Related: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/159768-Fitness-Lawyer-life
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/198775-Fitness-and-Law-firms

Well, a liberal constitutional democracy exists precisely so that a 'nuisance' as you describe it, stays a mere nuisance and does not become an actual problem.

But even if there were evidence for an increase in 'nuisance', besides WhatsApp forwards and a general loosely defined fear or feeling you have, what do you think is the best way of fighting such supposed nuisance or radicalisation? By intentionally offending and trying to provoke the entire community on TV talkshows?

Can you de-radicalise a community by having vigilantes running around under cover of law, beating up and lynching people from that community, for whatever 'reasons' (be that 'love jihad', selling or eating beef, or just because they feel like it)? By passing laws that marginalise the community further? By taking away the independence of Kashmir and imposing martial law on the state, and locking up democratically elected politicians?

Or do you have to spend money, time, thought and money into in the community, improving the education, economic prospects and opportunities available to that community, while also making them feel safe to continue living their life and enjoying the freedoms guaranteed to them under the constition?

It seems like the government's gameplan is very much the former and sowing more fear in and of the 'muslim' community, which encourages radicalisation of both sides.

There are endless historical examples that you can not de-radicalise or eradicate extremism with oppression, which has exactly the opposite effect every time.

Nah, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and the 'forum' has to host you and agree with you. It just means that the government doesn't have the power to sanction you or throw you in jail for your opinions.

If you talk crap or falsehoods or are obviously trolling or abusing others or spew hate or are just generally being foolish, moderators can and should at the very least say: "with all due respect, Sir, thank you very much for your comment, but you're talking crap, please do so at your friend's house or Facebook or leave your house and shout it on the town square".

Nope, no bias, they both sound equally like not nice people (though so would most people who went through a similar media circus trial).

But sure, you can stan all over Camille / Depp as much as you like and it makes you happy.

But in the process, since you're on LI, you might as well and at least also learn a little bit about US (public media) jury trial strategy in cases such as this (as well as in rape / sexual harassment cases in general): if you as a lawyer / law firms are not thinking about how to humanise your male client to the jury and the media, then you're not doing your job of doing your utmost to represent the interests of your client.

And if you, as a lawyer, are swallowing the entire media spectacle theatre hook line and sinker, you are in the wrong profession and are being played.

You're welcome :) Now you may go back to stanning.

Very true. Corporate culture and in-house has its own problems, no doubt, but if you're competent and at some companies you can have more flexibility to move into adjacent spaces than in law firms, where the power and progression structures are much more fixed (except for a few non-legal roles).

Radicalism on which side? Or do you mean to address the typical playbook of many radical governments to encourage the radicalisation of minorities so that their own majority and supporters become more radical in turn, which becomes a virtuous cycle of radicalisation and electoral gains for them?

You're not wrong that islamic (and nearly all religious) fundamentalism is problematic for a democratic society and the values a liberal democracy espouses and upholds. But the question is whether you genuinely think radical islamism is the biggest / only threat to India's democracy, society and security, and that this is a battle Nupur Sharma waded into because she's a defender or supporter of the values of liberal democracy?

We are not LI readers, but violence should always be condemned. Yet this only seems to happen from the government supporters' when such violence comes from a minority community and is nearly universally ignored whenever such violence comes from its own base (and even when police and state governments actively support and stoke such violence). You can not do one without also acknowledging and demanding condemnation of the other, and that's not about whataboutery but hipocrisy.

On that note, LI as a platform had always walked the talk on that front: here's one of many articles from 2012, condemning attacks on free speech by the previous government and Mamata for instance: https://www.legallyindia.com/201209143113/Analysis/a-short-history-of-indian-freedom-of-speech-laws-who-should-we-blame
While also accepting that some limits on freedom of speech are undesirable but may be required to prevent inciting violence, such as that threatened by fringe groups when Salman Rushdie was to read the Satanic Verses at the Jaipur Literature Festival:
https://www.legallyindia.com/home/column-how-free-should-we-be-to-speak-in-india-20120914-3114

Yet, there's also plenty of coverage and examples of, for instance, intolerance when fringe groups bullied a publisher into pulping an academic book which offended their sensibilities: https://www.legallyindia.com/201402114335/Bar-Bench-Litigation/penguin-pulps-hindu-book

So that's a definite refusal to:
a) engage with the substance of any point
b) condemn any of the things that supposedly 'no sensible person would agree with', according to the original commenter,
c) offer anything beyond ad hominem in response.

