What you post…
A long time ago, a guy named Ravi Srinivasan had only 16 followers on Twitter (called X now). He posted something against a politician's son. The police noticed and even arrested him, which was surprising. Since then, many students like Ravi have been punished for what they post online.
One student in Maharashtra, India, made a mistake when she shared a post that seemed to support Pakistan during a special operation called Op Sindoor. Even though she deleted the post and said sorry, her college kicked her out, and the police arrested her for hurting India's feelings and breaking the law. She spent 18 days in jail and missed two exams just for that.
In 2015, India's Supreme Court said that people have the right to express their opinions, even if those opinions are unpopular. They explained that talking or sharing ideas is okay, but trying to make people fight (incitement) is not. Recently, a higher court in Mumbai said the same thing. They asked, 'Does the government want students to stop speaking and turn them into criminals?' The court said the girl's mistake was just a small one, not something serious enough to punish so harshly.
Far away in the United States, the government is also trying to watch what foreign students post on social media before giving them visas to study there. They might check your social media profiles closely, and if you like or share posts about certain topics, like children suffering in Gaza, it could cause problems. The American Civil Liberties Union says this kind of government watching makes people scared to speak freely. People move to the U.S. because of freedom, but if free speech is limited, it's not good for any country, whether in the East or West.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Stalin: Fear of litigation prompts Ravi to give assent to bills; still 14 bills pending
Chennai: Chief minister M K Stalin on Tuesday said governor R N Ravi could have given assent to the two bills that reserved seats in local bodies for people with disabilities (PwD) for fear of litigation. The governor's office is still sitting on 14 bills, including the Kalaignar University Bill, which proposes establishing a university named after former chief minister M Karunanidhi, sources told TOI. Asked for his response to the governor giving assent to bills passed by the assembly in its last sitting, Stalin told reporters here, "That was expected. Not a big issue. It was passed by the legislature and sent. Maybe he gave assent because he was afraid that we would go to court. Nothing else." The Supreme Court had on April 8, set a timeline for governors and the President to decide on bills. Sources told TOI that governor Ravi had since then given assent to eight bills, including four appropriation bills. Among the bills awaiting assent are the Tamil Nadu Fiscal Responsibility (Amendment) Bill and the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Bill. These were passed by the legislature in Feb and Dec 2024, respectively. Other pending bills include one to protect economically weaker sections, especially farmers and women self-help groups, from coercive recovery of loans by microfinance institutions. A bill to amend the Goondas Act to punish dumping of biomedical waste in Tamil Nadu from neighbouring states is also pending. When asked about the pending bills in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on timelines, DMK MP P Wilson stated: "Anyone who has faith in the judicial system and believes in the Constitution and the rule of law must respect the Supreme Court's verdict, as it is final. If the governor chooses to defy the court's order, the law should take its own course. However, I want to know whether the Prime Minister is encouraging such defiance of the court's order. Can the President of India remain silent to such a contemptuous act? The governor should have been sacked when the Supreme Court indicted him for malafide actions."
United News of India
36 minutes ago
- United News of India
After 18 years, SC closes petitions on Human Rights Violations by Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh
New Delhi, June 3 (UNI) Bringing closure to a long-running legal battle, the Supreme Court has disposed of all pending petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others concerning alleged human rights violations committed by Salwa Judum activists and security forces in Chhattisgarh. These matters had remained before the apex court for nearly 18 years. The case traces back to the Chhattisgarh government's controversial deployment of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to combat Maoist/Naxalite insurgency. The SPOs, often associated with groups like the 'Koya Commandos' and Salwa Judum, were accused of committing serious rights violations in the course of anti-insurgency operations. In a landmark 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs, noting grave concerns over state-sponsored vigilantism. Despite that judgment, two writ petitions and one contempt petition remained pending until recently. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the cases, holding that the writ petitions were closed on the ground that the reliefs sought had already been addressed through the 2011 judgment. The contempt petition, which challenged the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, was found to be outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction, as it effectively sought new writs in the guise of contempt, the court ruled. The bench clarified that the enactment of a law cannot be considered contempt of court merely because it follows a judicial order. 'The promulgation simpliciter of an enactment is only an expression of the legislative function and cannot be said to be an act in contempt of a Court unless it is first established that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally or otherwise,' the Court held. Emphasising the separation of powers, the bench reiterated that any law passed by Parliament or a State legislature must be challenged solely on grounds of legislative competence or constitutional validity, not as contempt of court. The Court underlined, 'A legislature has the power to enact or amend a law, even to remove the basis of a judicial judgment, as long as it operates within the constitutional framework.' It also noted that Courts do not have the authority to treat the exercise of legislative power as contempt, simply for enacting or amending laws. Importantly, the bench observed that restoring peace and ensuring rehabilitation in Chhattisgarh remains the constitutional responsibility of both the State and the Union, citing Article 315 of the Constitution. 'It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,' the Court said. UNI SNG RN
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Man goes back on promise to marry woman with ‘aggressive sexual trait'
New Delhi: Supreme Court has quashed rape charges against a man who had a consensual physical relationship with a 30-year-old woman but backed out of his marriage promise after observing her "aggressive sexual behaviour, obsessive nature, and manipulative and vindictive tendencies". Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Allowing the man's plea to quash the FIRs lodged against him by Cyberabad police in 2022 on the woman's complaints accusing him of establishing a physical relationship with the promise of marriage, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, "The facts on record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and these aspects have a great bearing on the controversy." Writing the judgment, Justice Mehta said allowing the man's prosecution would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and the complaints were "nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant (woman)". The court was informed about a similar complaint the woman had lodged against an assistant professor at Osmania University in 2021, where she was studying. What rescued the man in the present case was the chats of the woman, who went by the name 'Muffin' on social media. In the chats, she admitted to being manipulative and her desire to "get a green card holder". "At one point of time, she also stated that it would not be difficult for her to trap the next one. In the very same breath, she mentions that she would not waste time with the accused appellant and needs to 'invest on the next victim'. She also mentions that she would irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her, and she could happily start with the next one. She also stated that she was using the accused appellant," the bench recorded in its judgment. "These chats depict the stark reality about the behavioural pattern of the de-facto complainant who appears to be having manipulative and vindictive tendencies. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant," Justices Nath and Mehta said. Quashing the FIRs, the SC said, "Hence, even assuming that the accused appellant retracted from his promise to marry the complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage or that the offence was committed by him with the de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community."
