Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
RWhat I’m asking is that is it even possible for the SC to revisit it’s constitutionality after it has been settled many timesRI follow their work. And I’ve heard some calls for a constitutional bench on this issue but is this even legally valid to do so ?RBut how does this make it unconstitutional though. I get the reasoning and is also why I don’t believe in death penalty. I’d be far more supportive of death penalty if there was little to no change of reform and chance of rehabilitation of victim’s loved ones in case of murder.
But I don’t get how it could be unconstitutional if there is implicit allowance of it. What legal ratio could be used to support such a claim ?
RSo after reading it appears what what is struck down usually is restrictions by the law rather than the law itself as a whole.RSome of the goals in article 19 seems very broad. For example if the public morals demand all dissenting speech to be censored , would that be permissible ? I feel like some goals like morals and decency have extremely easy proportionality testsR>What bias? Those judges heard those recordings and made their remarks based on their vast experience of handling such cases. Even the lawyer agreed that those remarks were uncivilized. So what bias is there?There are other judgements that state that vulgarity ≠ obscenity in every instance in the legal sense. Sure those statements were uncivilized, cringe and pathetic. But legally there is established precedent.
>I am actually concerned that you are wasting your time on this issue when there are better things for you to do. Now tell me am I being biased because I personally dislike such youtubers or is it justified based on the multiple posts you are creating, notwithstanding the current comments that “you are not convinced”? Even the article you linked does not justify your stand.
No. I dislike such youtubers too. But I’m more concerned that you don’t see a problem with the fact that judges can make blanket statements on issues that a pre judicial in nature. Wouldn’t this be against judicial ethics in almost any other country ? What am I missing here ? I just don’t want the judiciary to make judgements based on public outrage because it sets a precedent against rule of law.
RStill not convinced bro. Like SC said before that judges shouldn’t make statements that would indicate bias before a hearing or trial even starts. But they’re not following that ? What am I missingRDo their statements necccesarily mean that they are going to make judgements in the same way as their statements ? The judges said “if this isn’t obscenity then I don’t know what is” so if a freedom of speech case was assigned to them within the context of obscenity , would they likely judgement the same way ? Would it even be appropriate for the CJI to assign such cases to judges who have already made pre judicial statements such as thisRI’m sorry. I might be misunderstanding. Maybe they can point their personal opinions in orders but not in judgements since afaik they are different things in different contexts.Still is it appropriate or in line with judicial ethics to make value statements like these ? It seems to be pre judiciary
R>But, why be so bothered about some youtuber, who invited his trouble onto himself?I don’t care about him. His humor is cringe , I’ve never watched their vids same for samay Raina and I wouldn’t care if their channels got demonetised , I’m not against them but I just wouldn’t care.
I’m worried about the fact that the state has unilateral power to censor speech on the basis of vague and subjective grounds. This is a precedent that should never ever be allowed.
Also I’m fairly certain that I remember that judges are not supposed to make remarks of personal opinion in a recent judgement yet they’re contradicting that here.
This is the judgement I’m talking about
https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/judgment-cannot-contain-personal-opinions-judges-not-preach-supreme-court
