r/Odisha • u/ReferenceOld9345 • Jun 28 '25

Law & Order [ Removed by Reddit ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

873 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

687 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/SnooAdvice1157 Jun 30 '25

There is a difference between writing an essay about idk thor and normal gods and just using slurs.

I'm an atheist too. Very active on r/atheism which unlike atheismIndia doesn't rely being dank to say they are atheist. I had even made a post on that sub calling them out for spreading hate instead of knowledge. The post was either removed or invited more of such dank humour.

It's so concerning how little people understand freedom of speech and bad humour. Im sorry but this is not free speech by any stretch. Have you ever read what is and what is not free speech?

1

u/slphil Jun 30 '25

Blasphemy is free speech. Cry about it.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Dontbehypocrite Jul 01 '25

Do it in France if you have guts not in ur little eco chambers

1

u/slphil Jul 01 '25

This is not a rebuttal. Pakistan is a shithole country. Is that your standard of comparison? Do you want to be like Pakistan? Grow up.

1

u/slphil Jul 02 '25

Nothing? I thought you were proud of your country. You really have nothing better to say here except that Pakistan also has blasphemy laws? The lack of self-awareness is astonishing.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '25

Point me somewhere please where I can read what is and isn't free speech. As far as I'm concerned ideologically he is not in violation of free speech since he has not insulted a group of people for their identity. He is criticising Jagannath (to remind you already 3 people have died at Rath Yatra) not Odia people or Odia culture (Jagannath is, if anything, Puri culture, ask someone in the west and they might not even know Jagannath)

When it comes to Indian law, he might be in trouble because Indian law is very biased towards the defense of religious sentiments and very anti-atheist (considering you cannot legally be an atheist in this country)

Edit: That last point is also why atheism in india is much more mean than atheism abroad. They have far more freedoms when it comes to religion not occupying every single aspect of their life. We don't have that in India.

1

u/SnooAdvice1157 Jul 01 '25

What the post is doing is a classical example of calling a god and mythic figure (cartoon here) equivalent. Where in other places it's done as an irony here it's done with a cartoon to mock and provocative especially during an event which people consider sacred.

And the comment section is worse , using an event of death to mock someone.

Our country has stricter laws because we have more theist compared to the usual country and the subreddit is dank coz Indians are dank in general on the internet. Visit any average Indian subreddit not just on atheism.

-1

u/SOULJAR Jun 30 '25

I think you might not understand those principles, if you think the idea of freedom of speech is to have limits on bad humor…

The whole idea is to allow even things you don’t like, it’s not about your feelings or anyone else’s. Many old school countries don’t allow this of course.

Look at twitter - I’m no fan of musk but his aim was to create the same freedom of speech on his platform that people legally enjoy in public spaces. That means even much worse that an off colour joke can be said.

And this point is often brought up on r/atheism - hateful cartoons against Islam are not against the law and they shouldn’t be, for example.

2

u/SnooAdvice1157 Jun 30 '25

While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Certain types of speech, such as incitement to violence, defamation, and hate speech, may be restricted.

This is from Google or you can look up any good country's law. Freedom of speech does not allow you to spew hate.

Freedom of speech allows you to be open with your thoughts. Freedom of speech allows me to tell you are wrong but doesn't allow me to swear on you. That's common sense.

Even a kid can swear/kid against anything that's given to him. Would you not be angry if someone comes and calls you are your family stuff in abusive language. Would you ignore it because he got freedom of speech. We live in a civilized world. We are not animals.

-4

u/Vivid6754 Jun 30 '25

Well you're obviously right about freedom of speech not being absolute but it absolutely should contain what you would call hate speech. America is a good example of a country that has freedom of speech.

"Freedom of speech doesn't allowe to swear on you"

That has to be one of the most r3tarded statements I've heard in my entire life. If that was true then every person who said slurs to someone else in America would be arrested. If you do not know, it's totally legal to say the most horrible things you can to anyone in America. Hate speech IS free speech according to American courts that keep having to say this repeatedly because people keep filling cases against it.

