Vidhi Centre for Law and Policy will be organizing a talk on "Free Speech and its (Un)Lawful Restriction" shortly.

@Vidhi_India

The event begins.
HR Venkatesh: We dont think too about about Supreme Court or censorship. You dont worry about contempt or so.

Journalism in the digital space is a little freer compared print media, in the past few years.
Venkatesh: We feel that entire atmosphere in Judiciary for journalism is bit restrictive. We are little "hemmed"

Off late, the restriction is spreading to the digital space as well.

@Vidhi_India
Prashant Iyengar: What do we make of digital speech and the law?

The Supreme Court has the image of being completely neutral. This is untrue. It has an extremely reactionary attitude. This is true for all Courts in the world.
Iyengar: Whatever you tweet immediately goes out to million followers. Communication itself has changed in character. You cannot apply the old regime now.

This is person - who has a private conversation. Is this publication? All Courts are trying to figure out this.
Should Courts continue to be a conscience keeper?

Iyengar: To punish people for contempt of Court is bad way to do that. The SC has been flattered by press and others by the terms such as "Conscience keeper", "People's Court", "Guardian of the Constitution".
Iyengar: The Court is taking is too seriously. When the framers called SC the Guardian of the Constitution, I dont think it wanted the Court to chase after people.
Venkatesh: When we think of the SC, as journalists, we regard it in two ways

- Guardian of the Constitution and other institutions.
- It is staffed with people who are regular, who are buoyant to the political winds. Are Courts being too politicized now?
Venkatesh: Media likes a narrative. A hero vs villain narrative. So if the Judge is pronouncing a judgment, there will be a similar narrative.
Iyengar: I think you were right when you said that the Court has a patchy record.

Art 19 is a very curious article in terms of the way it has been drafted. The Framers are doing something extremely surprising with Art 19.
It's hard to imagine people who witnessed censorship back then, framed something stricter. During our freedom struggle, there were many seditious speeches made.

They (Framers of Consti) used the ladder to climb towards independence, then they threw it away, Iyengar.
Venkatesh speaks on the First Amendment Act - restrictions to free speech.
I do believe that there many threats to the freedom of speech in India, which includes freedom of press, Venkatesh
Question of free speech should be looked at, not just legally but also politically and culturally, Venkatesh
Venkatesh: We have noted that social media companies and other tech companies are the gate keepers now - they decide what people see, using algorithm. There is algorithm bias.
Iyengar: Private capital has always had a huge say in governing/shaping the public sphere. Few huge companies like Twitter, Facebook etc are shaping with respect to the internet

We dont have as much freedom as we had 20 years ago, in the internet right now.
Right to protest is increasingly getting curtailed. In India, you cant protest right before the Rashtrapathi Bhavan, but in the US, you can.

What happened to the CAA protests?
Farmers protesting in Delhi is bright sport but I need to see more..., Venkatesh.
Iyengar: Right to protest, I share that anxiety. Govt is ready to incarcerate people from the middle class and upper middle class as well. Who is this Govt accountable to? This is concerning
The event ends.

More from Bar & Bench

More from Law

A Call for Help!
1. we have a petition/open letter for the WHO
https://t.co/Bie8pUy7WJ
2. 372 people signed it but we want to boost it
3. I post link ascomment on related YT videos
Tks @KevinMcH3 for the tip
4. You can help by liking the comments
5. That will increase visibility!


6. Links for YT videos with comments are here
1. China curtails hunt for virus origins
https://t.co/NhcYdtsd2Y
2. China: nearly 500,000 may have been infected in Wuhan
https://t.co/KRUQ5hFrii
3. WHO becomes US-China battleground | DW Documentary
https://t.co/8ah8M8bpiB


4. Gravitas: The 'hidden hunt' for COVID-19 origins
https://t.co/hHhhUqgPYt
5. Seeking the invisible: hunt for origins of deadly Covid-19 coronavirus will take scientists to Wuhan
https://t.co/tCPQqjUZF3
6. WHO team to probe COVID-19 origins in

7. How forensic researchers track down origins of SARS-CoV2
https://t.co/r7A1lkr5li
8. Bats, roadblocks & the origins of coronavirus - BBC
https://t.co/Kh9jacC54t
9. New coronavirus strain is far more infectious and spreading among young - BBC

10. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
11. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
12. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
13. https://t.co/PhmoSfvbD8
14. https://t.co/TsvB7SYN2c
15. https://t.co/0o5YbmiUbJ
16. https://t.co/ir7QiwmlWt
17. https://t.co/PTT3KZDi8F
18.
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw


Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.

So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:

1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."


2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”

3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.