AIB Saga: Why we need Perspectives?

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

Follow us

AIB roast was recently involved in several censorship versus freedom of speech debates. Various arguments in favour and against were discussed since its launch on YouTube and due to unrest it created the questionable videos were taken down by creators shortly thereafter. The videos were majorly opposed by feminist groups, religious groups and state censorship authority members because the comedy involved in the show were said to be hurting the sentiments of public and various concerned groups.

Before talking further on the arguments in favour and against one need to understand the form of entertainment that AIB wants to create. While going through many of the AIB videos we can observe that they are not within norms created by mainstream comedy that our society easily digests but these videos very often are satirical and challenges various societal behaviour which we observe daily but never raise questions on them.

The concept of Roast is taken from western entertainment industry where it is much easier to create liberal discourse than in conservative society like ours. Roast shows involve passing embarrassing jokes on the person who is being roasted by his or her friends. While passing jokes on each other has never been in controversy and always been part of our day to day societal interactions but the language used in the show was aggressively challenged. Which should raise the questions of whether we as individuals do not have any livid experience of use of such strong language? Whether our friends and family members crack hurting jokes on us, which may lead to some violent reaction by us sometimes and why does that happen? The answer to this question may differ due to subjectivity in environment one experience but even in this subjectivity it become important to let such discourse perpetuate in the society. If a society truly wishes to increase its tolerance against various sentimental hurting videos, bigotry and hate speeches we need to learn to absorb such elements coming from within the society rather than blocking it. The problem hence we face is not that such form of comedy exist within the society or not because it do, but whether blocking such discourse will lead to betterment in tolerance level of people or not? Society learns from itself is the cardinal principle behind increasing societal tolerance hence when a discourse is created and gradually accepted by the majoritarian part of society it becomes norm and therefore your morality circle and tolerance increases. Whenever a discourse is blocked and there is no chance given to society to itself create antitheses, this blocked content takes forms of cult and remain present within minority groups. Therefore Due to censorship this results into clash of these two manifested cultures and the tolerance gap further increases and the majoritarian society further disowns the minority group without willing to understand them in the first place. censoring all the non-prevalence form of art will not only hurt the artistic freedom author should get to develop its creativity but it will impact society in a way that it would develop fear in mind of people to not to be creative in public or you can face jail time for it. Another argument against censoring such arts can be drawn on the lines that censoring will lead to slippery slope where blocking AIB roast maybe a good thing for larger interest but this will give legitimacy to majoritarian government to block more such content and only allow a particular form of art which is consistent with particular group ideology, these leads to tyranny of power block which is much larger than us and governs us of how we should think and act.

What if we are not allowed to speak certain words or bring satire against oppression or make fun of people? How would our life be? Banning an idea will never kill it but it only impediments one particular channel and still hundred more expressions are open for it to emerge before mass. So an idea of cracking Jewish or catholic jokes may sound derogatory to some but at the same time blocking it will lead to two things firstly saying anything of such sort will turn into a taboo and people will become intolerant towards taking harsh comments even in lightest mood on themselves and secondly this idea can take another form of expression which in turn can turn more violent discourse.

Hence freedom of speech should be absolute until it hampers national security or substantially harms a particular group but state should take caution in setting up standards for such restrictions or soon we will be under an oppressive regime or in worst case we as society will always involve in trifles and becoming doom of our own evolution.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -