Top StoriesHate Speech Repudiates Right To Equality In A Polity Committed To Pluralism : Supreme Court Manu Sebastian7 Dec 2020 7:12 AMShare This – x’Hate speech’ has no redeeming or legitimate purpose other than hatred towards a particular group.The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case Amish Devgan v Union of India contains an elaborate discussion on the concept of ‘hate speech’.The judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Sanjay Khanna discusses the distinctions between ‘hate speech’ and ‘free speech’, the need to criminalize ‘hate speech’ and the tests to identify it.”In a polity committed…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case Amish Devgan v Union of India contains an elaborate discussion on the concept of ‘hate speech’.The judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Sanjay Khanna discusses the distinctions between ‘hate speech’ and ‘free speech’, the need to criminalize ‘hate speech’ and the tests to identify it.”In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact,repudiates the right to equality”, the judgment authored by Justice Khanna observed.Hate Speech and Free SpeechThe judgment states that it is necessary to draw a distinction between ‘free speech’ and ‘hate speech’.”In this context, it is necessary to draw a distinction between ‘free speech’ which includes the right to comment, favour or criticise government policies; and ‘hate speech’ creating or spreading hatred against a targeted community or group. The former is primarily concerned with political, social and economic issues and policy matters, the latter would not primarily focus on the subject matter but on the substance of the message which is to cause humiliation and alienation of the targeted group”, the judgment said in paragraph 54.The Court observed that the object of criminalising hate speech is to protect the dignity of an individual and to ensure political and social equality between different identities and groups regardless of caste, creed, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, linguistic preference etc. In the context, the Court explained that ‘dignity’ “refers to a person’s basic entitlement as a member of a society in good standing, his status as a social equal and as bearer of human rights and constitutional entitlements”(Para 46).The Court clarified that dignity, in this context of hate speech, “does not not refer to any particular level of honour or esteem as an individual, as in the case of defamation which is individualistic”.”Loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members contributes to disharmony amongst groups, erodes tolerance and open-mindedness which are a must for multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. It affects an individual as a member of a group”, the Court observed.”Preamble to the Constitution consciously puts together fraternity assuring dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. Dignity of individual and unity and integrity of the nation are linked, one in the form of rights of individuals and other in the form of individual’s obligation to others to ensure unity and integrity of the nation. The unity and integrity of the nation cannot be overlooked and slighted, as the acts that ‘promote’ or are ‘likely’ to ‘promote’ divisiveness, alienation and schematism do directly and indirectly impinge on the diversity and pluralism, and when they are with the objective and intent to cause public disorder or to demean dignity of the targeted groups, they have to be dealt with as per law”(Paragraph 47).Elements of Hate SpeechThe judgment refers to n article by Alice E. Marwick and Ross Miller of Fordham University, New York (USA), elucidating on three distinct elements that legislatures and courts can use to define and identify’hate speech’.They are :content-based element, intent-based element and harm-based element (or impact-based element).In paragraph 48, the judgment explains these elements as below :The content-based element involves open use of words and phrases generally considered to be offensive to a particular community and objectively offensive to the society. It can include use of certain symbols and iconography. By applying objective standards, one knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the content would allow anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race,colour, creed, religion or gender.The intent-based element of ‘hate speech’ requires the speaker’s message to intend only to promote hatred, violence or resentment against a particular class or group without communicating any legitimate message.This requires subjective intent on the part of the speaker to target the group or person associated with the class/group.The harm or impact-based element refers to the consequences of the ‘hate speech’, that is,harm to the victim which can be violent or such as loss of self-esteem, economic or social subordination, physical and mental stress, silencing of the victim and effective exclusion from the political arena.The judgment also added that the three elements are not “watertight silos and do overlap and are interconnected and linked”. “Only when they are present that they produce structural continuity to constitute ‘hate speech'”, the Court said.In this connection, the judgment also referred to the essay ‘Defining Hate Speech’ written by jurist Andrew F. Sellars in paragraph 29. The judgment also referred to jurisprudence of foreign jurisdictions such as USA, Germany, Australia and also ECHR.Reasonable man test for effect of speechThe effect of the words must be judged from the standard of reasonable,strong-minded, firm and courageous men and not by those who are weak and ones with vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.The test is, as they say in English Law, – ‘the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus’, the Court said.”Therefore, to ensure maximisation of free speech and not create ‘free speaker’s burden’, the assessment should be from the perspective of the top of the reasonable member of the public,excluding and disregarding sensitive, emotional and atypical. It is almost akin or marginally lower than the prudent man’s test. The test of reasonableness involves recognition of boundaries within which reasonable responses will fall, and not identification of afinite number of acceptable reasonable responses. Further, this does not mean exclusion of particular circumstances as frequently different persons acting reasonably will respond in different ways in the context and circumstances. This means taking into account peculiarities of the situation and occasion and whether the group is likely to get offended. At the same time, a tolerant society is entitled to expect tolerance as they are bound to extend to others”(Paragraph 49). Content and Context importantAs the content of the speech, its context is also important in determining whether it will amount to ‘hate speech’.’Content’ has more to do with the expression, language and message which should be to vilify, demean and incite psychosocial hatred or physical violence against the targeted group, the judgment observed.The ‘context’ has a certain key variable,namely, ‘who’ and ‘what’ is involved and ‘where’ and the ‘occasion,time and under what circumstances’ the case arises. The judgment recognizes a distinction between the speech advocated by dominant groups and the groups which are victims of historical oppression.In this regard, the judgment observed as follows in paragraph 51.”Communities with a history of deprivation, oppression, and persecution may sometimes speak in relation to their lived experiences, resulting in the words and tone being harsher and more critical than usual. Their historical experience often comes to be accepted by the society as the rule, resulting in their words losing the gravity that they otherwise deserve. In such a situation,it is likely for persons from these communities to reject the tenet of civility, as polemical speech and symbols that capture the emotional loading can play a strong role in mobilising. Such speech should be viewed not from the position of a person of privilege or a community without such a historical experience, but rather, the courts should be more circumspect when penalising such speech. This is recognition of the denial of dignity in the past,and the effort should be reconciliatory”The judgment also observed that statements by persons holding power and influence have to be analyzed in distinction from those made by an ordinary person on the street.”Persons of influence, keeping in view their reach, impact and authority they yield on general public or the specific class to which they belong, owe a duty and have to be more responsible. They are expected to know and perceive the meaning conveyed by the words spoken or written, including the possible meaning that is likely to be conveyed. With experience and knowledge, they are expected to have a higher level of communication skills. It is reasonable to hold that they would be careful in using the words that convey their intent. The reasonable-man’s test would always take into consideration the maker. In other words, the expression’reasonable man’ would take into account the impact a particular person would have and accordingly apply the standard”, the Court observed in this regard.’Good faith and ‘legitimate purpose’ protectionThe Court observed that the law of ‘hate speech’ recognises that all speakers are entitled to ‘good faith’ and ‘(no)-legitimate purpose’ protection.”‘Good faith’ means that the conduct should display fidelity as well as a conscientious approach in honouring the values that tend to minimise insult, humiliation or intimidation. The latter being objective, whereas the former is subjective. The important requirement of ‘good faith’ is that the person must exerciseprudence, caution and diligence. It requires due care to avoid or minimise consequence.’Good faith’ or ‘no-legitimate purpose’ exceptions would apply with greater rigour to protect any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose, or for that matter any purpose that is in public interest, or publication of a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.Such works would get protection when they were not undertaken with a specific intent to cause harm”(Para 53).The Court observed that ‘hate speech’ has no redeeming or legitimate purpose other than hatred towards a particular group.”A publication which contains unnecessary asides which appear to have no real purpose other than to disparage will tend to evidence that the publications were written with a mala fide intention”, the Court observed.The Court made these observations while refusing to quash the FIR registered against News 18 anchor Amish Devgan for his remarks against Sufi Saint Moinuddin Chishti while holding a debate on the Places of Worship Act 1991.Another bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice D Y Chandrachud is also considering the issue of ‘hate speech’ in the Sudarshan TV News Case.Click here to read/download the judgment Next Story
Vine: Northwestern’s Alex Olah Attempts To Take Charge Resulting In Scary Collision With IU’s Hanner Mosquera-Perea
Vine/Jim WeberIndiana is rolling past Northwestern in today’s Big Ten Tournament game, but the Hoosiers got a major scare from a collision under the basket involving forward Hanner Mosquera-Perea. In attempting to draw a charge call, Northwestern center Alex Olah fell into the knee Mosquera-Perea, who was attacking the basket. Luckily, Mosquera-Perea was able to return to the floor after leaving to the locker room following the play.Hanner Mosquera-Perea headed back to the #iubb bench. ESPN reported that no MRI was needed.— Brent Yarina (@BTNBrentYarina) March 13, 2015Hanner Mosquera-Perea walks back onto the court under his own power and with a bag of ice on his right leg. Heavy limp. #iubb— Jordan Littman (@JordanLittman) March 13, 2015Hopefully he will be okay going forward in this Big Ten Tournament. Indiana has no need to risk any further injury tonight. The Hoosiers lead 67-51 late in the second half.
