Traditional View Of Speech: The Traditional Use Of Hate Speech?

Such speeches which insults someone religion aims only to disturb the public order. The book named as Gandhi hatya Ani Mee was confiscated by the judicial Magistrate as it promoted the hatred between Hindu and Muslims. The Bombay High Court stated and restricted the use of hate speech. The court stated that “‘It may be good policy to balance the width of a power by the width of a remedy afforded to prevent the abuse of that power. But that is for the Legislature to consider. A Court called upon to construe the nature and content of a remedy is bound by the language of the Section which prescribes the remedy. What is sound policy may not be a safeguard to the true construction of a section”. Through this case the Judiciary adopted a broad
Mahoney. Mahoney stated that the hate speech is not a legitimate speech. It was stated by him that speech are compressors of something which is in the form of harassment and discrimination. Butler stated that liberal judicial legal framework had failed to explain the impact of nature is free speech. Butler had criticized the hate speech to the free speech. According to him a free speech is secular and liberal framework. He stated that it deserves protection. According to him though liberal framework cannot be done outside the very narrow culture and historical context. He even stated that Blasphemy can we understood within the liberal framework as it is the constraint of free speech. However a basic assumption is challenged by him and he argued that whether someone can censor something that you feel or not. He even stated that the controversies which were related to Muhammad cartoons lead outcome of outrage between blasphemies. He stated that blasphemy must be understood under the section 295 and section
She even states that the issues between the hate speeches which are given now are completely different from the hate speeches which were given before in the 18th and 17th centuries. According to Liang the controversial issue related to Muhammad cartoons was directed to be the controversies. According to Mahmood the controversies of the Muhammad cartoons was an unfortunate consequence that had prevailed the liberal framework. The Muslims really felt offended after these cartoons
In the case of Brandenburg v Ohio the Supreme Court of United States has stated the difference between incident towards and advocacy of violence. This was further expanded in the case of R.A.V. v City of St Paul where the test related to the first one of the Supreme Court was appointed. The Supreme Court strike down the ordinance impugned in this case. The Supreme Court stated the incident which would criminalize it and it also stated the incident which would be non