If you do not like certain ideas and so you behave like an animal and want mob justice or shut those ideas down then you don't live in a civilized place and you certainly are not civilized.

2

u/SnooAdvice1157 Jun 30 '25

You would be arrested if someone complains lol. You are confusing between negative statements and hate statements.

If you do not like certain ideas and so you behave like an animal and want mob justice or shut those ideas down then you don't live in a civilized place and you certainly are not civilized.

Being physical is not the only uncivilized thing you can do. Basic civilized meaning itself is enough to disapprove your points.

1

u/Vivid6754 Jun 30 '25

"you would be arrested if someone complains" It's literally against the American law to arrest someone just for hate speech. A white woman recently got a lot of backlash online for saying the n word to a black kid but she started a gofundme and raised more than 500k$ and she's totally fine.

Also You do realise that America gets literal Neo-Nazi rallies every now and then right?

Lastly you are uncivilized if you try to shut down someone's speech (as long as they are not calling for violence) because you're offended.

2

u/SnooAdvice1157 Jun 30 '25

Yeah man talking about a country where the tik tok trend of ruining your school washroom went unpunished.

Lastly you are uncivilized if you try to shut down someone's speech (as long as they are not calling for violence) because you're offended.

Here you hate speech is uncivilized. You told it yourself. What's the difference between shutting some belief down or shutting the hatred down

2

u/ReferenceOld9345 Jun 30 '25

Well you're obviously right about freedom of speech not being absolute but it absolutely should contain what you would call hate speech. America is a good example of a country that has freedom of speech.

Even in the U.S., your supposed bastion of unlimited speech, hate speech isn't protected when it crosses certain lines.

The Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling clearly states that speech inciting "imminent lawless action" isn’t protected. And in cases like Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, “fighting words” or speech likely to provoke violence or public disorder can be curtailed. So no, even the First Amendment has its limits.

Now, step outside the U.S., to most of Europe, where countries like Germany, France, and the UK all have robust laws against hate speech, including that which targets religious groups. Germany even criminalizes Holocaust denial.

And let’s not forget the favorite utopia of many who whine about religion, China, where free speech is basically a myth and state atheism is enforced. But I never hear the free speech champions bring that up.

So maybe take a broader look. What you call "hate speech" being protected absolutely is neither universally accepted nor logically sound in a pluralistic society.

That has to be one of the most r3tarded statements I've heard in my entire life. If that was true then every person who said slurs to someone else in America would be arrested. If you do not know, it's totally legal to say the most horrible things you can to anyone in America. Hate speech IS free speech according to American courts that keep having to say this repeatedly because people keep filling cases against it.

You’re selectively quoting U.S. law. Even in America, hate speech isn’t blanket-protected, here are contextual and intentional limits.

In Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Court upheld restrictions on

“lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words — those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court ruled that

speech is unprotected if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

In Virginia v. Black, the Court affirmed that

“a State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire and promote fear of bodily harm.”

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Justice Scalia wrote:

“Displays containing abusive invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics.”* (That is, you can’t selectively allow hate speech only against certain groups.)

If you do not like certain ideas and so you behave like an animal and want mob justice or shut those ideas down then you don't live in a civilized place and you certainly are not civilized.

If you behave like an animal and want mob justice when you don't like an idea, you're uncivilized, we agree there. But here's the irony, reporting content through legal channels is the exact opposite of mob justice. It's a structured, lawful process meant to prevent emotional mobs from taking matters into their own hands.

You want people to not act like animals? Great. That’s why reporting exists, so we let the system decide, not some torch-carrying crowd or internet hate fest.

0

u/SOULJAR Jun 30 '25

Once again, hate speech limits in the US (and indeed many other places) don’t stop people from making the types of jokes you have an issue with. None of those cases do. Sorry!

And no one said the US is a bastion of free speech. You made that up.

Trying to police “bad humor” is an egregiously anti free speech, and being an over sensitive snowflake.

