tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post750795906634921469..comments2024-03-06T13:50:29.718+05:30Comments on E's flat, ah's flat too: Fan letterRahul Siddharthanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04809667965184094636noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post-30400857377314473252009-02-03T02:53:00.000+05:302009-02-03T02:53:00.000+05:30"wasabi was burning". Awesome."wasabi was burning". <BR/><BR/>Awesome.kmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040339235134145847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post-75404141203547058352009-02-01T11:15:00.000+05:302009-02-01T11:15:00.000+05:30good one..i esp loved the part abt blowfish testic...good one..i esp loved the part abt blowfish testicles!!! lol!Princess Fionahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01528202425335887101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post-29303804199040941832009-02-01T04:25:00.000+05:302009-02-01T04:25:00.000+05:30Rahul, That is broadly correct. As far as India is...Rahul, <BR/><BR/>That is broadly correct. As far as India is concerned, according to a lawyer friend of mine, it was British law before early 1990's when Justice Jeevan Reddy of Supreme Court wrote a judgment which was much closer to American law than British. No one seems to be sure what's the operative principle right now is. <BR/><BR/>But of course, who would want to make the rounds of the legal system against a media company which would surely have lawyers on retainers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post-56848959591817910982009-01-31T23:12:00.000+05:302009-01-31T23:12:00.000+05:30Rohit - as I understand it, in the US the person s...Rohit - as I understand it, in the US the person suing someone for libel has to prove his innocence, while in the UK the person being sued has to prove the original charge. See for example <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/civilliberties.medialaw" REL="nofollow">this article</A>. Since going to courts can be expensive, and losing even more so, the mere threat of libel litigation can be enough to squelch free speech in the UK. I am not sure about India; I suspect it is more like UK law, but, either because people don't think it worthwhile or because our courts are so slow or because there are more direct ways to threaten people, libel cases (or even threats of such cases) are not so common.Rahul Siddharthanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04809667965184094636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post-11721465102897194482009-01-31T23:11:00.000+05:302009-01-31T23:11:00.000+05:30I really hope Barkha reads this. Maybe you should ...I really hope Barkha reads this. Maybe you should just mail the link to her sometime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post-35265541682394222402009-01-31T22:48:00.000+05:302009-01-31T22:48:00.000+05:30Rahul,It would be an interesting legal question ab...Rahul,<BR/><BR/>It would be an interesting legal question about libel. By American legal standards, Barkha is on a weak wicket as she will have to prove actual malice since she is a public figure--the standards are different for public figures and private individuals. By British standards though, she might be on a stronger legal wicket. <BR/><BR/>But she herself has called Narandra Modi a mass murderer--much as one may detest Mr Modi, that charge has not been proven anywhere. If Modi was to sue Dutt (He won't, he is too crafty for that), Dutt would cry freedom of speech in her defense and we would all probably support her on principle. <BR/><BR/>Agree with the gist of your post though: No one even remembered the post; now everyone knows what Kunte exactly wrote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post-62109927982960289162009-01-31T08:41:00.000+05:302009-01-31T08:41:00.000+05:30szerelem, TR -- well unless Ms Dutt spends the ent...szerelem, TR -- well unless Ms Dutt spends the entire week scouring the net for posts about her, I doubt she'll read this one. The blogosphere seems to have exploded over this issue.<BR/><BR/>I agree with <A HREF="http://www.prempanicker.com/index.php?/site/when_free_speech_bears_a_price_tag/" REL="nofollow">Prem Panicker</A> that some of Kunte's comments were possibly libelious, unless he can prove them which he probably can't. But NDTV has made a huge mistake by attracting attention to them -- because they probably can't <I>disprove</I> the allegations either. See for example <A HREF="http://presstalk.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-love-controversy-dont-i.html?showComment=1233242400000#c218613053972532301" REL="nofollow">this</A> comment by "Army Officer" on the Kargil allegations.Rahul Siddharthanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04809667965184094636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post-73805813100091185042009-01-30T19:08:00.000+05:302009-01-30T19:08:00.000+05:30heh! i was wondering when you'd get around to this...heh! i was wondering when you'd get around to this :-DTabula Rasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16358094860426062297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3112258799568696095.post-88469492163587787672009-01-30T11:06:00.000+05:302009-01-30T11:06:00.000+05:30Dear Lord Rahul - next she will be suing you.I was...Dear Lord Rahul - next she will be suing you.<BR/><BR/>I was rather sad to see the unconditional apology on Mr. Kunte's blog though.Szerelemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17911190230851186924noreply@blogger.com