That very clearly establishes a lack of bona fide engagement and intentions, and will continue to inform moderation decisions, though we are always open to accepting genuine intelligent discourse on such matters, where not everyone has to agree and have the same political beliefs.

But: LI is intended to be a place for open debate and the sharing of genuine ideas and thoughts on matters, but it can not a place to spread things that are plain untrue or propaganda or bordering on hate, such as selectively trying to vilify minority communities.

By all means, criticise that islam as practiced in many parts of the world can be quite draconian when it comes to religious insult, but then don't try to deny that a lot of other religions have / have had very similar / different / and in some cases worse problems of intolerance linked to violence very close to home (which is particularly dangerous if religious zeal is backed by the force of the state).

As had been requested previously, this thread is a good case for potentially blocking all political discourse on LI, since organised groups of readers don't publish a constant stream of so-called "LW" threads that point out every single problematic thing the government does, and if they did, it would just turn the platform (more?) toxic like Twitter or Facebook.

So, we are proposing a simple smell test for moderation: 'If it smells like you wrote a post primarily because you hate or fear or trying to incite such feelings against any community as a whole (whether that be Hindus, Muslims, Christians or LGBTQ), it is a trollish post'.

Thanks for your comment. The original post made under this handle above was clearly a troll, but it seems to have had a result in that it has flushed out some often-made arguments that are non bona fide.

1. Beef: so you're fundamentally accepting that religious offense is very important, so if you are offended by me offending your religion (by eating beef or insulting your prophet), you have the right to punish someone else / take vigilante action (i.e. just like Nupur is getting a slap on the wrist now and will no doubt be politically rewarded again some time soon once things have died down?)

2. Menstruating in temples: again, you making the same point that religious offense is apparently important. If it offends me that you as a woman are doing X, I should have the right to stop you from doing so on religious or cultural grounds?

3. Yes, precisely "there are certain exceptions" who do force others to say Jai Shree Ram, and you say "no sensible person would agree with them". Then how do you explain that such vigilantes and such fringe have never been condemned or cracked down on by this dispensation or states in which it rules, but have actually been encouraged and supported and rarely receive criminal sanction?

4. 'You shoudl not be permitted to comment unless from Assam or WB'? That sounds like a freedom of speech issue, surely anyone should be able to and have an obligation to comment about anything happening in a country (and if geographical closeness is an indication of how strongly you have freedom of speech, then one should certainly have a stronger duty to comment about CAA than about human rights abuses in China).

4a. No one will beat you up if you speak out against CAA? People were literally beaten and imprisoned for speaking out or protesting against CAA, but such memories are short...

5. That's precisely the point: the 'special operation' crackdown in Kashmir was claimed to make things safer in Kashmir, instead it seems to have had the opposite effect. Who knew, government oppression and violence breeds more terrorism and radicalisation? Oh yeah, that's right, the government knows this...

6. 'Nobody has any problem with interfaith marriages'? So the vigilante campaigns by extremist right wingers breaking up random interfaith marriages inventing so-called 'love jihad' as an excuse is not a thing that actually exists then? Do you have any reliable statistics that forced conversions and 'love jihad' is an actual problem that demands vigilante justice?

6a: Can you at least condemn a bunch of vigilante incels who break up weddings violently, as well as condemn the sanction of state and police they often receive for such acts?

Responding to your lastly: 'secularism and inclusiveness' do NOT exist in India BECAUSE it is a Hindu majority country, they exist in India because it is a liberal democracy with a constition protecting minorities. If you want to say our democracy is still more democratic and protecting of fundamental rights than other totalitarian fundamentalist states, then you are probably right.

But that has everything to do with democracy and not with eroding exactly that democracy and vilifying another community and painting them as the root of all evil and bad things in this country that can only be fixed by the majority oppressing a minority.

Because the rational answer to such events should be to condemn both, not be to say, 'another community also has problems' therefore a majority government is justified in tacitly / explicitly encouraging radical fringe majoritarian elements on their own side and further divide and inflame tensions, rather than try to make good inclusive policy?

Can you honestly say, hand on heart, that a lot of posts professing to be espousing RW though are actually making bona fide argument? Most (but not all) seem to be intentionally trolling for a reaction or are basically posted with the intention of vilifying a minority community, which also happens to have experienced disproportionate discrimination by the current regime and its followers.

But well spotted, the post above under was clearly also intended to be trollish and has been marked as such, since it seems to have triggered a fair number of commenters...