It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the circular of TRAI is not violative of freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1) (a) in The Constitution of India 1949 define freedom of speech and expression as:
(1) All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression;
The freedom of speech and expression means the right to express one’s conviction and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. Freedom of speech is the bulwark of a democratic government and it attaches great importance to this freedom.
Explaining the scope of freedom of speech and expression Supreme Court has said that the words "freedom of speech and expression" must be broadly constructed to include the freedom to circulate one's views by
…show more content…
In the instant case, the circular is talking of concepts related to differential throttling and congestion control which is subject to requirements of "congestion management", "emergency services" and "existing fair usage policy". The circular issued by TRAI is in public interest and is non-discriminatory and it doesn’t result in any consumer or a group of consumers being denied suppressed accelerated access to any part of the internet. The circular is not violating right to speech since it does not stop one from publishing what he wants to. The circular is providing for differential treatment subject to the interest of public and every one getting access to internet. We support traffic management practices that are reasonable and consistent with a pragmatic approach for requirements of national security, congestion management, emergency services and existing fair usage
Net-neutrality is the principle that providers of Internet services enable access to all contents with no prejudice or discrimination against sites or products regardless of the source. In December, the U.S. government repealed the national regulations that prevented “Internet Service Providers from blocking legal content, throttling traffic or prioritizing content on their broadband networks” in favor of a “looser set of requirements that ISPs disclose any blocking or prioritization of their own content.” In summary, the government has decided to change net-neutrality and make it easier to profit from. The government’s want, and subsequent success, to change the strict guidelines by which net-neutrality operated with is supported by the Chairman
Therefore, subsection 319(2) of the criminal code violated subsection 2(b) of the Charter. Section 319(2) of the criminal code establishes a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under section 1 of the charter. The court found that section 319(2) of the Criminal Code did not violate freedom of expression as guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter. The crown appealed the court of appeals decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case R v. Keegstra.
The Supreme court ruled that Section 181 of the Criminal Code intersects section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees the right to freedom of expression as long as the expression is not violent. They defined that the booklet that he created was not violent and allowed under the concept of freedom of expression as the form is different from the content in this scenario thus, the allegation made did not apply. The court found that section 181's attempt to censor all expressions unjustifiable since many acceptable expressions could fit that description. According to analysis, section 181 was a reasonable limit on freedom of expression in a free and democratic society. In the end, majority of the Supreme Court held that section 181 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional and therefore, his conviction was overturned even though this is not what most wanted, the situation was dealt in this matter due to the
The Dakota Access Pipeline is a mile-long from Northwestern North Dakota to Illinois. This pipeline affects drinking water for everyone and invades reservation and treaty land owned by the Native Americans. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, when informed about the pipeline, declared the tribe objected to the pipe construction. The Standing Rock Sioux begin to fight a “legal battle against the pipeline” and soon a “protest diverge” In “An Indian Protest for Everyone” by David Treuer builds an argument that Native Americans have developed a new type of protest when gathering at Standing Rock.
Censorship violates anonymity and makes people not want to speak without fear. Many believe that censorship is helpful. ”In Pros and Cons of Censorship” by Prabhakar Pillai
Gandhi was given too much credit for the success of the Indian Independence Movement. Discuss if this statement true? This statement is true to a lesser extent. It has been noted throughout the years that Gandhi has been, the so called, savior of India.
Introduction The People v. Larry Flynt ‘The People v. Larry Flynt’ is a docudrama that chronicles the life and exploits of Larry Flynt and his pornographic publication, ‘Hustler.’ Hustler originally began as a newsletter to attract patrons to Flynt’s Hustler Go-Go club with nude photos of the women who worked there. This newsletter evolves into Hustler Magazine, which over time gains a widespread distribution after acquiring and publishing nude photos of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, former First Lady. Flynt is sued for pandering obscenity and engaging in organised crime.
A further consideration that must be taken into account while evaluating this case is that of time, place, and manner restrictions. Such restrictions are a sort of measuring stick when it comes to these types of freedom of speech issues. If a group or individual does not comply with time, place, and manner restrictions, their actions are no longer protected by the First Amendment. Meanwhile, if these restrictions are adhered to, a party has the constitutional right to voice their viewpoints.
The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.
Government is called to dictate internet content when one incites people to violence with his speech, however, it needs to be a true threat which includes immediacy and an actual intent. For instance, during the Vietnam War, a man expressed that “if he got drafted, his first bullet would be for President Johnson.” The Court detected no threat nor any real intent in the context, therefore, the government had no need to monitor what was being said. If the speech did not pose any likely threats but was regulated by the government, one’s freedom of
The freedoms of speech and of press are quintessential American rights, afford to it’s citizens through the ratification of the first amendment on December 15, 1791. These rights protect the voices of minority's, inform citizens, preserve the truth and create a watchdog for government corruption. Although these rights are toted in high esteem by most Americans, most are unaware these freedoms are not absolute and poses limitations. Such limitations sometimes include speech that criticizes the government. Throughout American history freedom of expression seem to be treated
People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.
Norman Rockwell is an Americana artist. He was born in New York city on February 3rd ,1894 . Inspired by president Franklin D.Roosevelt’s famous “ Four Freedoms” speech delivered to Congress on the eve of World War II, Norman Rockwell created fort painting depicting simple family scenes,illustrating freedoms Americans often take for granted. The Four Freedoms are printed and distributed,ultimately raising $132 million for the war effort(Cutler 18). He spends six months to finished those painting in 1943.The Four freedoms which are freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
Malaysian has the right to freedom of speech which is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia. The Article 10 allows all citizens the absolute freedom as not restricted by the government. In Malaysia, Law such as Publications act and printing presses give the Malaysian authorities the control over all the media. Any act that against this law may lead to fines or in much extreme cases, prison sentence. Although Malaysia has the right to freedom of speech, the media are still being controlled by the government which restrict them to publish anything against the government.
As human beings, we are all born with an entitlement of freedom of speech or synonymously known as freedom of expression as it is a basic human right. It is stated in the Federal Constitution and it is important for us human beings to protect our rights to freedom of speech and expression as it is the backbone for a democratic society. Having the right to express oneself freely without any restrictions is an essential part of what it means to be a free human being. Article 10 in the Federal Constitution states that; (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) all citizens have the right to form associations.