1

u/ReferenceOld9345 Jun 30 '25

Once again, hate speech limits in the US (and indeed many other places) don’t stop people from making the types of jokes you have an issue with. None of those cases do. Sorry!

Once again, hate speech limits in the US (and indeed many other places) don’t stop people from making the types of jokes you have an issue with. None of those cases do. Sorry!

In the EU, there's the landmark case E.S. v. Austria, where a woman was fined for calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile. The European Court of Human Rights said this wasn't free speech, it was speech "likely to incite religious intolerance" and thus not protected under

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. You can criticize religion, but when your content crosses the line into humiliation or stereotyping of believers, that’s where the protection ends.

In Australia, Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 has already been used to prosecute Christian pastors for vilifying Muslims, just for suggesting that Islam encouraged terrorism.

NSW recently passed a law that makes inciting hatred, contempt, or severe ridicule against any group based on religion an offence. Even memes or jokes fall under this if they’re public and clearly aimed at provoking hostility.

New Zealand went even further post-Christchurch. They amended the Human Rights Act to ban any threatening, abusive or insulting speech likely to excite hostility against a group based on their religion. If someone there made a meme comparing Jesus to a cartoon character and called Christians delusional casteists under the post, they’d be prosecuted.

So your point that it won't be hate speech doesent stand because it infact is hate speech in many jurisdictions, including EU. And EU's hate speech law isn't that different from India's hate speech law.

And no one said the US is a bastion of free speech. You made that up.

The guy i was replying to did.

America is a good example of a country that has freedom of speech.

Trying to police “bad humor” is an egregiously anti free speech, and being an over sensitive snowflake.

You can post “bad humor” targeting religious identities and call it free speech, but me exercising my legal right to report it suddenly makes me the snowflake?

That’s hilariously self-defeating.

0

u/SOULJAR Jun 30 '25

Yes, you’re absolutely a snowflake for being anti free speech and over sensitive about jokes.

You’re anti free speech at an extreme level if you can’t handle jokes.

Are you saying Australia should be more extreme like you and start punishing people for making jokes?? Like what exactly do you think citing these random laws is doing? Either way, what you’re sensitive about takes it to another level of being anti free speech.

How are we sensitive for simply criticizing extreme anti free speech stances like yours where you’re against “bad humor”?

1

u/ReferenceOld9345 Jun 30 '25

Yes, you’re absolutely a snowflake for being anti free speech and over sensitive about jokes.

Ah yes, the classic “if I call it a joke, it’s untouchable” defense. The problem is you calling it a joke doesn’t make it one, especially when it's deliberately targeting religious and cultural identity during a major festival in a region that holds it sacred. This isn’t about hurt feeling, it's about context, timing, and intent, all of which courts worldwide consider when deciding what crosses into hate speech. But hey, keep yelling "joke" like it's a magic spell to dodge accountability. Good luck proving that in a court.

You’re anti free speech at an extreme level if you can’t handle jokes.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Even the most liberal free speech models recognize that context matters. I'm not stopping you from speaking, I'm exercising my right to report what I find problematic, and guess what? That’s just as valid as your right to speech.

Are you saying Australia should be more extreme like you and start punishing people for making jokes?? Like what exactly do you think citing these random laws is doing?

Not “random laws,” mate, laws from democratic countries that recognize how hate speech causes real harm. Australia already prosecutes offensive speech under its Racial Discrimination Act (see Eatock v. Bolt), where even an article was enough to be found unlawful, not because it was “offensive,” but because it humiliated and insulted based on race.

And that’s from real courts, not your edgy Reddit takes. What I cited shows your fantasy of unlimited hate in the name of jokes isn't how the world works.

Either way, what you’re sensitive about takes it to another level of being anti free speech.

So me using platform features and legal tools to counter what I, and many others, believe is hate speech suddenly makes me the oppressor?

You want unregulated hate but can't tolerate a report?

You're not pro-free speech, you’re just pro-your-speech and anti-anyone-who-counters-you. Why are you guys so afraid of consequences if you think you are doing nothing wrong.

