Nerve Endings Firing Away

Last year when the Blogspot domain [later clarified to 17 individual websites] was blocked by the Indian government, many cited national security as justification. Wouldn’t you agree that blocking few websites was better than losing 10,000 lives – was a common argument. It is also that classic ‘support the troops’ pro-war argument that if you say anything in protest, you are assumed to be supporting the terrorists or killing babies.

Now it turns out that at least one site was banned not because of any nefarious or evil designs on the Indian state but merely because it offended the sentiments of India’s so-called first family – the Gandhis. And now, Rahul Gandhi who is a Congress MP has sent a legal notice to the owner of the Hindutva website [via email from Nitin]. Never mind that the so-called offender is outside India and beyond jurisdiction of the Indian courts, Rahul Gandhi and his lawyers are hell bent on playing the sympathy card. The legal notice says:

“This publication exceeds and excels even the worst standards of scurrilous, perverted gutter writing — acting at the behest of maliciously motivated elements who cannot stand Rahul Gandhi’s standing and popularity in India and abroad.” We intend to prosecute you and conspirators under all relevant civil and criminal laws” [source].

I cannot help but smile at the naivety of these attorneys who only seek to appeal to the emotional sentiments and generate publicity [wasn't justice blind?]. And they forget to mention, which “all relevant civil and criminal laws” are or where can we find the so-called “standards of scurrilous, perverted gutter writing”; maybe because it would require them mentioning free speech. To those who underplay the threat to free speech in India, I would point out the slippery slope that we embark on. Because right now, it is Rahul Gandhi who is getting offended, tomorrow it might be someone else. So ultimately what offensive or hate speech is boils down to for whom it is offensive instead of what is offensive. Strangely, such action against hate speech is restricted only toward anti-Muslim articles although anti-<any-other-religion> rants by fundamentalist Islamics is found more frequently. Anyway, I have not read the offending article which may for all you know be completely baseless but we see thousand such accusations against Britney Spears in the National Enquirer. It boils down to if you want to lend it any more publicity or credence by publicly protesting against it.

There is plenty of writing on the Internet that I find highly offensive but I choose to ignore it and not read it. Or monitor them for anti-national activities if that is your intent. Don’t drive them underground. It is as simple as that.