Wisconsin senior big man Frank Kaminsky was presented with the Oscar Robertson Trophy this morning as the United States Basketball Writers Association’s top college player. He received the honor during a press conference at the Final Four in Indianapolis. Seated among the small group of reporters covering the event were Kaminsky’s teammates, and two of them decided to get in the spirit of things and ask questions. When the floor was opened up, forward Nigel Hayes took the mic, identified himself as “Badger beat writer, inter-squad team relations,” and fired away, asking Kaminsky what it really means to win the award.The Wisconsin basketball program’s Instagram account has the footage.According to For The Win’s Tanya Sichynsky, forward Sam Dekker also got into the act after Hayes. Finally, an actual Wisconsin beat writer got a turn to speak, and here’s what happened. Nigel Hayes asks the first question, Sam Dekker asks the second question. I go third, and the team boos me.— Jim Polzin (@JimPolzinWSJ) April 3, 2015The Badgers certainly know how to keep seemingly mundane NCAA pressers entertaining, that’s for sure.
North Carolina’s Brice Johnson (11) celebrates after blocking a shot during the second round of the NCAA tournament at PNC Arena in Raleigh, North Carolina, on March 19.Credit: Courtesy of TNSAfter a crazy four days of basketball this past weekend, we have reached the Sweet 16. In this year’s men’s basketball tournament, we have already seen arguably the most shocking upset in tournament history, an improbable collapse, buzzer beaters and some questionable calls in the first two rounds. With a fresh slate, I am here to predict the results of the rest of the tournament.South RegionNo. 1 Kansas vs. No. 5 Maryland: Even with one of the most talented rosters in the country and a few NBA prospects, Maryland has disappointed throughout the season. Kansas has been rolling since the end of January, when it held off Kentucky in overtime. The Jayhawks’ Wayne Selden has solidified himself as an elite player, alongside his running mate Perry Ellis.Prediction: KansasNo. 2 Villanova vs. No. 3 Miami: I think this is one of the best matchups in the Sweet 16. I trust Miami’s guards Angel Rodriguez and Sheldon McClellan to produce points slightly more than Villanova’s Josh Hart and Ryan Arcidiacono.Prediction: MiamiWest RegionNo. 1 Oregon vs. No. 4 Duke: The X-factor in this matchup will be Luke Kennard, the Duke freshman who has been inconsistent at times shooting the ball throughout the season. With Oregon switching defense and zeroing on slowing down Blue Devil stars Grayson Allen and Brandon Ingram, Kennard should get a lot of open looks.Prediction: DukeNo. 2 Oklahoma vs. No. 3 Texas A&M: After pulling off a miracle against Northern Iowa on Sunday, Texas A&M was given a second life and should be ready to play on Thursday. Even so, I think Oklahoma’s guard play will prove to be too much for the Aggies.Prediction: OklahomaEast RegionNo. 1 North Carolina vs. No. 5 Indiana: I think Indiana’s 3-point shooting can keep this game close for about 30 minutes. However, the last 10 minutes will be when Brice Johnson and the Tar Heels start to separate themselves.Prediction: North CarolinaNo. 6 Notre Dame vs. No. 7 Wisconsin: Coach Greg Gard has really turned his Wisconsin team around from the beginning of the season after taking over part way through. Remarkably, Wisconsin has won its two games despite junior forward Nigel Hayes shooting a combined 5-of-27 from the field. Notre Dame will have to continue looking for ways to get junior forward V.J. Beachem some open shots in order to win this one, which might not happen often against the Badger defense.Prediction: WisconsinMidwest RegionNo. 1 Virginia vs. No. 4 Iowa State: This has the potential to be a great game, with an offensive-minded team versus a defensive one. I look forward to seeing the early matchups and if Virginia’s Malcolm Brogdon checks Iowa State’s Georges Niang early on in the game. If he does, Niang has to be in full attack mode to try to put Brogdon in foul trouble.Prediction: VirginiaNo. 