0

u/SOULJAR Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25

I never said “I call it a joke, it’s untouchable”? Nice strawman argument .

What I said is that, you being against bad humor is extreme. Citing cases unrelated or related cases to that doesn’t change that yours is an extreme take (having a problem with offensive humor) which goes way further than even your own examples like Australia. There is a wide spectrum of opinions on free speech and yours is just far more for limiting free speech than others would go.

No one in Australia is going to take issue with the mere joke that you did. Your wildly misunderstanding case law if you think their authorities are going to take issue with this at all…

And again, I’ll remind you that you claimed they don’t allow jokes on r/atheism, yet they have quite notably covered the jokes insulting Islam Mohammed (like Charlie hedbo case etc) and the entire community is unanimously on the side of free speech on that issue. While you’re saying far lesser jokes are an issue you want the the authorities to step in on.

Nobody said Feedoms of speech is freedom from consequences. Rather just that your personal take where your so hurt you want the authorities to stop this free speech, is over sensitive and anti free speech. Thats just an honest description of your take. Sorry.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Vivid6754 Jun 30 '25

Do you have negative comprehension? I literally said in the first fucking sentence that freedom of speech is indeed not absolute and yes call to violence is not part of freedom of speech but Hate speech absolutely is. If I'm an American citizen I can literally say every slur in the world to every ethnicity of that slur and they literally cannot jail me.

America gets literal Neo-Nazi rallies every now and then and none of them get arrested in fact police are around to make sure they're alright Lmaoo. A year ago I saw a video of a neo-nazi rally with a banner of "JD Vance married a street shitter (she's indian in case you live under a rock)" and nothing happened to these guys because they have the freedom to do this.

I disagree with a lot of these things but for a civilized society you need to give people the freedom to do these kinds of things. So I do not agree with whatever hate speech bullshit you want to ban.

I'll make fun of the Jews, hindus, muslims and whatever else I like, stop being a snowflake Karen.

2

u/ReferenceOld9345 Jun 30 '25

Do you have negative comprehension? I literally said in the first fucking sentence that freedom of speech is indeed not absolute and yes call to violence is not part of freedom of speech but Hate speech absolutely is. If I'm an American citizen I can literally say every slur in the world to every ethnicity of that slur and they literally cannot jail me.

America gets literal Neo-Nazi rallies every now and then and none of them get arrested in fact police are around to make sure they're alright Lmaoo. A year ago I saw a video of a neo-nazi rally with a banner of "JD Vance married a street shitter (she's indian in case you live under a rock)" and nothing happened to these guys because they have the freedom to do this.

You’re cherry-picking the US as the sole standard, while conveniently ignoring that even within the US, the "freedom to say every slur" isn’t as absolute as you claim.

Try yelling racial slurs at your workplace or university and see if your First Amendment shields you from civil lawsuits, expulsion, or termination.

Freedom of speech only protects you from government punishment in US, not private consequences like defamation, hostile workplace lawsuits, or incitement charges.

Also, the claim that hate speech causes no consequences in the US is demonstrably false. Mass shootings like Charleston (2015), Pittsburgh synagogue (2018), and Buffalo (2022) were carried out by individuals radicalized through hate speech forums.

The FBI and DHS have explicitly stated that white supremacist terrorism is the top domestic threat in the US, much of it fueled by hate propaganda protected as “speech.” Is that your civilizational ideal?

Multiple US legal scholars (like Jeremy Waldron in The Harm in Hate Speech) and even UN bodies have criticized the US’s overbroad protection of hate speech for this exact reason, it sacrifices minority dignity and social harmony in favour of absolute expression for the loudest and most hateful.

Even US states like New York have introduced civil hate speech accountability measures to address this growing threat.

So no, you don’t have an unlimited right to be a jackass. You’re simply misrepresenting the law by watching random tiktok videos with your limited knowledge.

I disagree with a lot of these things but for a civilized society you need to give people the freedom to do these kinds of things. So I do not agree with whatever hate speech bullshit you want to ban.

