Comments on: Restricting Freedom with Excuses of Responsibility http://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/ Crossing Borders Crossing Cultures Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:20:00 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Indian bloggers’ rights to free expression-Global Voices « FACT - Freedom Against Censorship Thailandhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16787 Indian bloggers’ rights to free expression-Global Voices « FACT - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:04:50 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16787 [...] Patrix thinks that the Indian legal system is biased against freedom of speech – [...] [...] Patrix thinks that the Indian legal system is biased against freedom of speech – [...]

]]> By: Journalist Needs Helphttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16772 Journalist Needs Help Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:28:14 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16772 [...] that this ruling merely implied that the defendant was not excused from prosecution. We can argue ad nauseaum about the merits of such a ruling but the fact remains that the defendant neither has not yet been found guilty nor has a precedent [...] [...] that this ruling merely implied that the defendant was not excused from prosecution. We can argue ad nauseaum about the merits of such a ruling but the fact remains that the defendant neither has not yet been found guilty nor has a precedent [...]

]]> By: Patrixhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16739 Patrix Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:58:58 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16739 Legislating public morality in itself is undesirable in a democracy simply because it inevitably caters to the lowest denominator of sensitivity and results in overreaching of state interference in individual freedom. The banner of responsibility is often bandied about for words but not for actions which often are excused under pretext of incitement. We've seen that it is quite easy to 'incite' people into undesirable actions especially if the people know that their actions will be excused simply by going after the person uttering mere words. Legislating public morality in itself is undesirable in a democracy simply because it inevitably caters to the lowest denominator of sensitivity and results in overreaching of state interference in individual freedom. The banner of responsibility is often bandied about for words but not for actions which often are excused under pretext of incitement. We’ve seen that it is quite easy to ‘incite’ people into undesirable actions especially if the people know that their actions will be excused simply by going after the person uttering mere words.

]]> By: Anshumanhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16738 Anshuman Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:49:10 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16738 Hustler v. Falwell, I know. Trouble is, in India, the Indian Supreme Court explicitly overlooks references to the First Amendment. Reason being that in India, we also have a higher standard of public morality which may call for curbing free speech. Thus, attacking Ajith's judgment on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution may not be a good idea. Even so, the SC should have dismissed the case on the facts itself. Hustler v. Falwell, I know. Trouble is, in India, the Indian Supreme Court explicitly overlooks references to the First Amendment. Reason being that in India, we also have a higher standard of public morality which may call for curbing free speech. Thus, attacking Ajith’s judgment on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution may not be a good idea. Even so, the SC should have dismissed the case on the facts itself.

]]> By: Patrixhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16734 Patrix Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:36:02 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16734 Thanks for your input. The U.S. already sets a higher standard for 'offense' for public officials and any criticism of any public official is considered free speech serving the public interest and accountability standards. Thanks for your input. The U.S. already sets a higher standard for ‘offense’ for public officials and any criticism of any public official is considered free speech serving the public interest and accountability standards.

]]> By: Global Voices Online » Shiv Sena’s Orkut Campaign: The Limits to Freedom of Expression in an Intolerant Indiahttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16733 Global Voices Online » Shiv Sena’s Orkut Campaign: The Limits to Freedom of Expression in an Intolerant India Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:44:19 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16733 [...] Patrix thinks that the Indian legal system is biased against freedom of speech – As you see, anything under the sun can be categorized as an restriction to your freedom of speech. If I say something innocuous and that leads to couple of weirdos smashing shop windows in the town, all it does to get me into trouble is the weirdos saying that my words made them do it. My freedom of speech will be curtailed under “public order” or “incitement to an offense” restrictions. Shouldn’t actions be punished instead of words? [...] [...] Patrix thinks that the Indian legal system is biased against freedom of speech – As you see, anything under the sun can be categorized as an restriction to your freedom of speech. If I say something innocuous and that leads to couple of weirdos smashing shop windows in the town, all it does to get me into trouble is the weirdos saying that my words made them do it. My freedom of speech will be curtailed under “public order” or “incitement to an offense” restrictions. Shouldn’t actions be punished instead of words? [...]