10 Syracuse vs. No. 11 Gonzaga: It is always tough to predict a Syracuse game when you have an opponent not familiar with playing against the Orange’s zone. However, I think the trio of Kyle Wiltjer, Domantas Sabonis and Josh Perkins proves to be too much for Syracuse to handle.Prediction: GonzagaElite EightNo. 1 Kansas vs. No. 3 Miami: This will potentially be Kansas’s toughest matchup of the tournament so far against Miami’s veterans, athleticism and 3-point shooting. I just think Kansas is playing too well to fall to the Hurricanes and will punch its ticket to the Final Four.Prediction: KansasNo. 2 Oklahoma vs. No. 4 Duke: What a thrilling game this could be. This game will go back and forth, not only with the pace of the game, but on the scoreboard. I like my vote for player of the year, Oklahoma senior guard Buddy Hield, to knock off the Blue Devils. Prediction: OklahomaNo. 1 North Carolina vs. No. 7 Wisconsin: I think if North Carolina throws the ball inside, Wisconsin will have trouble keeping up on the scoreboard in this one. If they match up, it will be interesting to see how Wisconsin redshirt freshman forward Ethan Happ tries to create on the offensive end with the Tar Heels’ Isaiah Hicks and Kennedy Meeks guarding him.Prediction: North CarolinaNo. 1 Virginia vs. No. 11 Gonzaga: Here we see Gonzaga back in the regional final after it fell last season to the Duke Blue Devils. With Virginia’s inconsistent interior defense, I like the Bulldogs to pull the upset and reach the Final Four.Prediction: GonzagaFinal FourNo. 1 Kansas vs. No. 2 Oklahoma: Kansas claimed both regular-season victories this season against the Sooners, including a triple-overtime thriller in January. I like Kansas to sneak by again with a big game from Ellis.Prediction: KansasNo. 1 North Carolina vs. No. 11 Gonzaga: North Carolina matches up pretty well against Gonzaga, especially with Johnson mobile enough to defend from the 3-point line against Wiltjer. I like the athleticism of the Tar Heels to force some turnovers and pull away late to face Kansas in the national championship.Prediction: North CarolinaNational championshipNo. 1 Kansas vs. No. 1 North Carolina: Before the tournament, I predicted that these two would face off in the championship game. I still believe that is going to happen. Both teams match up very well against one another, and momentum will be changing throughout the game. I think North Carolina will prevail in the end by hitting some late threes after running its halfcourt offense through the post. Prediction: North Carolina
It’s been a year of transition for the Ohio State men’s gymnastics team. Combine a young squad with an entirely new coaching staff led by former Oklahoma assistant, Rustam Sharipov, and it’s clear why some believed 2011-12 would be a rebuilding year for the Buckeyes. But for senior Ty Echard, that’s just not the case. “It’s gone better than I would have thought it ever would have gone,” Echard said. That’s not to say the changeover has been easy, though. “It’s a battle, the whole season’s a battle,” Echard said. In fact, Sharipov said the focus coming into the season was on molding the team internally, rather than to necessarily “accomplish a lot of stuff on the field.” “Our goal is more (to) accomplish (work) at the gym. In the practice, our goal is to unite the team, change their work ethics, how the guys interact with each other, with the coaches,” Sharipov said. “I think that’s going to affect how we look at the competition.” Sharipov said the way the team practices should dictate their performance against other teams. “(Our) outcome is going to come from how we act at the gym,” he said. Being ranked No. 7 nationally suggests the Buckeyes have done just that. Freshman Danny Steiner said he thinks the team has defied much of the expectations that surrounded them at the beginning of the season. “With the change in coaching with Rustam as our head coach now, I definitely think it’s gone a lot farther than anyone expected us to go,” he said. Steiner credits Sharipov and his staff as the reason the team has been able to get adjusted to the new coaching changes, and said he believes they’ve been able to “move forward and progress a lot faster than (they) would usually be doing.” Although OSU fell 355.500-347.200 to No. 2 Penn State Saturday, Sharipov said his