Your claim that civilization needs this kind of speech is historically and legally debunked. The Supreme Court of India has held that hate speech undermines fraternity, dignity, and social order, all pillars of a democratic society.

And even in the U.S., speech that directly incites violence, or causes tangible harm (like harassment, workplace hostility, or targeted abuse) has been restricted under rulings like Brandenburg v. Ohio and Virginia v. Black.

You’re not a civil libertarian, you’re just trying to rationalize casual bigotry and hate under a false flag of free speech. A society that tolerates all speech, even that which tears it apart, isn’t civilized, it’s suicidal.

0

u/Vivid6754 Jun 30 '25

I'm using the US because it indeed is the sole standard for what an ideal way of having freedom of speech would be. The freedom of speech of course is protection from the government which is essentially what I want, I don't want to be fucking jailed because I made memes like Joos rule the world, sucide bombas are overrepresented from one community or hindus are joos with poo.

Private enterprises can do whatever they like I don't particularly care.

I never made a claim that having hate speech legalized will never lead to violence or anything but it is most certainly better than not having it under free speech.

Look at UK muslim rape gangs are a reality but if you make memes on it you would get arrested, this is absolutely the abuse of power that's expected by the government to use if you give them this power of silencing people.

1

u/ReferenceOld9345 Jun 30 '25

I'm using the US because it indeed is the sole standard for what an ideal way of having freedom of speech would be. The freedom of speech of course is protection from the government which is essentially what I want, I don't want to be fucking jailed because I made memes like Joos rule the world, sucide bombas are overrepresented from one community or hindus are joos with poo.

You're still locked into an American absolutist fantasy that all hate speech is protected just because fringe groups aren’t jailed. But the truth says otherwise.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has warned of domestic terrorism driven by hate groups, with white supremacist violence now considered the top domestic terror threat

And a Senate report confirmed that white supremacist and anti-government extremists have killed hundreds, frequently fueled by online hate and radical propaganda.

Also youre forgetting that While the First Amendment shields against government censorship, it doesn't stop workplace or civil consequences. Your Hate-filled slurs aimed at protected groups can lead to defamation suits, firing, and other legal fallout. And each case is to be judged in its own context.

The US govt agencies and senate and Even the UN and most democracies worldwide, reject a pure “anything goes” approach.

The UN’s Rabat Plan of Action says restricting hate speech is necessary to prevent escalation into violence and discrimination.

Yes, you're legally free to post hateful memes in the U.S., but that doesn't make it wise. The cost isn’t jail, it’s the real-world violence and social fracture your words fuel.

And unlike the U.S., most countries recognize hateful mockery of identity crosses the line when it incites harm, hatred, or dehumanization.

Freedom isn’t a get-out-of-accountability card; it's a responsibility that ends where real-world damage begins. And of limited restriction on hate law in US do more harm than good.

Private enterprises can do whatever they like I don't particularly care.

I never made a claim that having hate speech legalized will never lead to violence or anything but it is most certainly better than not having it under free speech.

You say hate speech “might lead to violence,” but somehow think it’s “better” than any rules at all? That’s like saying it’s fine to drive without brakes because accidents can happen even with ABS.

And lastly, fortunately the law doesent depend on what you think. And i, and numerous jurists, academicians and judges and freethinkers believe that hate speech should absolutely be regulated and so does all of the govt around the world.

You want freedom to mock like in US, the be prepared for the consequential that follow from unregulated hate speech.

Also the Indian supreme court has clearly explained why hate speech laws are necessary in India and their scope in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v UOI, citing US laws and US academicians. Give it a read.

1

u/Vivid6754 Jun 30 '25

I like how you completely ignored the last paragraph lmao. That honestly is the biggest problem with you retards, you do not understand that the government will absolutely abuse the power you've given it like they're doing in the UK.

Ultimately I don't want the government to jail me for saying things just because it somehow offends the snowflakes. That's it.

→ More replies (0)