]]> By: Shiv Sena’s Orkut Campaign: The Limits to Freedom of Expression in an Intolerant India | Gauravonomics Bloghttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16732 Shiv Sena’s Orkut Campaign: The Limits to Freedom of Expression in an Intolerant India | Gauravonomics Blog Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:00:56 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16732 [...] Patrix thinks that the Indian legal system is biased against freedom of speech – As you see, anything under the sun can be categorized as an restriction to your freedom of speech. If I say something innocuous and that leads to couple of weirdos smashing shop windows in the town, all it does to get me into trouble is the weirdos saying that my words made them do it. My freedom of speech will be curtailed under “public order” or “incitement to an offense” restrictions. Shouldn’t actions be punished instead of words? [...] [...] Patrix thinks that the Indian legal system is biased against freedom of speech – As you see, anything under the sun can be categorized as an restriction to your freedom of speech. If I say something innocuous and that leads to couple of weirdos smashing shop windows in the town, all it does to get me into trouble is the weirdos saying that my words made them do it. My freedom of speech will be curtailed under “public order” or “incitement to an offense” restrictions. Shouldn’t actions be punished instead of words? [...]

]]> By: Anshumanhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16731 Anshuman Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:44:48 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16731 Let us be clear as to the mitigationg factors of Section 295-A: 1. Only a "cold, calcualted attempt" at maligning religion and intention of public hurt can hold one culpable under this section. 2. If an abnormal or a hypersensitive man/group makes the complaint, it will not be entertained. But if an ordinary man, exercising ordinary common sense feels hurt, then the complaint will be valid. [As held by the MP High Court in Ramlal Puri case, considered to be a good exposition of the law.] 3. The word 'malicious' as used in 295-A, the nature of the language must be seen, not the relation to the accused or of the subject's personal feelings. 4. Finally, the SC had said earlier in the Ramji Lal case that only the aggravated form of speech will be punished, not any and every speech. I have already mentioned in my blog about how public figures should be subject to a greater level of legal hurt. Let us be clear as to the mitigationg factors of Section 295-A:

1. Only a “cold, calcualted attempt” at maligning religion and intention of public hurt can hold one culpable under this section.
2. If an abnormal or a hypersensitive man/group makes the complaint, it will not be entertained. But if an ordinary man, exercising ordinary common sense feels hurt, then the complaint will be valid. [As held by the MP High Court in Ramlal Puri case, considered to be a good exposition of the law.]
3. The word ‘malicious’ as used in 295-A, the nature of the language must be seen, not the relation to the accused or of the subject’s personal feelings.
4. Finally, the SC had said earlier in the Ramji Lal case that only the aggravated form of speech will be punished, not any and every speech.

I have already mentioned in my blog about how public figures should be subject to a greater level of legal hurt.