team’s performance was an improvement from how they competed against Michigan more than two weeks ago. He said against the Wolverines, the Buckeyes’ hit percentage was too low, and it’s always tough traveling to a place where it isn’t a secret that they’re not liked. “They’re going to do everything to make you be uncomfortable,” Sharipov said. Against Penn State, though, he said he was pleased with OSU’s 77 percent hit percentage, despite the loss. Sharipov said consistently improving the Buckeyes’ hit percentage, which measures the frequency an athlete successfully lands his routine, is going to be a key to their success down the stretch, and he wants to see it improve to 80-85 percent by the end of the season. And with a contest at Illinois looming Friday, that mindset remains the same. “Our plan is to beat them on execution and the hit percentage,” Sharipov said. “I watched their routines against Penn State a couple weeks ago and they also messed up a couple events. Everybody’s a human being; there’s always room for error.” Steiner said he thinks this season has said a lot about what kind of team the Buckeyes have. “We’re a hardworking team who’s out to prove everyone else wrong — everyone’s assumptions about Ohio State and where the gymnastics has gone,” he said. “I think we’re just proving people wrong, just making our point saying, ‘We’re here, don’t count us out.’”
(Phys.org)—A small team of researchers from the U.S. and Italy has found evidence of a naturally formed quasicrystal in a sample obtained from the Khatyrka meteorite. In their paper published in the journal Scientific Reports, the team describes how they found the quasicrystal and offer some possible explanations on how it was formed. Citation: Khatyrka meteorite found to have third quasicrystal (2016, December 9) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-12-khatyrka-meteorite-quasicrystal.html Prior to the 1980’s, scientists believed there were just two types of solids; crystals and amorphous solids. Crystals are materials made of atoms that are joined in a repeating lattice. Amorphous solids are rather the opposite, having no real order. But then researchers discovered that another type of structure could exist, at least theoretically—quasicrystals. They are made of latticed atoms, like crystals, but do not repeat. After establishing their existence, researchers began making them in labs—over 100 have been created thus far. At the time, it was not clear if quasicrystals could exist naturally, though some suggested there was no reason for them not to come about under conditions similar to those used in labs—thus began a search for an example. That search came to fruition in 2009, as a team studying samples from the Khatyrka meteorite in northeastern Russia found two examples of quasicrystals that were of the same type that had been made in the lab. In this new effort, the researchers report that they have found a third quasicrystal from the same meteorite sample, but this one has never been made artificially before—it is also very similar to one of the other two quasicrystals found in the meteorite. All three have metallic aluminum, which, the team notes, bonds well with oxygen. The newest one also has iron and copper.Though they have no way to prove it, the researchers suggest it is possible the quasicrystals came about due to a collision between asteroids—such a violent impact would provide both the heat and energy needed to cause the unique formations. They suggest that further study of the specimens could lead to a better understanding of the early solar system. The discovery also offers fresh hope that naturally occurring quasicrystals could be found that originated on Earth. (A) Grain 126A; red dashed box indicates the region to be enlarged in (B). (B) The area where there are the three metal assemblages containing the two different icosahedral phases; red dashed boxes (indicated as 1, 2 and 3) indicate the regions to be enlarged in panels on right. Panels 1, 2 and 3 show the different associations of minerals in the three metal assemblages. Credit: Scientific Reports (2016). DOI: 10.1038/srep38117 This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. Explore further