Why can't we use freedom of speech and expression to incite people to rebel against government in India?Is it allowed to protest peacefully against the government on certain issues in India?Why are US, EU and human-rights NGOs silent against the killing of innocent kurdish people in Turkey?Wikipedia, Context and Freedom of SpeechWhy does India follow a 'No First Use Policy' for nuclear weapons?Why did the government of India prefer to keep silence on the matter of corruption in the armed forces?Why is the government of India probing Dr Zakir Naik for connection with terrorism after 26 years?Why did the government (s) of India fail to protect Babri Mosque from demolition by Hindus?Is it accurate to compare the nuclearization of North Korea with that of Pakistan and India? Why or why not?Why did Muslims and Hindus stay in India and Pakistan respectively rather than migrating?Why is not allowing homeless people in the streets considered against human rights?

Is all copper pipe pretty much the same?

How to deal with a cynical class?

Does splitting a potentially monolithic application into several smaller ones help prevent bugs?

Does the Bracer of Flying Daggers benefit from the Dueling fighting style?

Why doesn't the EU now just force the UK to choose between referendum and no-deal?

Question about partial fractions with irreducible quadratic factors

What to do when during a meeting client people start to fight (even physically) with each others?

What is the dot in “1.2.4."

What is the likely impact on flights of grounding an entire aircraft series?

Why do Australian milk farmers need to protest supermarkets' milk price?

If the Captain's screens are out, does he switch seats with the co-pilot?

what does the apostrophe mean in this notation?

Counter-example to the existence of left Bousfield localization of combinatorial model category

Do I need to leave some extra space available on the disk which my database log files reside, for log backup operations to successfully occur?

Single word request: Harming the benefactor

Is it illegal in Germany to take sick leave if you caused your own illness with food?

Latest web browser compatible with Windows 98

How to make readers know that my work has used a hidden constraint?

Replacing Windows 7 security updates with anti-virus?

"One can do his homework in the library"

How is the Swiss post e-voting system supposed to work, and how was it wrong?

Good allowance savings plan?

Are there situations where a child is permitted to refer to their parent by their first name?

How does Dispel Magic work against Stoneskin?



Why can't we use freedom of speech and expression to incite people to rebel against government in India?


Is it allowed to protest peacefully against the government on certain issues in India?Why are US, EU and human-rights NGOs silent against the killing of innocent kurdish people in Turkey?Wikipedia, Context and Freedom of SpeechWhy does India follow a 'No First Use Policy' for nuclear weapons?Why did the government of India prefer to keep silence on the matter of corruption in the armed forces?Why is the government of India probing Dr Zakir Naik for connection with terrorism after 26 years?Why did the government (s) of India fail to protect Babri Mosque from demolition by Hindus?Is it accurate to compare the nuclearization of North Korea with that of Pakistan and India? Why or why not?Why did Muslims and Hindus stay in India and Pakistan respectively rather than migrating?Why is not allowing homeless people in the streets considered against human rights?













17















In India we are not allowed to incite people to rebel against the government. Why are we not allowed to do so?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 4





    I suspect almost all independent states have laws against sedition. In the US, for example, I believe it is punishable by 20 years in prison - 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000). "In 1981, Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican Nationalist and Vietnam war veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and various other offenses."

    – RedGrittyBrick
    Mar 7 at 14:50






  • 6





    Probably for the same reason you can't shout "Fire!!!" in a crowded theatre.

    – Valorum
    Mar 7 at 15:11






  • 3





    @Valorum Now I'm going to have to sick Popehat on you: popehat.com/2012/09/19/…

    – jeffronicus
    Mar 7 at 16:58






  • 6





    There's a big difference between espousing the flaws of the government and encouraging people to rise up against oppression, and in planning and plotting violent activities aimed at taking down government organizations. One of these is speech, which is protected, and the other is a planned assault, which is not protected.

    – Zibbobz
    Mar 7 at 20:21






  • 5





    @Valorum It's perfectly valid to shout Fire!!! if there actually is a fire.

    – pipe
    Mar 8 at 7:55















17















In India we are not allowed to incite people to rebel against the government. Why are we not allowed to do so?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 4





    I suspect almost all independent states have laws against sedition. In the US, for example, I believe it is punishable by 20 years in prison - 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000). "In 1981, Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican Nationalist and Vietnam war veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and various other offenses."

    – RedGrittyBrick
    Mar 7 at 14:50






  • 6





    Probably for the same reason you can't shout "Fire!!!" in a crowded theatre.

    – Valorum
    Mar 7 at 15:11






  • 3





    @Valorum Now I'm going to have to sick Popehat on you: popehat.com/2012/09/19/…

    – jeffronicus
    Mar 7 at 16:58






  • 6





    There's a big difference between espousing the flaws of the government and encouraging people to rise up against oppression, and in planning and plotting violent activities aimed at taking down government organizations. One of these is speech, which is protected, and the other is a planned assault, which is not protected.

    – Zibbobz
    Mar 7 at 20:21






  • 5





    @Valorum It's perfectly valid to shout Fire!!! if there actually is a fire.

    – pipe
    Mar 8 at 7:55













17












17








17


2






In India we are not allowed to incite people to rebel against the government. Why are we not allowed to do so?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












In India we are not allowed to incite people to rebel against the government. Why are we not allowed to do so?







india human-rights freedom-of-speech






share|improve this question









New contributor




Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 7 at 18:26









Freiheit

998




998






New contributor




Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Mar 7 at 6:21









Arifa AkhtarArifa Akhtar

9513




9513




New contributor




Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 4





    I suspect almost all independent states have laws against sedition. In the US, for example, I believe it is punishable by 20 years in prison - 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000). "In 1981, Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican Nationalist and Vietnam war veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and various other offenses."

    – RedGrittyBrick
    Mar 7 at 14:50






  • 6





    Probably for the same reason you can't shout "Fire!!!" in a crowded theatre.

    – Valorum
    Mar 7 at 15:11






  • 3





    @Valorum Now I'm going to have to sick Popehat on you: popehat.com/2012/09/19/…

    – jeffronicus
    Mar 7 at 16:58






  • 6





    There's a big difference between espousing the flaws of the government and encouraging people to rise up against oppression, and in planning and plotting violent activities aimed at taking down government organizations. One of these is speech, which is protected, and the other is a planned assault, which is not protected.

    – Zibbobz
    Mar 7 at 20:21






  • 5





    @Valorum It's perfectly valid to shout Fire!!! if there actually is a fire.

    – pipe
    Mar 8 at 7:55












  • 4





    I suspect almost all independent states have laws against sedition. In the US, for example, I believe it is punishable by 20 years in prison - 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000). "In 1981, Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican Nationalist and Vietnam war veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and various other offenses."

    – RedGrittyBrick
    Mar 7 at 14:50






  • 6





    Probably for the same reason you can't shout "Fire!!!" in a crowded theatre.

    – Valorum
    Mar 7 at 15:11






  • 3





    @Valorum Now I'm going to have to sick Popehat on you: popehat.com/2012/09/19/…

    – jeffronicus
    Mar 7 at 16:58






  • 6





    There's a big difference between espousing the flaws of the government and encouraging people to rise up against oppression, and in planning and plotting violent activities aimed at taking down government organizations. One of these is speech, which is protected, and the other is a planned assault, which is not protected.

    – Zibbobz
    Mar 7 at 20:21






  • 5





    @Valorum It's perfectly valid to shout Fire!!! if there actually is a fire.

    – pipe
    Mar 8 at 7:55







4




4





I suspect almost all independent states have laws against sedition. In the US, for example, I believe it is punishable by 20 years in prison - 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000). "In 1981, Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican Nationalist and Vietnam war veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and various other offenses."

– RedGrittyBrick
Mar 7 at 14:50





I suspect almost all independent states have laws against sedition. In the US, for example, I believe it is punishable by 20 years in prison - 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000). "In 1981, Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican Nationalist and Vietnam war veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and various other offenses."

– RedGrittyBrick
Mar 7 at 14:50




6




6





Probably for the same reason you can't shout "Fire!!!" in a crowded theatre.

– Valorum
Mar 7 at 15:11





Probably for the same reason you can't shout "Fire!!!" in a crowded theatre.

– Valorum
Mar 7 at 15:11




3




3





@Valorum Now I'm going to have to sick Popehat on you: popehat.com/2012/09/19/…

– jeffronicus
Mar 7 at 16:58





@Valorum Now I'm going to have to sick Popehat on you: popehat.com/2012/09/19/…

– jeffronicus
Mar 7 at 16:58




6




6





There's a big difference between espousing the flaws of the government and encouraging people to rise up against oppression, and in planning and plotting violent activities aimed at taking down government organizations. One of these is speech, which is protected, and the other is a planned assault, which is not protected.