]]> By: Anshumanhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16730 Anshuman Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:34:55 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16730 1. You see, as a law student, I'm concerned as to there being absolutely no parameters diffrentiating free speech and ugly speech. A former US Supreme Court judge was once deciding a case on obscenity w.r.t. a French movie, 'The Lovers.' He said this movie is obscene. Why? No intelligible criteria, but, "I know it when I see it." Our SC's approach in the Ajith D case suspiciously sounds similar. After all, once you say that all Orkutters/Facebookusers/Bloggers are responsible for their words, you are pretty much using an umbrella term to take in all, from any age. They have not set out any mitigating factors. This is actually quite flippant. They have set a precedent that is now law. 2. There is a moral question involved here. The Shiv Sena is hounding the kid, filing criminal charges and forcing him to go to the Supreme Court, when clearly, he himself has not said anything. In my blog post, I wrote of a higher standard of hurt for public figures. This should answer some of your questions with respect to my para. At least, it clarifies my views. 3. NO AND EMPHATICALLY NO to your second para. Yes the judiciary has done a good job in the past. Does that mean that, because of their past, we don't have a right to criticize them? Our job as good citizens is to critically review the judiciary, legislature and executive. Yes, our judiciary is constitutionally charged but we have a fundamental duty to see to it that the judiciary remains on the rails. We cannot say: "Oh they have been so good, what's one or two mistakes?" People's liberties are at stake! 4. Last para: Look, the constitution allows for the judiciary's discretion as regards Article 19(2). The judge has to decide whether the speech is free or not. Also, when a case is filed under the IPC, there are quite a few mitigating factors which will allow a person to be let off. My argument is that had the case gone to trial (which it will now do), the person Ajith would have been let off anyway. The grounds are flimsy at best based on hearsay, although here, I must profess some ignorance as to the actual nature of the chargesheet. But, if hearsay is correct, then the SC should not have allowed the case to go on. (In my blog post, I have briefly discussed the nature of the charges). 1. You see, as a law student, I’m concerned as to there being absolutely no parameters diffrentiating free speech and ugly speech. A former US Supreme Court judge was once deciding a case on obscenity w.r.t. a French movie, ‘The Lovers.’ He said this movie is obscene. Why? No intelligible criteria, but, “I know it when I see it.” Our SC’s approach in the Ajith D case suspiciously sounds similar. After all, once you say that all Orkutters/Facebookusers/Bloggers are responsible for their words, you are pretty much using an umbrella term to take in all, from any age. They have not set out any mitigating factors. This is actually quite flippant. They have set a precedent that is now law.
2. There is a moral question involved here. The Shiv Sena is hounding the kid, filing criminal charges and forcing him to go to the Supreme Court, when clearly, he himself has not said anything. In my blog post, I wrote of a higher standard of hurt for public figures. This should answer some of your questions with respect to my para. At least, it clarifies my views.
3. NO AND EMPHATICALLY NO to your second para. Yes the judiciary has done a good job in the past. Does that mean that, because of their past, we don’t have a right to criticize them? Our job as good citizens is to critically review the judiciary, legislature and executive. Yes, our judiciary is constitutionally charged but we have a fundamental duty to see to it that the judiciary remains on the rails. We cannot say: “Oh they have been so good, what’s one or two mistakes?” People’s liberties are at stake!
4. Last para: Look, the constitution allows for the judiciary’s discretion as regards Article 19(2). The judge has to decide whether the speech is free or not. Also, when a case is filed under the IPC, there are quite a few mitigating factors which will allow a person to be let off. My argument is that had the case gone to trial (which it will now do), the person Ajith would have been let off anyway. The grounds are flimsy at best based on hearsay, although here, I must profess some ignorance as to the actual nature of the chargesheet. But, if hearsay is correct, then the SC should not have allowed the case to go on. (In my blog post, I have briefly discussed the nature of the charges).

]]> By: What is not Libel or Slanderhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16729 What is not Libel or Slander Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:39:37 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16729 [...] may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!Remember my post listing ‘reasonable restrictions’ on free speech? It seems that the restriction based on libel or slander also have their own subset of exceptions [...] [...] may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!Remember my post listing ‘reasonable restrictions’ on free speech? It seems that the restriction based on libel or slander also have their own subset of exceptions [...]

]]> By: Hindu Atheisthttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16728 Hindu Atheist Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:39:12 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16728 Well, it may sound surreal to invoke article 19 for Sherene's comments. But looking at the case of arrest of Stateman editors using 259(A), it is not surreal at all. It is real. Very real. If you consider 259(A), you can never take an atheistic point of view publicly and question religious ideas for the danger of offending someone's sentiments. Atleast if you are a indian citizen. It may sound improbable that someone may sue you for talking about it, but it is not impossible. According to the law it will be a legitimate concern. Well, it may sound surreal to invoke article 19 for Sherene’s comments. But looking at the case of arrest of Stateman editors using 259(A), it is not surreal at all. It is real. Very real.

If you consider 259(A), you can never take an atheistic point of view publicly and question religious ideas for the danger of offending someone’s sentiments. Atleast if you are a indian citizen. It may sound improbable that someone may sue you for talking about it, but it is not impossible. According to the law it will be a legitimate concern.

]]> By: Patrixhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16727 Patrix Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:30:14 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16727 I'm aware of that implication but I don't think her comment is detrimental to India's sovereignty and merely reflects her opinion on state of laws in India. If she believes they are hypocritical, the offended person will have to prove they are not. I find this discussion almost surreal. At this rate, no one will say anything in fear of offending anyone. I’m aware of that implication but I don’t think her comment is detrimental to India’s sovereignty and merely reflects her opinion on state of laws in India. If she believes they are hypocritical, the offended person will have to prove they are not. I find this discussion almost surreal. At this rate, no one will say anything in fear of offending anyone.

]]> By: Sherenehttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16726 Sherene Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:26:46 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16726 Feel free to screen my comment if you deem it necessary :) For the record, I didn't take any names, of countries or otherwise. What next, people're going to be sued on the basis of metaphorical resemblances, allusions and epithets? I wouldn't be surprised =/ Feel free to screen my comment if you deem it necessary :)

For the record, I didn’t take any names, of countries or otherwise. What next, people’re going to be sued on the basis of metaphorical resemblances, allusions and epithets? I wouldn’t be surprised =/

]]> By: Hindu Atheisthttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16725 Hindu Atheist Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:45:06 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16725 Patrix, I guess you missed one more thing. You are responsible for Sherene's comments since you own the blog. This is what happened with the orkut community. Other people posted comments (even anonymous) but SC is asking the owner to explain his behavior to court. This is a very important distinction. -HA Patrix,

I guess you missed one more thing. You are responsible for Sherene’s comments since you own the blog. This is what happened with the orkut community. Other people posted comments (even anonymous) but SC is asking the owner to explain his behavior to court. This is a very important distinction.

-HA

]]> By: Patrixhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16724 Patrix Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:24:03 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16724 Of course. Any religion that needs defending from mere so-called offensive words is no religion. Section 295(A) is the last refuge to legitimize intimidation and employed when typical forms of threats don't work. And I'm not aware of any negative consequences of filing frivolous cases. It would help if the court made them pay at least legal expenses for the defendant if the case is thrown out. Of course. Any religion that needs defending from mere so-called offensive words is no religion. Section 295(A) is the last refuge to legitimize intimidation and employed when typical forms of threats don’t work. And I’m not aware of any negative consequences of filing frivolous cases. It would help if the court made them pay at least legal expenses for the defendant if the case is thrown out.

]]> By: Hindu Atheisthttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16723 Hindu Atheist Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:36:11 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16723 So basically, 295(A) could be used as a publicity or political tool to harass people? So if a blogger dares to open his mouth against any religious idea, then technically he can be immediately arrested without warrant. Frivolous or not. Having a criminal case registered against you on record - isn't that a scary thought? Are there any implications for the person who filed the case if deliberate and malicious intent cannot be established in the court Or does he just walk out free? So basically, 295(A) could be used as a publicity or political tool to harass people? So if a blogger dares to open his mouth against any religious idea, then technically he can be immediately arrested without warrant. Frivolous or not. Having a criminal case registered against you on record – isn’t that a scary thought? Are there any implications for the person who filed the case if deliberate and malicious intent cannot be established in the court Or does he just walk out free?

]]> By: Patrixhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16722 Patrix Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:05:52 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16722 You have identified the frivolous cases that these so-called offended people file in order to suppress free speech. IMO 295(a) has been widely misused and fails to achieve any good as criteria for getting offended keep falling. So having a blanket restriction of offending religious sentiments is counterproductive as such cases are filed not by true representatives of the religion but by highly-sensitive attention-seekers who profess being offended at the slightest hint of criticism. Sadly, the State allows for such frivolities. You have identified the frivolous cases that these so-called offended people file in order to suppress free speech. IMO 295(a) has been widely misused and fails to achieve any good as criteria for getting offended keep falling. So having a blanket restriction of offending religious sentiments is counterproductive as such cases are filed not by true representatives of the religion but by highly-sensitive attention-seekers who profess being offended at the slightest hint of criticism. Sadly, the State allows for such frivolities.

