A Response
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissionsoup.comWhen the lawsuit from Dina Nath Batra hit the fan, and I believed (and said) that the law was the true culprit, my f...
| Subtitles: | Roundtable on outrage, scholarship, and the law in India |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
[2016]
|
| In: |
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Year: 2016, Volume: 84, Issue: 2, Pages: 364-366 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
India, Strafgesetzbuch (1860). 295A
|
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissionsoup.comWhen the lawsuit from Dina Nath Batra hit the fan, and I believed (and said) that the law was the true culprit, my feeling was that Mr. Batra was doing what he thought was right: there will always be people with such opinions, and they have a right to express them. They should not, however, have the right to suppress other peoples' opinions, and Indian Penal Code 295A was what gave them that right. The articles in this volume finally spell out beyond any shadow of a doubt the role that this law has played before (Adcock), during (Pennington), and after (Viswanath) my clash with Mr. Batra.These articles have also cleared up two widespread misunderstandings. First, my book was never banned, for it never... |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-4585 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: American Academy of Religion, Journal of the American Academy of Religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfw028 |