پیر جی
Councller (250+ posts)
- Featured Thumbs
- https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HfwHo3uNQdM/hqdefault.jpg
کیا اس اینکر کیلئے کوی قانون ہے؟
- Thread starter پیر جی
- Start date
پیر جی
Councller (250+ posts)
یہ دونوں چول ہر روز ٹی وی پر بیٹھ کر پاکستان میں شرانگیزی پھیلانے والے خادم رضوی او ر اس کے ساتھیوں کو پروموٹ کرتے رہتے ہیں کبھی ان کے منہ سے ان لوگوں کیلئے ایک لفظ بھی نہیں نکلا جو لبیک والوں کے ہاتھوں اپنی عمر بھر کی کمای برباد کروا کر بے روزگار بیٹھ ہوے ہیں
آج تو حد ہوگئی اوریا نے ان شرپسندوں کو تحریک آزادی کے کارکنوں سے اور حکومت کو انگریز حکومت سے مشابہت دے دی
کیا وقت نہیں آگیا کہ متشدد رویوں پر اکسانے والے ان اینکرز کو بھی جیلوں میں بند کیا جاے؟؟
یہ وہ فتنہ پھیلانے والے لوگ ہیں جن کا جرم قتل سے بھی زیادہ شدید ہے کیونکہ انکی فتنہ پروری سے پورے ملک میں پھر سے انارکی پھیلنے کا اندیشہ ہے
آج تو حد ہوگئی اوریا نے ان شرپسندوں کو تحریک آزادی کے کارکنوں سے اور حکومت کو انگریز حکومت سے مشابہت دے دی
کیا وقت نہیں آگیا کہ متشدد رویوں پر اکسانے والے ان اینکرز کو بھی جیلوں میں بند کیا جاے؟؟
یہ وہ فتنہ پھیلانے والے لوگ ہیں جن کا جرم قتل سے بھی زیادہ شدید ہے کیونکہ انکی فتنہ پروری سے پورے ملک میں پھر سے انارکی پھیلنے کا اندیشہ ہے
Last edited:
Wake up Pak
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
This guy is an extremist should be banned from media
Alpha Charlie
MPA (400+ posts)
No he has right to say what he likes
Same as u doin
Keep ur opinions and views to urselfs
Same as u doin
Keep ur opinions and views to urselfs
Walter
Senator (1k+ posts)
completely agree - he has full right to express his views in his home not on a FUCKING national media. National media is regulated and you can not incite religious sentiments. Govt. of Pak can file a sedition case against him and Pemra can havily fine Neo News channel. They should be very careful. Someone will report him and this channel to the authorities.
imran_hosein_fan
Minister (2k+ posts)
iss rundi k bachay ko bhi rizvi k saath jail mein daalo, dallah!!
bhaibarood
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Yeh cheez
Eyeaan
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
If we are on freedom of speech and you are taking the legal route then the argument may be that Neo is in binding contract which it is violating and is liable.
That accepted, the anchor is not in any contract and is not bound - that small distinction is most important to safeguard individual's basic rights. Pemra laws are mostly one sided and violate freedom of speech - Further, parliament or courts has no right to restrict freedom of speech without getting into a contract. You may argue that citizenship makes one liable to the laws (arguing that citizenship is a contract) but that perhaps does not cuts for the basic right -- citizenship or right to life is fundamental right and is not subject to either constitution or citizenship, but the other way round. Also If the argument is kept within legal and liberal theory, I'm perplexed how the speech can become 'sedition' and how one can define and achieve agreement about 'inciting religious sentiments'. The later clearly comes under opinion. Your 'home' argument is equally flawed. Speech's function is communication with others and exchange of ideas - making is subject to a place (without valid theoretical reasons) is simple censorship.
Freedom of speech is most contested and controversial basic right in any society, Even in west. vast majorities (>90%) always wants freedom of speech but wish to restrict other's speech rights. It has been so across the nations and times; that's why the 'liberal version' of freedom of speech must be vigorously defended - bearing the costs for a greater good.
However if we are not on liberal theory but accept new 'modern' theories which are prevalent in west at present. Then we accept that first 'speech is action' and both cannot be distinguished, second that speech is a social function not related to individual, and third speech is about power struggle. In that case one can argue for censorship, first -- if one has power to do so and second, it is justified on one's personal (or class) moral or social 'sentiments'. Most of the current western laws about speech (for example anti-Semitic speech) originate from this theory.
Not to say that I'm an old style liberal - and sticking to freedom of speech though only for my own greater good and progress - as the liberal argument goes.
I know it is a thorny issue but your argument was relying on legalistic and state power arguments - but we know from the history that the state and the powerful always want censorship and restrict alternative opinions. And freedom of speech is all about saving the citizens from the tyranny of state. That's why I commented and nothing much.
Last edited:
Walter
Senator (1k+ posts)
it doesn't work like that. NEO news will definitely be liable as they are the ones airing this religious hatered and Orya Maqbool can be charged with sedition like govt charged khadim rizvi.
Eyeaan
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I'm not arguing what state can do or not - neither that was the point of my comment. State is about power and control - we all know.
It was, when questioned about the basic right of freedom of speech, you countered it with a narrow legalistic and state power argument. I think that was not enough.
What occurs in the court of law was not my concern --- but, on a 'political forum' when we call for censorship, there might be broader arguments and theoretical concerns - on what kind of political/cultural theory and on what circumstances 'you' as a citizen or political commentator will justify censorship.. The sword of censorship can fall on everyone including us.
Walter
Senator (1k+ posts)
bro freedom of expression is just an illusion. not just in pak but elsewhere. don't take it too seriously.
Iska sab se unique talent hai "Bakwasiyyaat"
Zinda_Rood
Minister (2k+ posts)
یہ جس بڈھے کے مرنے پر بین ڈال رہا ہے، وہ بڈھا نوے سال کی عمر میں بھی فساڈ ڈالنے سے باز نہیں آرہا تھا، مولوی تو اتنا فسادی ہوتا ہے کہ جب تک اس کی نبض چل رہی ہو، تب تک یہ فساد کی تعلیم دیتا رہتا ہے، اب اگر یہ بڈھا جیل میں مر کھپ گیا ہے تو اس پر یہ لوگ خوش کیوں نہیں ہوتے، یہ تو کہتے ہیں کہ ہمیں جان قربان کرکے خوشی ہوتی ہے تو اب خوشی سے بھنگڑے ڈالو، رونا کیوں ڈالا ہوا ہے۔۔ یہ اوریا مقبول جان اتنا بڑا عاشق رسول ہے تو کیوں نہیں چلا جاتا خادم رضوی کے ساتھ جیل میں، ختم نبوت کے نام پر عوام کو مرنے مارنے کا سبق دینے والے ان ملاؤں کی اوقات اتنی ہے کہ ذرا سا حکومت نے گرفتاری کا ڈراوا دیا اور بلوں میں چھپ کر بیٹھ گئے۔۔۔
3rd_Umpire
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
اس سے ثابت ہوا کی اللہ ہم سے، اور اس ملک سے ناراض ہے، جو
اس بابے جیسے فسادی نوے، نوے سال تک
معاشرے میں جہالت، اور فساد پھیلانے کے لئے زندہ رہ جاتے ہیں
اس بابے جیسے فسادی نوے، نوے سال تک
معاشرے میں جہالت، اور فساد پھیلانے کے لئے زندہ رہ جاتے ہیں
Last edited:
Eyeaan
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
That seems a valid and consistent argument that it is an illusion. I wished to limit argument to 'speech' since 'expression' includes much more.
Now which part of freedom of speech is illusion - 'freedom' part or the 'speech' part. Freedom is a political and legal term, hence somewhat confusing and subjective, but on 'speech' part two persons can initially agree.
As I described earlier that 'postmodern',interpretation which is generally accepted nowadays, deems the speech as a social construct/show of power/illusion - and on this basis freedom of speech is denied but moreover that the expression 'freedom of speech' is absurd and meaningless from the start.
When you say this is illusion then on what exact basis you say so.
First, it can be simply historical/empirical fact that we see speech is restricted everywhere and limited - so this is fact. This can be good or bad however that does not imply that we should not struggle or desire for freedom of speech. We do aim for many things which we do not have.
Second, post modern interpretation that speech itself has no intrinsic meaning and it has only social meaning implying that the meaning of the speech depend upon who, when and context. Also real meanings of speech is many times illusion to the speaker. In any case speech is related to social setup not to an individual. So the modern politics focuses of control and monopoly of the speech. You must have heard popular word 'narrative' or 'bianiya' nowadays. It is a postmodern term. For them, aim of the active politics is to control and dictate narrative. I can hope I made a clear distinction between the two political thoughts.
On the question of not taking this issue seriously - what may I add; there are dozens of historic assays and arguments which call to achieve this freedom as a prime political goal. Similarly bulk of the postmodern politics/literature focuses on controlling the speech and using it as tool to reform the society. So let the speech be cognitive or an illusion or a tool of control - in politics it is of prime importance.
waqqaskhan
Councller (250+ posts)
I agree to one thing Auria said that if government thought it was wrong they should have tackled that forcefully in the first place, those protests were totally wrong I do not understand why the government was so lenient at that time, but once you made a dialogue and came to an agreement it was an overreaction. This episode will haunt them like model town case.
Last edited:
