Book contents
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Editors' Introduction
- Part I Sui generis or Socially Problematic: The Character of Legal Language
- Part II Imperfect Fit between Legal Categories and Social Discourse
- Part III Written in Silence: Hidden Social Meanings in Legal Discourse
- 6 Let the Fingers Do the Talking: Language, Gesture and Power in Closing Argument
- 7 Questions about Questioning: Courtroom Practice in China and the United States
- 8 Law, Language and Community Sentiment: Behind Hate Speech Doctrine in India
- Part IV Conflict between Linguistic and Legal Ideologies
- Part V Demands of Law and Limits of Language
- Afterword
- Index
- References
8 - Law, Language and Community Sentiment: Behind Hate Speech Doctrine in India
from Part III - Written in Silence: Hidden Social Meanings in Legal Discourse
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 December 2017
Book contents
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Editors' Introduction
- Part I Sui generis or Socially Problematic: The Character of Legal Language
- Part II Imperfect Fit between Legal Categories and Social Discourse
- Part III Written in Silence: Hidden Social Meanings in Legal Discourse
- 6 Let the Fingers Do the Talking: Language, Gesture and Power in Closing Argument
- 7 Questions about Questioning: Courtroom Practice in China and the United States
- 8 Law, Language and Community Sentiment: Behind Hate Speech Doctrine in India
- Part IV Conflict between Linguistic and Legal Ideologies
- Part V Demands of Law and Limits of Language
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law , pp. 186 - 204Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Ahmed, A. A. (2009). Specters of Macaulay: Blasphemy, The Indian Penal Code and Pakistan's Predicament. In Mazzarella, W. and Kaur, R. (eds.) Censorship in South Asia: Cultural Regulation from Sedition to Seduction. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 172–205.Google Scholar
Barendt, E. (2013). “Hate Speech”, Lecture given at Hull University, 21 November, www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/pdf/Eric%20Barendt-HATE%20SPEECH.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, G. (2015). Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burra, A. (2008). Arguments from Colonial Continuity: The Constitution (First Amendment Act), 7 December 1951, available at SSRN, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2052659Google Scholar
Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisations (2012). The Terror of Law: UAPA and the Myth of National Security, New Delhi, April.Google Scholar
Dhavan, R. (2007). Harassing Husain: Uses and Abuses of the Law of Hate Speech. New Delhi: Sahmat.Google Scholar
Dhavan, R. (2008). Publish and Be Damned: Censorship and Intolerance in India. New Delhi: Tulika Books.Google Scholar
Donogh, W. R. (1911). A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India. Calcutta: Thakker, Spink and Co.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. B. (2001). Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hare, I. and Weinstein, J. (eds.) (2009). Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kalven, H. (1965). The Negro and the First Amendment 140. Cited in McGaffey, R. (1973) The Heckler's Veto: A Reexamination. Marquette Law Review 57 (1): 39–64, available at http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol57/iss1/3Google Scholar
Law Commission of India, 43rd Law Commission Report on Offences Against the National Security, August 1971.Google Scholar
Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C. R., Delgado, R. and Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech and the First Amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, W. and Kaur, R. (eds.) (2009). Censorship in South Asia: Cultural Regulation from Sedition to Seduction. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
McGaffey, R. (1973). The Heckler's Veto: A Reexamination. Marquette Law Review 57(1): 39–64, available at http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol57/iss1/3Google Scholar
Mehta, D. (2008). Words That Wound, Archiving Hate in the Making of Hindu and Muslim Publics in Bombay. In Khan, N. (ed.) Beyond Crisis: Re-evaluating Pakistan. New Delhi: Routledge India.Google Scholar
Mehta, P. B. (2015). The Crooked Lives of Free Speech: Liberals Lose Plot from Paris to Delhi. Open Magazine 7(5), 4–10 February.Google Scholar
Nair, N. (2013). Beyond the ‘Communal’ 1920s: The Problem of Intention, Legislative Pragmatism, and the Making of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. Indian Economic Social History Review 50: 317–340.Google Scholar
Narrain, S. (2016). Hate Speech, Hurt Sentiment and the (Im)Possibility of Free Speech, Economic and Political Weekly LI (17), 23 April: 119–126.Google Scholar
The Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, Part II, May 29, 1951.Google Scholar
Punwani, J. (2014). Why There's No Noise about the Mumbai Riots, 14 February, http://www.rediff.com/news/column/jyoti-punwani-why-theres-no-noise-about-the-mumbai-riots/20140204.htmGoogle Scholar
Rao, S. (ed.) (2010). The Framing of India's Constitution: Select Documents Vol. 2. Delhi: Universal Law Publishing.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, M. (2003). Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis. Cardozo Law Review 24 (4): 1523–1568.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2005). The Exceptional First Amendment, KSG Working Paper No. RWP05–021, http://ssrn.com/abstract=668543, February.Google Scholar
‘What Saamna Said’, (2000) Frontline, Vol. 17, Issue 16, 5–18 August, http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1716/17160160.htm.Google Scholar