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

We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD

You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.


Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).


I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.

The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.

Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
1/n How come we still have academics sustaining narratives of #obesity rather than of how real people find value & meaning in everyday lives? Revisit @whatsthepont on @tobyjlowe / @snowded & accept criticising "neoliberal" does not make things

New out 🤯 A review which says lots about the academic context in which it was written - with its embedded behaviorist fixations on just implementing *better* - with complete disregard for the unintended consequences of treating "agency" as a dirty word

In all #becausehuman fields, we see justifiable professional kick-back at reductionist agendas driven by a focus on #obesity & nonsensical CMO guidance of 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day for healthy growth and development


What's fundamentally missing is not just a respect for complexity. It's respect for Homo-Narrans - for the ordinary, everyday story-telling folk all around us whose aspirations & dispositions provide the context in which we find meaning, purpose & value

We don't need spurious arguments against initiatives... but let's consider ethics & unintended consequences - on which, see @snowded (especially around epistemic justice) #becausehuman
https://t.co/gu97xDEamB
https://t.co/E1GzCdCfLA
https://t.co/bKowDAgARQ
https://t.co/evzYMBPwvZ

You May Also Like