]]> By: Patrixhttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16721 Patrix Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:01:19 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16721 You just may have violated Article 19 by invoking the public sentiments restriction by calling India the world's largest hypocrisy. I may be sued to give up your IP address :) You just may have violated Article 19 by invoking the public sentiments restriction by calling India the world’s largest hypocrisy. I may be sued to give up your IP address :)

]]> By: Sherenehttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16719 Sherene Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:47:20 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16719 And then we wonder why our country's political scene doesn't attract young, articulate, well-educated people! Opinions and the expression of them can have such ramifications in the 'world's largest democracy'? Perhaps, we should call ourselves the world's largest hypocrisy - oops, did I grate a few nerves there? Should I go hide under my bed now? This entire case is mired in so many layers of political hooliganism that to discuss it as an objective matter of freedom of expression seems almost pointless. And then we wonder why our country’s political scene doesn’t attract young, articulate, well-educated people! Opinions and the expression of them can have such ramifications in the ‘world’s largest democracy’? Perhaps, we should call ourselves the world’s largest hypocrisy – oops, did I grate a few nerves there? Should I go hide under my bed now?

This entire case is mired in so many layers of political hooliganism that to discuss it as an objective matter of freedom of expression seems almost pointless.

]]> By: Hindu Atheisthttp://www.ipatrix.com/2874/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16718 Hindu Atheist Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:59:00 +0000 http://www.ipatrix.com/restricting-freedom-with-excuses-of-responsibility/#comment-16718 Hi Patrix/Dhananjaya Nene and others, Can you post more information about how 295(A) can be applied to bloggers who post regarding religious matters? I am reposting some comments from my blog here for the sake of discussion: Once the legal cases start then they may not be able to establish malicious intent when the case goes all the way through. <b> But non-bailable arrest without warrant and being charged with a criminal offense is something I am not able to digest (tareek pe tareek!!) </b>. All this if someone's religious feelings or public sentiments are hurt!! It is all grey area. Look at the previous cases filed under 295(A): - Arrest of editors from Statesman for republshing an article from Independant http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/editor-arrested-for-outraging-muslims-1607256.html - Ravi Shastri for saying that he ate a beef dish even though he's Hindu. (I don't think he was arrested). But Bajrang Dal did file a case against him under 295(A). (http://therationalfool.blogspot.com/2006/12/bulls-biltong.html ) - Getting arrested for publishing a santa banta jokes online? (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Mumbai/Sikhs_ask_cops_to_ban_Sardar_jokes_on_Net/articleshow/1776258.cms) - Getting arrested and thrown in jail for 50 days for posting some images of Shivaji? (http://desicritics.org/2008/02/05/070202.php) Bloggers need to be ready to react for such an event - resource wise (financially or time). With such laws in Indian Penal code, it looks like it is better to be wise than speak out. Freedom of speech is an illusion ... especially when public religious sentiments are concerned. Rather than discussion of what is right or what is wrong, I would like to know more about realities. I'm just trying to get more info regarding legal implications and possible consequences for bloggers. Thanks for your response. Hi Patrix/Dhananjaya Nene and others,

Can you post more information about how 295(A) can be applied to bloggers who post regarding religious matters? I am reposting some comments from my blog here for the sake of discussion:

Once the legal cases start then they may not be able to establish malicious intent when the case goes all the way through. But non-bailable arrest without warrant and being charged with a criminal offense is something I am not able to digest (tareek pe tareek!!) . All this if someone’s religious feelings or public sentiments are hurt!! It is all grey area.

Look at the previous cases filed under 295(A):
- Arrest of editors from Statesman for republshing an article from Independant
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/editor-arrested-for-outraging-muslims-1607256.html

- Ravi Shastri for saying that he ate a beef dish even though he’s Hindu. (I don’t think he was arrested). But Bajrang Dal did file a case against him under 295(A).
(http://therationalfool.blogspot.com/2006/12/bulls-biltong.html )

- Getting arrested for publishing a santa banta jokes online?
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Mumbai/Sikhs_ask_cops_to_ban_Sardar_jokes_on_Net/articleshow/1776258.cms)

- Getting arrested and thrown in jail for 50 days for posting some images of Shivaji? (http://desicritics.org/2008/02/05/070202.php)

Bloggers need to be ready to react for such an event – resource wise (financially or time). With such laws in Indian Penal code, it looks like it is better to be wise than speak out. Freedom of speech is an illusion … especially when public religious sentiments are concerned.

Rather than discussion of what is right or what is wrong, I would like to know more about realities. I’m just trying to get more info regarding legal implications and possible consequences for bloggers.

Thanks for your response.

]]>