Red line

Another Neta of T’Gana CM whose view on freedom of speech is not influenced by the constitution

In this country, women and men are also “deprived and marched” with disgusting regularity. It is a crime as old as a mob, designed to shame the victims and their families. Enough Indians still remember the backstory of the 1981 Bemma massacre. But Telangana CM Revanth Reddy seems to want to write this “punishment” into the regulations. He spoke in the state legislature on Saturday, warning that anyone who “comments on the women in my family” would be deprived and marched. The sitting CM – sworn in, “true faith and loyalty to the Indian Constitution” – recognizes the crime because crime is disturbing. It’s not that when he puts “my family” above the state.

Reddy tried to project himself as a strong man, causing great harm to his people as the mob would feel bold to distribute its brand of justice. He also caused great harm to the cause of freedom of speech – a constitutional guarantee, but is constantly attacked by the political class and the police. Reddy was angry because two female YouTubers posted a video in which respondents abused his family and him. They were arrested on March 12. Ideally, there should be a case of defamation, not an arrest. But Reddy was even dissatisfied with the arrest. He seems to be using the case as an excuse to mock individuals for “impersonating journalists.” He wants media organizations to define the term “reporter” and submit a list of people who are eligible. “Others will be considered criminals…”

In the case of freedom of speech, Indian law does not grant other citizens the privileges of other citizens. Everyone has the right to have a “reasonably restricted” voice, ranging from decent and slander to friendly relations with foreign countries. Some of these limitations are questionable. But the threat to freedom of speech is usually stimulated by politicians before the speech constituted by police actions. The situation of freedom of speech can only be determined by the application of judicial thinking. And the cases where police action can begin depends only on the Constitution’s “restrictions” list, not on the complaints of neighbors, the anger of moralists or the anger of politicians.

End of the article