– Zibbobz
Mar 7 at 20:21





There's a big difference between espousing the flaws of the government and encouraging people to rise up against oppression, and in planning and plotting violent activities aimed at taking down government organizations. One of these is speech, which is protected, and the other is a planned assault, which is not protected.

– Zibbobz
Mar 7 at 20:21




5




5





@Valorum It's perfectly valid to shout Fire!!! if there actually is a fire.

– pipe
Mar 8 at 7:55





@Valorum It's perfectly valid to shout Fire!!! if there actually is a fire.

– pipe
Mar 8 at 7:55










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















23














Sedition, the technical legal term for what you're talking about, is prohibited by section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This dates all the way back to the colonial era, and was originally used to suppress people pushing for India's independence from Britain.



The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1962 that section 124A was constitutional, but that speech or actions only constitute sedition if it incites or tends to incite violence or disorder. There is apparently some ongoing issues with this, with allegations of various substance that people are being charged with sedition despite their speech and/or actions not meeting this standard. But that's not terribly relevant to your question, though it might explain why it is of importance to you.



Answering your question beyond that is difficult, however. Free speech is enshrined in India's constitution, and indeed in several international treaties and conventions that India is a part of. But the jurisprudence on the matter seems inconsistent, with courts of all levels (including the Supreme Court) tending to produce conflicting precedents. The simplest explanation may be historical momentum: this part of the IPC has been around for a long time, and it can be difficult to repeal or alter (or, at times, even find) laws that are so old. This gets exacerbated by the idea that, in principle, Supreme Court decisions have already made alterations to the law, and legislatures across the globe tend to be slow to make such formal alterations. This is apparent in the United States, too, where many laws, state constitutions, etc. formally contain provisions that have been held unconstitutional. These have no legal force, and nobody tries to enforce them, so formally altering them is basically just political theater to most people (though technically, if the US constitution was suitably amended they could be rendered valid once again), and so time better spent elsewhere.






share|improve this answer




















  • 6





    Funny; old laws (not only in India) should by default be easier to repeal (since they are more likely to be obsolete).

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 7 at 10:25






  • 2





    @PeterA.Schneider I think that's how most people originally respond to the idea. But practical legislative and political realities tend to let them fall through the cracks: there's usually not a pressing need to do so, it's just decluttering (which in some instances is even bad, as exactly where things appear in the law changes how they are interpreted, and decluttering these without accounting for that can lead to significant and likely unintended consequences). So they do other things which the constituents find more pressing and important.

    – zibadawa timmy
    Mar 7 at 10:30







  • 10





    So law is like my software ... better don't change anything because it could have bad, unintended consequences ... bad ;-).

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Mar 7 at 11:11







  • 2





    Commenters here would enjoy learning about the Law Commission of India, which has existed since the middle 19th century, and which is currently in its 21st incarnation since 1955.

    – JdeBP
    Mar 7 at 12:14






  • 3





    I disagree that purging the code of unconstitutional law is "just political theater". Having unenforceable laws on the books confuses people about what the law really is. If a law has been ruled invalid, the legislature should amend it out of the statute books.

    – Monty Harder
    Mar 7 at 20:11


















10














I'm not familiar with India, but in general, guaranteed freedoms are never absolute. This would be a recipe for anarchy. The enforcing authority (the government) has to limit every freedom at least a little, or else that freedom could then be used to infringe upon other freedoms.



In the US, freedom of speech is pretty sacred and generally interpreted by the courts very expansively -- that's why it's so hard in the US to sue someone for libel or prosecute someone for treason. But even in the US there are serious limitations. As a basic example, it is illegal to use speech to directly incite a crime.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Eli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 2





    The difficulty of prosecuting someone for treason is not really to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the fact that the U.S. constitution limits constructive treason with what is known as the Treason Clause.

    – JdeBP
    Mar 7 at 11:48






  • 1





    Exactly, freedoms are never absolute! In particular, your freedom ends when you use it to harm other people.

    – Dr Sheldon
    Mar 7 at 13:52






  • 1





    @JdeBP That's hardly unique to the US. The UK has many fewer protections for, e.g., freedom of speech, but there hasn't been a treason trial in the UK since 1945.

    – David Richerby
    Mar 7 at 13:53


















9














Governments Crave Self-Preservation



The degree may vary, but all sufficiently large organisations eventually start gaining traits that promote its preservation. Some see it as a government's duty to ensure it doesn't get toppled easily, others will point out that governments without such measures are likely to, in the long run, be toppled more often, leading to an evolutionary selection of sorts for governments with such measures.



Restrictions on speech against inciting a toppling of a government are one example of such measure. (Others include monopoly on military force, on legislation and enforcement of law etc.)






share|improve this answer























  • Or you could see the other way around starting with the hypothesis that censorship is the natural/primitive state. It would mean that people/nations need to learn to overcome this, on their path toward civilization.

    – JinSnow
    Mar 7 at 11:23











  • I'm not sure I really buy this, especially as your headline makes it sound like power lust. All these governments who "crave self-preservation" but keep on running elections and getting voted out...

    – David Richerby
    Mar 7 at 13:58












  • @DavidRicherby Governments getting voted out is pretty rare. In most cases the election changes the MPs, ministers and presidents, but makes them serve in the same government. In fact I have the impression (but not backed by statistics) that governments more often cease to exist through a revolution, constitutional etc. than through a referendum.

    – vicky_molokh
    Mar 7 at 14:08







  • 3





    @vicky_molokh: In part this depends how you define "government". In the UK, the word government is mostly used to mean the current executive branch - In UK terms the prime-minister and cabinet. This "government" is mostly thrown out after five or ten years. In other parts of the world the term "government" may apply to the whole system of constitution and all legislative and administrative branches - which are only thrown out wholesale in a revolution. In the UK, "government" getting voted out is commonplace.

    – RedGrittyBrick
    Mar 7 at 14:31











  • OK, so you mean systems of government rather than actual governments. It kinda looks like I'm nitpicking over two letters, but I think you mean "Government craves" rather than "Governments crave".

    – David Richerby
    Mar 7 at 15:04


















7














In a democracy, you are allowed to advocate a complete overthrow of the existing government, via voting. While it is commonplace today, the peaceful transfer of power from one government to the next is just that - an existing government stepping down and allowing itself to be overthrown.



What you can't do is advocate violence, whether to overthrow a government or any other reason, because advocating a crime is generally not considered protected speech.






share|improve this answer






























    6














    Since I have found that most of the answers are not India specific, I am adding to them.
    In India we derive freedom of speech and expression from Article 19 (1) (a). This freedom is (like all the other 5) subjected to reasonable restrictions, 19 (2) specifically on freedom of speech. Clause (2) of the article puts 8 restriction on freedom of speech namely,



    1. Sovereignty and integrity of state

    2. Security of state

    3. Friendly relations with foreign states

    4. Public order

    5. Decency or morality

    6. Contempt of court

    7. Defamation

    8. Incitement of offence

    If your speech is not hurting any of these then you're good and can oppose the government but inciting to rebel threatens point 1 IF government is legally established (as it has people's mandate) and also point 8 to some extent (IPC Section 124A, but it's removal is debated).
    As sovereignty and democracy are basic elements of our constitution (Kesavanand Bharati case) it can't be amended and hence as long as democracy and rule of law is there you can't incite to rebel against a just and democratically elected government.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Aditya Singh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.



























      2














      Because there is a law prohibiting it!



      'Free Speech' is an ideal. Many constitutions, written or unwritten, set great store by it.



      But no country I know of allows unlimited free speech. They all draw the line when it is misrepresentation, harmful, obscene, incitement to criminal action etc.



      I know we're discussing India. But it is interesting to consider whether America's beloved Second Amendment, often interpreted as enabling citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government, implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Laurence Payne is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















      • Re: Second Amendment question yes, but it's more a free speech matter than a second amendment matter. U.S. Jurisprudence for Free Speech is that the intent of the speaker determines whether speech is protected or unprotected (i.e. could be prosecuted by government in someway), not the interpretation of the listener. Thus, there are circumstances where it is acceptable to discuss for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (i.e. a comedian, making a joke about killing the sitting President, is not guilty of threatening to kill the president, because his intent was to make fun of the idea

        – hszmv
        Mar 7 at 14:29











      • Whereas the modern trend is to assess culpability (even criminal culpability) by the degree of offence taken by the object of abuse.

        – Laurence Payne
        Mar 7 at 14:32











      • In the court of public opinion, yes. In the United States judicial system, attacking someone for something they said that is offensive (Fighting Words) is pretty hard to justify... Fighting Word Doctrine is better defined by what it is not, than what it is (no case on a Fighting Words Doctrine offense has been upheld by the Supreme Court... beyond the one that named the offense in the first place).

        – hszmv
        Mar 7 at 14:54






      • 2





        Re "consider whether [...] overthrow a tyrannical government [...] implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action." Yes actually, in the US I'm pretty sure that it is entirely legal for those who believe the US government is tyrannical to discuss whether it should be overthrown and how that should be done. People do it all the time, very publically for some of them. Some have even publically advocated and expressly called for that to happen now. Anecdotally from experience reading news, it generally doesn't become legal matter until it starts or until violence is actively planned.

        – Aaron
        Mar 7 at 17:17











      • For an example, about 5-10 years ago there were 2nd amendment activists which were actively coordinating an effort to march thousands of armed citizens through the nation's capital in a peaceful protest, and one of the leaders was (if I recall correctly; it's hazy) also active in saying that citizens should overthrow the current government though he never attempted doing so. The response by the government was merely to say "Anyone who is carrying a firearm crossing the border into the capital will be arrested."

        – Aaron
        Mar 7 at 17:21










      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "475"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39249%2fwhy-cant-we-use-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-to-incite-people-to-rebel-agai%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      23














      Sedition, the technical legal term for what you're talking about, is prohibited by section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This dates all the way back to the colonial era, and was originally used to suppress people pushing for India's independence from Britain.



      The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1962 that section 124A was constitutional, but that speech or actions only constitute sedition if it incites or tends to incite violence or disorder. There is apparently some ongoing issues with this, with allegations of various substance that people are being charged with sedition despite their speech and/or actions not meeting this standard. But that's not terribly relevant to your question, though it might explain why it is of importance to you.



      Answering your question beyond that is difficult, however. Free speech is enshrined in India's constitution, and indeed in several international treaties and conventions that India is a part of. But the jurisprudence on the matter seems inconsistent, with courts of all levels (including the Supreme Court) tending to produce conflicting precedents. The simplest explanation may be historical momentum: this part of the IPC has been around for a long time, and it can be difficult to repeal or alter (or, at times, even find) laws that are so old. This gets exacerbated by the idea that, in principle, Supreme Court decisions have already made alterations to the law, and legislatures across the globe tend to be slow to make such formal alterations. This is apparent in the United States, too, where many laws, state constitutions, etc. formally contain provisions that have been held unconstitutional. These have no legal force, and nobody tries to enforce them, so formally altering them is basically just political theater to most people (though technically, if the US constitution was suitably amended they could be rendered valid once again), and so time better spent elsewhere.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 6





        Funny; old laws (not only in India) should by default be easier to repeal (since they are more likely to be obsolete).

        – Peter A. Schneider
        Mar 7 at 10:25






      • 2





        @PeterA.Schneider I think that's how most people originally respond to the idea. But practical legislative and political realities tend to let them fall through the cracks: there's usually not a pressing need to do so, it's just decluttering (which in some instances is even bad, as exactly where things appear in the law changes how they are interpreted, and decluttering these without accounting for that can lead to significant and likely unintended consequences). So they do other things which the constituents find more pressing and important.

        – zibadawa timmy
        Mar 7 at 10:30







      • 10





        So law is like my software ... better don't change anything because it could have bad, unintended consequences ... bad ;-).

        – Peter A. Schneider
        Mar 7 at 11:11







      • 2





        Commenters here would enjoy learning about the Law Commission of India, which has existed since the middle 19th century, and which is currently in its 21st incarnation since 1955.

        – JdeBP
        Mar 7 at 12:14






      • 3





        I disagree that purging the code of unconstitutional law is "just political theater". Having unenforceable laws on the books confuses people about what the law really is. If a law has been ruled invalid, the legislature should amend it out of the statute books.

        – Monty Harder
        Mar 7 at 20:11















      23














      Sedition, the technical legal term for what you're talking about, is prohibited by section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This dates all the way back to the colonial era, and was originally used to suppress people pushing for India's independence from Britain.



      The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1962 that section 124A was constitutional, but that speech or actions only constitute sedition if it incites or tends to incite violence or disorder. There is apparently some ongoing issues with this, with allegations of various substance that people are being charged with sedition despite their speech and/or actions not meeting this standard. But that's not terribly relevant to your question, though it might explain why it is of importance to you.



      Answering your question beyond that is difficult, however. Free speech is enshrined in India's constitution, and indeed in several international treaties and conventions that India is a part of. But the jurisprudence on the matter seems inconsistent, with courts of all levels (including the Supreme Court) tending to produce conflicting precedents. The simplest explanation may be historical momentum: this part of the IPC has been around for a long time, and it can be difficult to repeal or alter (or, at times, even find) laws that are so old. This gets exacerbated by the idea that, in principle, Supreme Court decisions have already made alterations to the law, and legislatures across the globe tend to be slow to make such formal alterations. This is apparent in the United States, too, where many laws, state constitutions, etc. formally contain provisions that have been held unconstitutional. These have no legal force, and nobody tries to enforce them, so formally altering them is basically just political theater to most people (though technically, if the US constitution was suitably amended they could be rendered valid once again), and so time better spent elsewhere.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 6





        Funny; old laws (not only in India) should by default be easier to repeal (since they are more likely to be obsolete).

        – Peter A. Schneider
        Mar 7 at 10:25






      • 2





        @PeterA.Schneider I think that's how most people originally respond to the idea. But practical legislative and political realities tend to let them fall through the cracks: there's usually not a pressing need to do so, it's just decluttering (which in some instances is even bad, as exactly where things appear in the law changes how they are interpreted, and decluttering these without accounting for that can lead to significant and likely unintended consequences). So they do other things which the constituents find more pressing and important.

        – zibadawa timmy
        Mar 7 at 10:30







      • 10





        So law is like my software ... better don't change anything because it could have bad, unintended consequences ... bad ;-).

        – Peter A. Schneider
        Mar 7 at 11:11







      • 2





        Commenters here would enjoy learning about the Law Commission of India, which has existed since the middle 19th century, and which is currently in its 21st incarnation since 1955.

        – JdeBP
        Mar 7 at 12:14






      • 3





        I disagree that purging the code of unconstitutional law is "just political theater". Having unenforceable laws on the books confuses people about what the law really is. If a law has been ruled invalid, the legislature should amend it out of the statute books.

        – Monty Harder
        Mar 7 at 20:11













      23












      23








      23







      Sedition, the technical legal term for what you're talking about, is prohibited by section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This dates all the way back to the colonial era, and was originally used to suppress people pushing for India's independence from Britain.



      The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1962 that section 124A was constitutional, but that speech or actions only constitute sedition if it incites or tends to incite violence or disorder. There is apparently some ongoing issues with this, with allegations of various substance that people are being charged with sedition despite their speech and/or actions not meeting this standard. But that's not terribly relevant to your question, though it might explain why it is of importance to you.



      Answering your question beyond that is difficult, however. Free speech is enshrined in India's constitution, and indeed in several international treaties and conventions that India is a part of. But the jurisprudence on the matter seems inconsistent, with courts of all levels (including the Supreme Court) tending to produce conflicting precedents. The simplest explanation may be historical momentum: this part of the IPC has been around for a long time, and it can be difficult to repeal or alter (or, at times, even find) laws that are so old. This gets exacerbated by the idea that, in principle, Supreme Court decisions have already made alterations to the law, and legislatures across the globe tend to be slow to make such formal alterations. This is apparent in the United States, too, where many laws, state constitutions, etc. formally contain provisions that have been held unconstitutional. These have no legal force, and nobody tries to enforce them, so formally altering them is basically just political theater to most people (though technically, if the US constitution was suitably amended they could be rendered valid once again), and so time better spent elsewhere.






      share|improve this answer















      Sedition, the technical legal term for what you're talking about, is prohibited by section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This dates all the way back to the colonial era, and was originally used to suppress people pushing for India's independence from Britain.



      The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1962 that section 124A was constitutional, but that speech or actions only constitute sedition if it incites or tends to incite violence or disorder. There is apparently some ongoing issues with this, with allegations of various substance that people are being charged with sedition despite their speech and/or actions not meeting this standard. But that's not terribly relevant to your question, though it might explain why it is of importance to you.



      Answering your question beyond that is difficult, however. Free speech is enshrined in India's constitution, and indeed in several international treaties and conventions that India is a part of. But the jurisprudence on the matter seems inconsistent, with courts of all levels (including the Supreme Court) tending to produce conflicting precedents. The simplest explanation may be historical momentum: this part of the IPC has been around for a long time, and it can be difficult to repeal or alter (or, at times, even find) laws that are so old. This gets exacerbated by the idea that, in principle, Supreme Court decisions have already made alterations to the law, and legislatures across the globe tend to be slow to make such formal alterations. This is apparent in the United States, too, where many laws, state constitutions, etc. formally contain provisions that have been held unconstitutional. These have no legal force, and nobody tries to enforce them, so formally altering them is basically just political theater to most people (though technically, if the US constitution was suitably amended they could be rendered valid once again), and so time better spent elsewhere.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Mar 8 at 14:30









      Community

      1




      1










      answered Mar 7 at 8:31









      zibadawa timmyzibadawa timmy

      4,1671827




      4,1671827







      • 6





        Funny; old laws (not only in India) should by default be easier to repeal (since they are more likely to be obsolete).

        – Peter A. Schneider
        Mar 7 at 10:25






      • 2





        @PeterA.Schneider I think that's how most people originally respond to the idea. But practical legislative and political realities tend to let them fall through the cracks: there's usually not a pressing need to do so, it's just decluttering (which in some instances is even bad, as exactly where things appear in the law changes how they are interpreted, and decluttering these without accounting for that can lead to significant and likely unintended consequences). So they do other things which the constituents find more pressing and important.

        – zibadawa timmy
        Mar 7 at 10:30







      • 10





        So law is like my software ... better don't change anything because it could have bad, unintended consequences ... bad ;-).

        – Peter A. Schneider
        Mar 7 at 11:11







      • 2





        Commenters here would enjoy learning about the Law Commission of India, which has existed since the middle 19th century, and which is currently in its 21st incarnation since 1955.

        – JdeBP
        Mar 7 at 12:14






      • 3





        I disagree that purging the code of unconstitutional law is "just political theater". Having unenforceable laws on the books confuses people about what the law really is. If a law has been ruled invalid, the legislature should amend it out of the statute books.

        – Monty Harder
        Mar 7 at 20:11












      • 6





        Funny; old laws (not only in India) should by default be easier to repeal (since they are more likely to be obsolete).

        – Peter A. Schneider
        Mar 7 at 10:25






      • 2





        @PeterA.Schneider I think that's how most people originally respond to the idea. But practical legislative and political realities tend to let them fall through the cracks: there's usually not a pressing need to do so, it's just decluttering (which in some instances is even bad, as exactly where things appear in the law changes how they are interpreted, and decluttering these without accounting for that can lead to significant and likely unintended consequences). So they do other things which the constituents find more pressing and important.

        – zibadawa timmy
        Mar 7 at 10:30







      • 10





        So law is like my software ... better don't change anything because it could have bad, unintended consequences ... bad ;-).

        – Peter A. Schneider
        Mar 7 at 11:11







      • 2





        Commenters here would enjoy learning about the Law Commission of India, which has existed since the middle 19th century, and which is currently in its 21st incarnation since 1955.

        – JdeBP
        Mar 7 at 12:14






      • 3





        I disagree that purging the code of unconstitutional law is "just political theater". Having unenforceable laws on the books confuses people about what the law really is. If a law has been ruled invalid, the legislature should amend it out of the statute books.

        – Monty Harder
        Mar 7 at 20:11







      6




      6





      Funny; old laws (not only in India) should by default be easier to repeal (since they are more likely to be obsolete).

      – Peter A. Schneider
      Mar 7 at 10:25





      Funny; old laws (not only in India) should by default be easier to repeal (since they are more likely to be obsolete).

      – Peter A. Schneider
      Mar 7 at 10:25




      2




      2





      @PeterA.Schneider I think that's how most people originally respond to the idea. But practical legislative and political realities tend to let them fall through the cracks: there's usually not a pressing need to do so, it's just decluttering (which in some instances is even bad, as exactly where things appear in the law changes how they are interpreted, and decluttering these without accounting for that can lead to significant and likely unintended consequences). So they do other things which the constituents find more pressing and important.

      – zibadawa timmy
      Mar 7 at 10:30






      @PeterA.Schneider I think that's how most people originally respond to the idea. But practical legislative and political realities tend to let them fall through the cracks: there's usually not a pressing need to do so, it's just decluttering (which in some instances is even bad, as exactly where things appear in the law changes how they are interpreted, and decluttering these without accounting for that can lead to significant and likely unintended consequences). So they do other things which the constituents find more pressing and important.

      – zibadawa timmy
      Mar 7 at 10:30





      10




      10





      So law is like my software ... better don't change anything because it could have bad, unintended consequences ... bad ;-).

      – Peter A. Schneider
      Mar 7 at 11:11






      So law is like my software ... better don't change anything because it could have bad, unintended consequences ... bad ;-).

      – Peter A. Schneider
      Mar 7 at 11:11





      2




      2





      Commenters here would enjoy learning about the Law Commission of India, which has existed since the middle 19th century, and which is currently in its 21st incarnation since 1955.

      – JdeBP
      Mar 7 at 12:14





      Commenters here would enjoy learning about the Law Commission of India, which has existed since the middle 19th century, and which is currently in its 21st incarnation since 1955.

      – JdeBP
      Mar 7 at 12:14




      3




      3





      I disagree that purging the code of unconstitutional law is "just political theater". Having unenforceable laws on the books confuses people about what the law really is. If a law has been ruled invalid, the legislature should amend it out of the statute books.

      – Monty Harder
      Mar 7 at 20:11





      I disagree that purging the code of unconstitutional law is "just political theater". Having unenforceable laws on the books confuses people about what the law really is. If a law has been ruled invalid, the legislature should amend it out of the statute books.

      – Monty Harder
      Mar 7 at 20:11











      10














      I'm not familiar with India, but in general, guaranteed freedoms are never absolute. This would be a recipe for anarchy. The enforcing authority (the government) has to limit every freedom at least a little, or else that freedom could then be used to infringe upon other freedoms.



      In the US, freedom of speech is pretty sacred and generally interpreted by the courts very expansively -- that's why it's so hard in the US to sue someone for libel or prosecute someone for treason. But even in the US there are serious limitations. As a basic example, it is illegal to use speech to directly incite a crime.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Eli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.















      • 2





        The difficulty of prosecuting someone for treason is not really to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the fact that the U.S. constitution limits constructive treason with what is known as the Treason Clause.

        – JdeBP
        Mar 7 at 11:48






      • 1





        Exactly, freedoms are never absolute! In particular, your freedom ends when you use it to harm other people.

        – Dr Sheldon
        Mar 7 at 13:52






      • 1





        @JdeBP That's hardly unique to the US. The UK has many fewer protections for, e.g., freedom of speech, but there hasn't been a treason trial in the UK since 1945.

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 13:53















      10














      I'm not familiar with India, but in general, guaranteed freedoms are never absolute. This would be a recipe for anarchy. The enforcing authority (the government) has to limit every freedom at least a little, or else that freedom could then be used to infringe upon other freedoms.



      In the US, freedom of speech is pretty sacred and generally interpreted by the courts very expansively -- that's why it's so hard in the US to sue someone for libel or prosecute someone for treason. But even in the US there are serious limitations. As a basic example, it is illegal to use speech to directly incite a crime.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Eli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.















      • 2





        The difficulty of prosecuting someone for treason is not really to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the fact that the U.S. constitution limits constructive treason with what is known as the Treason Clause.

        – JdeBP
        Mar 7 at 11:48






      • 1





        Exactly, freedoms are never absolute! In particular, your freedom ends when you use it to harm other people.

        – Dr Sheldon
        Mar 7 at 13:52






      • 1





        @JdeBP That's hardly unique to the US. The UK has many fewer protections for, e.g., freedom of speech, but there hasn't been a treason trial in the UK since 1945.

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 13:53













      10












      10








      10







      I'm not familiar with India, but in general, guaranteed freedoms are never absolute. This would be a recipe for anarchy. The enforcing authority (the government) has to limit every freedom at least a little, or else that freedom could then be used to infringe upon other freedoms.



      In the US, freedom of speech is pretty sacred and generally interpreted by the courts very expansively -- that's why it's so hard in the US to sue someone for libel or prosecute someone for treason. But even in the US there are serious limitations. As a basic example, it is illegal to use speech to directly incite a crime.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Eli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.










      I'm not familiar with India, but in general, guaranteed freedoms are never absolute. This would be a recipe for anarchy. The enforcing authority (the government) has to limit every freedom at least a little, or else that freedom could then be used to infringe upon other freedoms.



      In the US, freedom of speech is pretty sacred and generally interpreted by the courts very expansively -- that's why it's so hard in the US to sue someone for libel or prosecute someone for treason. But even in the US there are serious limitations. As a basic example, it is illegal to use speech to directly incite a crime.







      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Eli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer






      New contributor




      Eli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered Mar 7 at 10:50









      EliEli

      2012




      2012




      New contributor




      Eli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Eli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Eli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      • 2





        The difficulty of prosecuting someone for treason is not really to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the fact that the U.S. constitution limits constructive treason with what is known as the Treason Clause.

        – JdeBP
        Mar 7 at 11:48






      • 1





        Exactly, freedoms are never absolute! In particular, your freedom ends when you use it to harm other people.

        – Dr Sheldon
        Mar 7 at 13:52






      • 1





        @JdeBP That's hardly unique to the US. The UK has many fewer protections for, e.g., freedom of speech, but there hasn't been a treason trial in the UK since 1945.

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 13:53












      • 2





        The difficulty of prosecuting someone for treason is not really to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the fact that the U.S. constitution limits constructive treason with what is known as the Treason Clause.

        – JdeBP
        Mar 7 at 11:48






      • 1





        Exactly, freedoms are never absolute! In particular, your freedom ends when you use it to harm other people.

        – Dr Sheldon
        Mar 7 at 13:52






      • 1





        @JdeBP That's hardly unique to the US. The UK has many fewer protections for, e.g., freedom of speech, but there hasn't been a treason trial in the UK since 1945.

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 13:53







      2




      2





      The difficulty of prosecuting someone for treason is not really to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the fact that the U.S. constitution limits constructive treason with what is known as the Treason Clause.

      – JdeBP
      Mar 7 at 11:48





      The difficulty of prosecuting someone for treason is not really to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the fact that the U.S. constitution limits constructive treason with what is known as the Treason Clause.

      – JdeBP
      Mar 7 at 11:48




      1




      1





      Exactly, freedoms are never absolute! In particular, your freedom ends when you use it to harm other people.

      – Dr Sheldon
      Mar 7 at 13:52





      Exactly, freedoms are never absolute! In particular, your freedom ends when you use it to harm other people.

      – Dr Sheldon
      Mar 7 at 13:52




      1




      1





      @JdeBP That's hardly unique to the US. The UK has many fewer protections for, e.g., freedom of speech, but there hasn't been a treason trial in the UK since 1945.

      – David Richerby
      Mar 7 at 13:53





      @JdeBP That's hardly unique to the US. The UK has many fewer protections for, e.g., freedom of speech, but there hasn't been a treason trial in the UK since 1945.

      – David Richerby
      Mar 7 at 13:53











      9














      Governments Crave Self-Preservation



      The degree may vary, but all sufficiently large organisations eventually start gaining traits that promote its preservation. Some see it as a government's duty to ensure it doesn't get toppled easily, others will point out that governments without such measures are likely to, in the long run, be toppled more often, leading to an evolutionary selection of sorts for governments with such measures.



      Restrictions on speech against inciting a toppling of a government are one example of such measure. (Others include monopoly on military force, on legislation and enforcement of law etc.)






      share|improve this answer























      • Or you could see the other way around starting with the hypothesis that censorship is the natural/primitive state. It would mean that people/nations need to learn to overcome this, on their path toward civilization.

        – JinSnow
        Mar 7 at 11:23











      • I'm not sure I really buy this, especially as your headline makes it sound like power lust. All these governments who "crave self-preservation" but keep on running elections and getting voted out...

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 13:58












      • @DavidRicherby Governments getting voted out is pretty rare. In most cases the election changes the MPs, ministers and presidents, but makes them serve in the same government. In fact I have the impression (but not backed by statistics) that governments more often cease to exist through a revolution, constitutional etc. than through a referendum.

        – vicky_molokh
        Mar 7 at 14:08







      • 3





        @vicky_molokh: In part this depends how you define "government". In the UK, the word government is mostly used to mean the current executive branch - In UK terms the prime-minister and cabinet. This "government" is mostly thrown out after five or ten years. In other parts of the world the term "government" may apply to the whole system of constitution and all legislative and administrative branches - which are only thrown out wholesale in a revolution. In the UK, "government" getting voted out is commonplace.

        – RedGrittyBrick
        Mar 7 at 14:31











      • OK, so you mean systems of government rather than actual governments. It kinda looks like I'm nitpicking over two letters, but I think you mean "Government craves" rather than "Governments crave".

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 15:04















      9














      Governments Crave Self-Preservation



      The degree may vary, but all sufficiently large organisations eventually start gaining traits that promote its preservation. Some see it as a government's duty to ensure it doesn't get toppled easily, others will point out that governments without such measures are likely to, in the long run, be toppled more often, leading to an evolutionary selection of sorts for governments with such measures.



      Restrictions on speech against inciting a toppling of a government are one example of such measure. (Others include monopoly on military force, on legislation and enforcement of law etc.)






      share|improve this answer























      • Or you could see the other way around starting with the hypothesis that censorship is the natural/primitive state. It would mean that people/nations need to learn to overcome this, on their path toward civilization.

        – JinSnow
        Mar 7 at 11:23











      • I'm not sure I really buy this, especially as your headline makes it sound like power lust. All these governments who "crave self-preservation" but keep on running elections and getting voted out...

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 13:58












      • @DavidRicherby Governments getting voted out is pretty rare. In most cases the election changes the MPs, ministers and presidents, but makes them serve in the same government. In fact I have the impression (but not backed by statistics) that governments more often cease to exist through a revolution, constitutional etc. than through a referendum.

        – vicky_molokh
        Mar 7 at 14:08







      • 3





        @vicky_molokh: In part this depends how you define "government". In the UK, the word government is mostly used to mean the current executive branch - In UK terms the prime-minister and cabinet. This "government" is mostly thrown out after five or ten years. In other parts of the world the term "government" may apply to the whole system of constitution and all legislative and administrative branches - which are only thrown out wholesale in a revolution. In the UK, "government" getting voted out is commonplace.

        – RedGrittyBrick
        Mar 7 at 14:31











      • OK, so you mean systems of government rather than actual governments. It kinda looks like I'm nitpicking over two letters, but I think you mean "Government craves" rather than "Governments crave".

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 15:04













      9












      9








      9







      Governments Crave Self-Preservation



      The degree may vary, but all sufficiently large organisations eventually start gaining traits that promote its preservation. Some see it as a government's duty to ensure it doesn't get toppled easily, others will point out that governments without such measures are likely to, in the long run, be toppled more often, leading to an evolutionary selection of sorts for governments with such measures.



      Restrictions on speech against inciting a toppling of a government are one example of such measure. (Others include monopoly on military force, on legislation and enforcement of law etc.)






      share|improve this answer













      Governments Crave Self-Preservation



      The degree may vary, but all sufficiently large organisations eventually start gaining traits that promote its preservation. Some see it as a government's duty to ensure it doesn't get toppled easily, others will point out that governments without such measures are likely to, in the long run, be toppled more often, leading to an evolutionary selection of sorts for governments with such measures.



      Restrictions on speech against inciting a toppling of a government are one example of such measure. (Others include monopoly on military force, on legislation and enforcement of law etc.)







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Mar 7 at 8:25









      vicky_molokhvicky_molokh

      834213




      834213












      • Or you could see the other way around starting with the hypothesis that censorship is the natural/primitive state. It would mean that people/nations need to learn to overcome this, on their path toward civilization.

        – JinSnow
        Mar 7 at 11:23











      • I'm not sure I really buy this, especially as your headline makes it sound like power lust. All these governments who "crave self-preservation" but keep on running elections and getting voted out...

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 13:58












      • @DavidRicherby Governments getting voted out is pretty rare. In most cases the election changes the MPs, ministers and presidents, but makes them serve in the same government. In fact I have the impression (but not backed by statistics) that governments more often cease to exist through a revolution, constitutional etc. than through a referendum.

        – vicky_molokh
        Mar 7 at 14:08







      • 3





        @vicky_molokh: In part this depends how you define "government". In the UK, the word government is mostly used to mean the current executive branch - In UK terms the prime-minister and cabinet. This "government" is mostly thrown out after five or ten years. In other parts of the world the term "government" may apply to the whole system of constitution and all legislative and administrative branches - which are only thrown out wholesale in a revolution. In the UK, "government" getting voted out is commonplace.

        – RedGrittyBrick
        Mar 7 at 14:31











      • OK, so you mean systems of government rather than actual governments. It kinda looks like I'm nitpicking over two letters, but I think you mean "Government craves" rather than "Governments crave".

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 15:04

















      • Or you could see the other way around starting with the hypothesis that censorship is the natural/primitive state. It would mean that people/nations need to learn to overcome this, on their path toward civilization.

        – JinSnow
        Mar 7 at 11:23











      • I'm not sure I really buy this, especially as your headline makes it sound like power lust. All these governments who "crave self-preservation" but keep on running elections and getting voted out...

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 13:58












      • @DavidRicherby Governments getting voted out is pretty rare. In most cases the election changes the MPs, ministers and presidents, but makes them serve in the same government. In fact I have the impression (but not backed by statistics) that governments more often cease to exist through a revolution, constitutional etc. than through a referendum.

        – vicky_molokh
        Mar 7 at 14:08







      • 3





        @vicky_molokh: In part this depends how you define "government". In the UK, the word government is mostly used to mean the current executive branch - In UK terms the prime-minister and cabinet. This "government" is mostly thrown out after five or ten years. In other parts of the world the term "government" may apply to the whole system of constitution and all legislative and administrative branches - which are only thrown out wholesale in a revolution. In the UK, "government" getting voted out is commonplace.

        – RedGrittyBrick
        Mar 7 at 14:31











      • OK, so you mean systems of government rather than actual governments. It kinda looks like I'm nitpicking over two letters, but I think you mean "Government craves" rather than "Governments crave".

        – David Richerby
        Mar 7 at 15:04
















      Or you could see the other way around starting with the hypothesis that censorship is the natural/primitive state. It would mean that people/nations need to learn to overcome this, on their path toward civilization.

      – JinSnow
      Mar 7 at 11:23





      Or you could see the other way around starting with the hypothesis that censorship is the natural/primitive state. It would mean that people/nations need to learn to overcome this, on their path toward civilization.

      – JinSnow
      Mar 7 at 11:23













      I'm not sure I really buy this, especially as your headline makes it sound like power lust. All these governments who "crave self-preservation" but keep on running elections and getting voted out...

      – David Richerby
      Mar 7 at 13:58






      I'm not sure I really buy this, especially as your headline makes it sound like power lust. All these governments who "crave self-preservation" but keep on running elections and getting voted out...

      – David Richerby
      Mar 7 at 13:58














      @DavidRicherby Governments getting voted out is pretty rare. In most cases the election changes the MPs, ministers and presidents, but makes them serve in the same government. In fact I have the impression (but not backed by statistics) that governments more often cease to exist through a revolution, constitutional etc. than through a referendum.

      – vicky_molokh
      Mar 7 at 14:08






      @DavidRicherby Governments getting voted out is pretty rare. In most cases the election changes the MPs, ministers and presidents, but makes them serve in the same government. In fact I have the impression (but not backed by statistics) that governments more often cease to exist through a revolution, constitutional etc. than through a referendum.

      – vicky_molokh
      Mar 7 at 14:08





      3




      3





      @vicky_molokh: In part this depends how you define "government". In the UK, the word government is mostly used to mean the current executive branch - In UK terms the prime-minister and cabinet. This "government" is mostly thrown out after five or ten years. In other parts of the world the term "government" may apply to the whole system of constitution and all legislative and administrative branches - which are only thrown out wholesale in a revolution. In the UK, "government" getting voted out is commonplace.

      – RedGrittyBrick
      Mar 7 at 14:31





      @vicky_molokh: In part this depends how you define "government". In the UK, the word government is mostly used to mean the current executive branch - In UK terms the prime-minister and cabinet. This "government" is mostly thrown out after five or ten years. In other parts of the world the term "government" may apply to the whole system of constitution and all legislative and administrative branches - which are only thrown out wholesale in a revolution. In the UK, "government" getting voted out is commonplace.

      – RedGrittyBrick
      Mar 7 at 14:31













      OK, so you mean systems of government rather than actual governments. It kinda looks like I'm nitpicking over two letters, but I think you mean "Government craves" rather than "Governments crave".

      – David Richerby
      Mar 7 at 15:04





      OK, so you mean systems of government rather than actual governments. It kinda looks like I'm nitpicking over two letters, but I think you mean "Government craves" rather than "Governments crave".

      – David Richerby
      Mar 7 at 15:04











      7














      In a democracy, you are allowed to advocate a complete overthrow of the existing government, via voting. While it is commonplace today, the peaceful transfer of power from one government to the next is just that - an existing government stepping down and allowing itself to be overthrown.



      What you can't do is advocate violence, whether to overthrow a government or any other reason, because advocating a crime is generally not considered protected speech.






      share|improve this answer



























        7














        In a democracy, you are allowed to advocate a complete overthrow of the existing government, via voting. While it is commonplace today, the peaceful transfer of power from one government to the next is just that - an existing government stepping down and allowing itself to be overthrown.



        What you can't do is advocate violence, whether to overthrow a government or any other reason, because advocating a crime is generally not considered protected speech.






        share|improve this answer

























          7












          7








          7







          In a democracy, you are allowed to advocate a complete overthrow of the existing government, via voting. While it is commonplace today, the peaceful transfer of power from one government to the next is just that - an existing government stepping down and allowing itself to be overthrown.



          What you can't do is advocate violence, whether to overthrow a government or any other reason, because advocating a crime is generally not considered protected speech.






          share|improve this answer













          In a democracy, you are allowed to advocate a complete overthrow of the existing government, via voting. While it is commonplace today, the peaceful transfer of power from one government to the next is just that - an existing government stepping down and allowing itself to be overthrown.



          What you can't do is advocate violence, whether to overthrow a government or any other reason, because advocating a crime is generally not considered protected speech.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 7 at 15:12









          David RiceDavid Rice

          4,3513418




          4,3513418





















              6














              Since I have found that most of the answers are not India specific, I am adding to them.
              In India we derive freedom of speech and expression from Article 19 (1) (a). This freedom is (like all the other 5) subjected to reasonable restrictions, 19 (2) specifically on freedom of speech. Clause (2) of the article puts 8 restriction on freedom of speech namely,



              1. Sovereignty and integrity of state

              2. Security of state

              3. Friendly relations with foreign states

              4. Public order

              5. Decency or morality

              6. Contempt of court

              7. Defamation

              8. Incitement of offence

              If your speech is not hurting any of these then you're good and can oppose the government but inciting to rebel threatens point 1 IF government is legally established (as it has people's mandate) and also point 8 to some extent (IPC Section 124A, but it's removal is debated).
              As sovereignty and democracy are basic elements of our constitution (Kesavanand Bharati case) it can't be amended and hence as long as democracy and rule of law is there you can't incite to rebel against a just and democratically elected government.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Aditya Singh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                6














                Since I have found that most of the answers are not India specific, I am adding to them.
                In India we derive freedom of speech and expression from Article 19 (1) (a). This freedom is (like all the other 5) subjected to reasonable restrictions, 19 (2) specifically on freedom of speech. Clause (2) of the article puts 8 restriction on freedom of speech namely,



                1. Sovereignty and integrity of state

                2. Security of state

                3. Friendly relations with foreign states

                4. Public order

                5. Decency or morality

                6. Contempt of court

                7. Defamation

                8. Incitement of offence

                If your speech is not hurting any of these then you're good and can oppose the government but inciting to rebel threatens point 1 IF government is legally established (as it has people's mandate) and also point 8 to some extent (IPC Section 124A, but it's removal is debated).
                As sovereignty and democracy are basic elements of our constitution (Kesavanand Bharati case) it can't be amended and hence as long as democracy and rule of law is there you can't incite to rebel against a just and democratically elected government.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Aditya Singh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                  6












                  6








                  6







                  Since I have found that most of the answers are not India specific, I am adding to them.
                  In India we derive freedom of speech and expression from Article 19 (1) (a). This freedom is (like all the other 5) subjected to reasonable restrictions, 19 (2) specifically on freedom of speech. Clause (2) of the article puts 8 restriction on freedom of speech namely,



