduce using freedom of speech and minimize making problems to other or causing harm to them. As a coin has two sides, Hate speech law has also positive impact and bad impact like adversely affect on social attitudes, violate the freedom of speech and psychological harm. We should not try to stop hate speech law but we have to continue trying to minimize causing harm to other ====h I accept all Criticism from any one, however not all of people who characterized by good behavior and politely Speak. I cant accept Speak in a rude, offensive and aggressive way their says even if it was true and right.
To put it in a nutshell it connotes the expression of one’s ideas through any communicable medium or visible representation, such as, gesture, sighs and the like.1 It is widely regarded in the modern times that the right to freedom of speech is the defining feature of a free society and it must be safeguarded at all time and at all costs. The foundation principle of a free society is that there must be an untrammeled and unhampered flow of words in an open debate. There was a constant and persisting demand demand throughout the Indian freedom struggle that there must be a written Bill of Rights for
Since, this is an ethical question. In my opinion, Freedom of speech should be limited, because it is not acceptable that everybody say whatever he/she wants. There are insufficient of people who frequently use freedom of speech and they are Governors, Journalists, and other citizens. Another thing is the governments are the people who are able to have freedom of speech, so they should not be more doing that. Everyone is the same as the other or there would not be equality, if the governors can have freedom of speech, while the other didn’t then that will be unfair.
Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority . While hate speech should be better understood, bigoted acts should not be included in hate speech or harmful subjective phrases. hate speech has become a spotlight topic and there is a discussion if free speech should protect it. The main opposition against free speech being an
Right to privacy In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court has expressly held the “right to privacy’, or the right to be let alone is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of its own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. It also held that the State or its officials have no authority in law to impose prior restraint on publication of defamatory matter. The public officials can take action only after the publication if it is found to be false. 3.5.
Although some people may perceive education as disrupting peace due to the rise of elites, causing discrimination against the uneducated, I think that the discrimination is actually the fault of the government, and not education, due to their inefficient policies to stop discrimination. Education in fact brings about peace and harmony as education enables the people to acquire the right moral values and possess their own opinions, preventing them from committing crimes and getting radicalised by terrorists, therefore protecting national peace and global security. Thus, I agree to a large extent that education is
INTRODUCTION Before getting into a complete discussion of Right to Privacy first of all we should know what the term privacy means. Privacy means, “right to be let alone, the right of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity, the right to live freely without any unwarranted interference by any people in any matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned”. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. After reading the Article 21, it has been interpreted that the term ‘life’ includes all those aspects of life which makes a man’s life meaningful, useful, peaceful, complete and worth living. Whatever
It occupies an very important arrangement in the hierarchy of the liberty. The liberty of freedom of speech and expression means to express one’s own right in a free and unbiased manner which is important in the development of the human being as a human being. It is fairly and factually said that the freedom of speech and expression is the mother of all freedoms and liberties. In the present modern times it is extensively accepted that the right to freedom of speech and expression is the soul of free society and must be protected at all
But through numerous judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, today it is well settled that right to privacy is integral part of Article 21 of our Constitution. Article 21 of the Constitution enshrines the right to life and personal liberty. It is one of the most basic Fundamental Right of the Constitution. Article 21 has proved to be a very fruitful source of rights of the people. By the term ‘life’ as is used here something more is meant than mere animal existence.
At the same time, restrictions like national security or public interest can detract from both expression and privacy. However, it is interesting to note that the right to privacy was actually derived in part from the right to freedom of speech. In the case of Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P the Supreme Court for the first time recognized that citizens of India had a fundamental right to privacy which was part of the right to life and liberty in Article 21 as well as the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1) (a), and also of the right of movement in Article 19(1) (d). This line of thought has recently been approved again by the