                  1. Sovereignty and integrity of state

                  2. Security of state

                  3. Friendly relations with foreign states

                  4. Public order

                  5. Decency or morality

                  6. Contempt of court

                  7. Defamation

                  8. Incitement of offence

                  If your speech is not hurting any of these then you're good and can oppose the government but inciting to rebel threatens point 1 IF government is legally established (as it has people's mandate) and also point 8 to some extent (IPC Section 124A, but it's removal is debated).
                  As sovereignty and democracy are basic elements of our constitution (Kesavanand Bharati case) it can't be amended and hence as long as democracy and rule of law is there you can't incite to rebel against a just and democratically elected government.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Aditya Singh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  Since I have found that most of the answers are not India specific, I am adding to them.
                  In India we derive freedom of speech and expression from Article 19 (1) (a). This freedom is (like all the other 5) subjected to reasonable restrictions, 19 (2) specifically on freedom of speech. Clause (2) of the article puts 8 restriction on freedom of speech namely,



                  1. Sovereignty and integrity of state

                  2. Security of state

                  3. Friendly relations with foreign states

                  4. Public order

                  5. Decency or morality

                  6. Contempt of court

                  7. Defamation

                  8. Incitement of offence

                  If your speech is not hurting any of these then you're good and can oppose the government but inciting to rebel threatens point 1 IF government is legally established (as it has people's mandate) and also point 8 to some extent (IPC Section 124A, but it's removal is debated).
                  As sovereignty and democracy are basic elements of our constitution (Kesavanand Bharati case) it can't be amended and hence as long as democracy and rule of law is there you can't incite to rebel against a just and democratically elected government.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Aditya Singh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Aditya Singh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered Mar 8 at 8:15









                  Aditya SinghAditya Singh

                  612




                  612




                  New contributor




                  Aditya Singh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Aditya Singh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Aditya Singh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                      2














                      Because there is a law prohibiting it!



                      'Free Speech' is an ideal. Many constitutions, written or unwritten, set great store by it.



                      But no country I know of allows unlimited free speech. They all draw the line when it is misrepresentation, harmful, obscene, incitement to criminal action etc.



                      I know we're discussing India. But it is interesting to consider whether America's beloved Second Amendment, often interpreted as enabling citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government, implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Laurence Payne is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                      • Re: Second Amendment question yes, but it's more a free speech matter than a second amendment matter. U.S. Jurisprudence for Free Speech is that the intent of the speaker determines whether speech is protected or unprotected (i.e. could be prosecuted by government in someway), not the interpretation of the listener. Thus, there are circumstances where it is acceptable to discuss for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (i.e. a comedian, making a joke about killing the sitting President, is not guilty of threatening to kill the president, because his intent was to make fun of the idea

                        – hszmv
                        Mar 7 at 14:29











                      • Whereas the modern trend is to assess culpability (even criminal culpability) by the degree of offence taken by the object of abuse.

                        – Laurence Payne
                        Mar 7 at 14:32











                      • In the court of public opinion, yes. In the United States judicial system, attacking someone for something they said that is offensive (Fighting Words) is pretty hard to justify... Fighting Word Doctrine is better defined by what it is not, than what it is (no case on a Fighting Words Doctrine offense has been upheld by the Supreme Court... beyond the one that named the offense in the first place).

                        – hszmv
                        Mar 7 at 14:54






                      • 2





                        Re "consider whether [...] overthrow a tyrannical government [...] implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action." Yes actually, in the US I'm pretty sure that it is entirely legal for those who believe the US government is tyrannical to discuss whether it should be overthrown and how that should be done. People do it all the time, very publically for some of them. Some have even publically advocated and expressly called for that to happen now. Anecdotally from experience reading news, it generally doesn't become legal matter until it starts or until violence is actively planned.

                        – Aaron
                        Mar 7 at 17:17











                      • For an example, about 5-10 years ago there were 2nd amendment activists which were actively coordinating an effort to march thousands of armed citizens through the nation's capital in a peaceful protest, and one of the leaders was (if I recall correctly; it's hazy) also active in saying that citizens should overthrow the current government though he never attempted doing so. The response by the government was merely to say "Anyone who is carrying a firearm crossing the border into the capital will be arrested."

                        – Aaron
                        Mar 7 at 17:21















                      2














                      Because there is a law prohibiting it!



                      'Free Speech' is an ideal. Many constitutions, written or unwritten, set great store by it.



                      But no country I know of allows unlimited free speech. They all draw the line when it is misrepresentation, harmful, obscene, incitement to criminal action etc.



                      I know we're discussing India. But it is interesting to consider whether America's beloved Second Amendment, often interpreted as enabling citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government, implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Laurence Payne is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                      • Re: Second Amendment question yes, but it's more a free speech matter than a second amendment matter. U.S. Jurisprudence for Free Speech is that the intent of the speaker determines whether speech is protected or unprotected (i.e. could be prosecuted by government in someway), not the interpretation of the listener. Thus, there are circumstances where it is acceptable to discuss for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (i.e. a comedian, making a joke about killing the sitting President, is not guilty of threatening to kill the president, because his intent was to make fun of the idea

                        – hszmv
                        Mar 7 at 14:29











                      • Whereas the modern trend is to assess culpability (even criminal culpability) by the degree of offence taken by the object of abuse.

                        – Laurence Payne
                        Mar 7 at 14:32











                      • In the court of public opinion, yes. In the United States judicial system, attacking someone for something they said that is offensive (Fighting Words) is pretty hard to justify... Fighting Word Doctrine is better defined by what it is not, than what it is (no case on a Fighting Words Doctrine offense has been upheld by the Supreme Court... beyond the one that named the offense in the first place).

                        – hszmv
                        Mar 7 at 14:54






                      • 2





                        Re "consider whether [...] overthrow a tyrannical government [...] implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action." Yes actually, in the US I'm pretty sure that it is entirely legal for those who believe the US government is tyrannical to discuss whether it should be overthrown and how that should be done. People do it all the time, very publically for some of them. Some have even publically advocated and expressly called for that to happen now. Anecdotally from experience reading news, it generally doesn't become legal matter until it starts or until violence is actively planned.

                        – Aaron
                        Mar 7 at 17:17











                      • For an example, about 5-10 years ago there were 2nd amendment activists which were actively coordinating an effort to march thousands of armed citizens through the nation's capital in a peaceful protest, and one of the leaders was (if I recall correctly; it's hazy) also active in saying that citizens should overthrow the current government though he never attempted doing so. The response by the government was merely to say "Anyone who is carrying a firearm crossing the border into the capital will be arrested."

                        – Aaron
                        Mar 7 at 17:21













                      2












                      2








                      2







                      Because there is a law prohibiting it!



                      'Free Speech' is an ideal. Many constitutions, written or unwritten, set great store by it.



                      But no country I know of allows unlimited free speech. They all draw the line when it is misrepresentation, harmful, obscene, incitement to criminal action etc.



                      I know we're discussing India. But it is interesting to consider whether America's beloved Second Amendment, often interpreted as enabling citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government, implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Laurence Payne is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.










                      Because there is a law prohibiting it!



                      'Free Speech' is an ideal. Many constitutions, written or unwritten, set great store by it.



                      But no country I know of allows unlimited free speech. They all draw the line when it is misrepresentation, harmful, obscene, incitement to criminal action etc.



                      I know we're discussing India. But it is interesting to consider whether America's beloved Second Amendment, often interpreted as enabling citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government, implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action.







                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Laurence Payne is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer






                      New contributor




                      Laurence Payne is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      answered Mar 7 at 12:53









                      Laurence PayneLaurence Payne

                      1214




                      1214




                      New contributor




                      Laurence Payne is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                      New contributor





                      Laurence Payne is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      Laurence Payne is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.












                      • Re: Second Amendment question yes, but it's more a free speech matter than a second amendment matter. U.S. Jurisprudence for Free Speech is that the intent of the speaker determines whether speech is protected or unprotected (i.e. could be prosecuted by government in someway), not the interpretation of the listener. Thus, there are circumstances where it is acceptable to discuss for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (i.e. a comedian, making a joke about killing the sitting President, is not guilty of threatening to kill the president, because his intent was to make fun of the idea

                        – hszmv
                        Mar 7 at 14:29











                      • Whereas the modern trend is to assess culpability (even criminal culpability) by the degree of offence taken by the object of abuse.

                        – Laurence Payne
                        Mar 7 at 14:32











                      • In the court of public opinion, yes. In the United States judicial system, attacking someone for something they said that is offensive (Fighting Words) is pretty hard to justify... Fighting Word Doctrine is better defined by what it is not, than what it is (no case on a Fighting Words Doctrine offense has been upheld by the Supreme Court... beyond the one that named the offense in the first place).

                        – hszmv
                        Mar 7 at 14:54






                      • 2





                        Re "consider whether [...] overthrow a tyrannical government [...] implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action." Yes actually, in the US I'm pretty sure that it is entirely legal for those who believe the US government is tyrannical to discuss whether it should be overthrown and how that should be done. People do it all the time, very publically for some of them. Some have even publically advocated and expressly called for that to happen now. Anecdotally from experience reading news, it generally doesn't become legal matter until it starts or until violence is actively planned.

                        – Aaron
                        Mar 7 at 17:17











                      • For an example, about 5-10 years ago there were 2nd amendment activists which were actively coordinating an effort to march thousands of armed citizens through the nation's capital in a peaceful protest, and one of the leaders was (if I recall correctly; it's hazy) also active in saying that citizens should overthrow the current government though he never attempted doing so. The response by the government was merely to say "Anyone who is carrying a firearm crossing the border into the capital will be arrested."

                        – Aaron
                        Mar 7 at 17:21

















                      • Re: Second Amendment question yes, but it's more a free speech matter than a second amendment matter. U.S. Jurisprudence for Free Speech is that the intent of the speaker determines whether speech is protected or unprotected (i.e. could be prosecuted by government in someway), not the interpretation of the listener. Thus, there are circumstances where it is acceptable to discuss for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (i.e. a comedian, making a joke about killing the sitting President, is not guilty of threatening to kill the president, because his intent was to make fun of the idea

                        – hszmv
                        Mar 7 at 14:29











                      • Whereas the modern trend is to assess culpability (even criminal culpability) by the degree of offence taken by the object of abuse.

                        – Laurence Payne
                        Mar 7 at 14:32











                      • In the court of public opinion, yes. In the United States judicial system, attacking someone for something they said that is offensive (Fighting Words) is pretty hard to justify... Fighting Word Doctrine is better defined by what it is not, than what it is (no case on a Fighting Words Doctrine offense has been upheld by the Supreme Court... beyond the one that named the offense in the first place).

                        – hszmv
                        Mar 7 at 14:54






                      • 2





                        Re "consider whether [...] overthrow a tyrannical government [...] implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action." Yes actually, in the US I'm pretty sure that it is entirely legal for those who believe the US government is tyrannical to discuss whether it should be overthrown and how that should be done. People do it all the time, very publically for some of them. Some have even publically advocated and expressly called for that to happen now. Anecdotally from experience reading news, it generally doesn't become legal matter until it starts or until violence is actively planned.

                        – Aaron
                        Mar 7 at 17:17











                      • For an example, about 5-10 years ago there were 2nd amendment activists which were actively coordinating an effort to march thousands of armed citizens through the nation's capital in a peaceful protest, and one of the leaders was (if I recall correctly; it's hazy) also active in saying that citizens should overthrow the current government though he never attempted doing so. The response by the government was merely to say "Anyone who is carrying a firearm crossing the border into the capital will be arrested."

                        – Aaron
                        Mar 7 at 17:21
















                      Re: Second Amendment question yes, but it's more a free speech matter than a second amendment matter. U.S. Jurisprudence for Free Speech is that the intent of the speaker determines whether speech is protected or unprotected (i.e. could be prosecuted by government in someway), not the interpretation of the listener. Thus, there are circumstances where it is acceptable to discuss for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (i.e. a comedian, making a joke about killing the sitting President, is not guilty of threatening to kill the president, because his intent was to make fun of the idea

                      – hszmv
                      Mar 7 at 14:29





                      Re: Second Amendment question yes, but it's more a free speech matter than a second amendment matter. U.S. Jurisprudence for Free Speech is that the intent of the speaker determines whether speech is protected or unprotected (i.e. could be prosecuted by government in someway), not the interpretation of the listener. Thus, there are circumstances where it is acceptable to discuss for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (i.e. a comedian, making a joke about killing the sitting President, is not guilty of threatening to kill the president, because his intent was to make fun of the idea

                      – hszmv
                      Mar 7 at 14:29













                      Whereas the modern trend is to assess culpability (even criminal culpability) by the degree of offence taken by the object of abuse.

                      – Laurence Payne
                      Mar 7 at 14:32





                      Whereas the modern trend is to assess culpability (even criminal culpability) by the degree of offence taken by the object of abuse.

                      – Laurence Payne
                      Mar 7 at 14:32













                      In the court of public opinion, yes. In the United States judicial system, attacking someone for something they said that is offensive (Fighting Words) is pretty hard to justify... Fighting Word Doctrine is better defined by what it is not, than what it is (no case on a Fighting Words Doctrine offense has been upheld by the Supreme Court... beyond the one that named the offense in the first place).

                      – hszmv
                      Mar 7 at 14:54





                      In the court of public opinion, yes. In the United States judicial system, attacking someone for something they said that is offensive (Fighting Words) is pretty hard to justify... Fighting Word Doctrine is better defined by what it is not, than what it is (no case on a Fighting Words Doctrine offense has been upheld by the Supreme Court... beyond the one that named the offense in the first place).

                      – hszmv
                      Mar 7 at 14:54




                      2




                      2





                      Re "consider whether [...] overthrow a tyrannical government [...] implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action." Yes actually, in the US I'm pretty sure that it is entirely legal for those who believe the US government is tyrannical to discuss whether it should be overthrown and how that should be done. People do it all the time, very publically for some of them. Some have even publically advocated and expressly called for that to happen now. Anecdotally from experience reading news, it generally doesn't become legal matter until it starts or until violence is actively planned.

                      – Aaron
                      Mar 7 at 17:17





                      Re "consider whether [...] overthrow a tyrannical government [...] implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action." Yes actually, in the US I'm pretty sure that it is entirely legal for those who believe the US government is tyrannical to discuss whether it should be overthrown and how that should be done. People do it all the time, very publically for some of them. Some have even publically advocated and expressly called for that to happen now. Anecdotally from experience reading news, it generally doesn't become legal matter until it starts or until violence is actively planned.

                      – Aaron
                      Mar 7 at 17:17













                      For an example, about 5-10 years ago there were 2nd amendment activists which were actively coordinating an effort to march thousands of armed citizens through the nation's capital in a peaceful protest, and one of the leaders was (if I recall correctly; it's hazy) also active in saying that citizens should overthrow the current government though he never attempted doing so. The response by the government was merely to say "Anyone who is carrying a firearm crossing the border into the capital will be arrested."

                      – Aaron
                      Mar 7 at 17:21





                      For an example, about 5-10 years ago there were 2nd amendment activists which were actively coordinating an effort to march thousands of armed citizens through the nation's capital in a peaceful protest, and one of the leaders was (if I recall correctly; it's hazy) also active in saying that citizens should overthrow the current government though he never attempted doing so. The response by the government was merely to say "Anyone who is carrying a firearm crossing the border into the capital will be arrested."

                      – Aaron
                      Mar 7 at 17:21










                      Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      Arifa Akhtar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39249%2fwhy-cant-we-use-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-to-incite-people-to-rebel-agai%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Identity Server 4 is not redirecting to Angular app after login2019 Community Moderator ElectionIdentity Server 4 and dockerIdentityserver implicit flow unauthorized_clientIdentityServer Hybrid Flow - Access Token is null after user successful loginIdentity Server to MVC client : Page Redirect After loginLogin with Steam OpenId(oidc-client-js)Identity Server 4+.NET Core 2.0 + IdentityIdentityServer4 post-login redirect not working in Edge browserCall to IdentityServer4 generates System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an objectIdentityServer4 without HTTPS not workingHow to get Authorization code from identity server without login form

                      2005 Ahvaz unrest Contents Background Causes Casualties Aftermath See also References Navigation menue"At Least 10 Are Killed by Bombs in Iran""Iran"Archived"Arab-Iranians in Iran to make April 15 'Day of Fury'"State of Mind, State of Order: Reactions to Ethnic Unrest in the Islamic Republic of Iran.10.1111/j.1754-9469.2008.00028.x"Iran hangs Arab separatists"Iran Overview from ArchivedConstitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran"Tehran puzzled by forged 'riots' letter""Iran and its minorities: Down in the second class""Iran: Handling Of Ahvaz Unrest Could End With Televised Confessions""Bombings Rock Iran Ahead of Election""Five die in Iran ethnic clashes""Iran: Need for restraint as anniversary of unrest in Khuzestan approaches"Archived"Iranian Sunni protesters killed in clashes with security forces"Archived

                      Can't initialize raids on a new ASUS Prime B360M-A motherboard2019 Community Moderator ElectionSimilar to RAID config yet more like mirroring solution?Can't get motherboard serial numberWhy does the BIOS entry point start with a WBINVD instruction?UEFI performance Asus Maximus V Extreme