Ok, perhaps. What about the original contention:

> because Indian Government recently jailed an independent fact checker for a tweet he made 4 years ago.

Are you contending the fact that a 4 year old tweet was used to suppress an Altnews? This ad-hominem attack may have basis, but the assertion that there is very filthy gross things being used to suppress doesn't seem to have been addressed.

And it seems like gross government indecency from where I stand. You're talking about ethics in journalism, but this seemingly is a case of government jailing & taking away someone's right, which seems like an act that requires a much much higher standard of conduct than antagonistic-left journalism.

> Altnews the left wing version of Tucker Carlson

And the Modi apologist shows up because Altnews has been fact checking right wing misinformation for several years now.

Alt News is much more similar to Rappler, a Filipino news website and fact checker whose founder (Maria Ressa) was awarded the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize after she was arrested and convicted by the Filipino ruling government for "cyberlibel" in retaliation for her journalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Ressa

The Peace Research Institute Oslo nominated the Alt News founders (Mohammed Zubair and Pratik Sinha) for the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize after Zubair was jailed for "hurting religious sentiments" in retaliation for his journalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zubair_(journalist)

https://www.prio.org/nobelshortlist

Oh yes, the Nobel Peace Prize, famously awarded to people who never commit war crimes.

"Hurting religious sentiments" by tweeting a screenshot of a 1983 movie is obviously not a war crime. Zubair is a journalist who was jailed for spurious reasons:

> Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta on Tuesday said that questions arise on the Delhi Police for arresting journalist Mohammad Zubair for allegedly hurting religious sentiments even as suspended Bharatiya Janata Party Nupur Sharma is still free despite making controversial comments on Prophet Muhammad, Live Law reported.

> The first information report against Zubair was based on a complaint by Delhi Police Sub-Inspector Arun Kumar, who said he was monitoring social media when he came across the March 2018 tweet after a handle named Hanuman Bhakt raised objections.

> The handle had taken objection to Zubair’s tweet, showing a hotel signboard with the name “Honeymoon Hotel” repainted to “Hanuman Hotel”. The journalist’s lawyer has argued in court that the photo is a screenshot taken from a 1983 Hindi movie.

> On Tuesday, Gupta said that nobody had complained about the movie for 40 years. “How was it [the tweet] reported based on one anonymous complaint?” he asked.

https://scroll.in/latest/1027652/questions-arise-when-police...

Mohammad Zubair is a hardcore Hinduphobe, Islamist & faux reporter funded by Soros apparatus. He was the one responsible for creating the edited video resulting in beheading threats for Nupur Sharma a BJP spokeswoman.

The Hindu phobia & Modi Derangement syndrome of western media is obvious from the recent shooting of notorious gangster Atif Ahmed. While he was responsible for 1000s of murders, extortions, kidnappings & rapes in his 30 year crime spree western media refers to him as a politician. A Politician who murdered his rival Raju Pal with Ak-47 making a sieve of his body because he won. Then he did the same to his brother Umesh Pal few weeks ago because he was eyewitness to his brothers murder.

So In India nobody takes the western media seriously except for fringe activist elements.

The BJP expelled Nupur Sharma from her position as the national spokesperson of the BJP because of the incendiary comments she chose to make on live television. Mohammad Zubair made a compilation of her comments and did not change any of her words.

As the former Supreme Court judge Deepak Gupta said, one of the problems in this case is that the journalist Mohammad Zubair was jailed for "hurting religious sentiments" because he tweeted a screenshot of a 1983 Hindi comedy film, while the politician Nupur Sharma was not jailed despite her incendiary comments "hurting religious sentiments" on live television.

> “If she [Sharma] could say that…which had a much bigger propensity to incite violence… but she is not arrested, Zubair is...Then some questions do arise on the fairness of the police,” Gupta said, in an interview to Live Law.

Additionally, the fact that there is even a law that allows the government to imprison people for making comments perceived to be "hurting religious sentiments" is a serious violation of freedom of speech.

https://scroll.in/latest/1027652/questions-arise-when-police...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/28/who-is-mohammed-zub...

There are plenty of articles from Western media that describe Atiq Amhed as a mobster, so your accusations are groundless. Examples:

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/04/17/atiq-ahmed-k...

- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65291781

As a former MP, Ahmed was obviously also a politician and there are plenty of articles from Indian media describing him as a politician. Someone can be both a politician and a mobster at the same time.

You lie by speaking selectively. BJP leadership was supportive of Nupur Sharma initially. Prominent Muslim figures like Nasiruddin Shah (who normally despise BJP) have come out and said that Nupur Sharma did not say anything wrong about Mohammed.

BJP distanced itself from her after they got a lot of push back from friendly Middle Eastern states. BJP are a bunch of opportunist cowards themselves anyway.

There is no case against Nupur Sharma and she only said what she said (on that TV show) after having been provoked by another Muslim panelist about Hinduism and Hindu gods.

Politicians are responsible for the statements they make. Nupur Sharma is a politician who made a statement that the public took offense to, and she had to endure the political consequences regardless of what anyone else said before or after her comments. The other panelist on the debate is not a high-raking political figure and the public does not necessarily demand the same level of decorum from him.

Bullshit. No one deserves to get their life taken away from them for what they said, or live in perpetual fear of being murdered for having quoted a religious book. But that is what people like you are justifying.

Nobody here is claiming that Sharma deserves to die for her incendiary comments. However, she did get expelled from her position as national spokesperson of the BJP and that is an appropriate response, considering the negative feedback she has received.

Zubair has no problems using his megaphone to turn muslim lynch mobs on people who he has differences with. Look up Nupur Sharma, the series of beheadings carried out after he spread misinformation on her, and more recently someone called Kajal Hindustani.

There is no politician that is immune to criticism. Nupur Sharma made incendiary comments on live television and Mohammad Zubair has the right to quote and criticize those comments. If Sharma did not want to anger the public, she should not have made provocative statements in a public setting.

Sharma's comments did result in violence. The Supreme Court blamed Sharma for inciting a beheading that was carried out by extremist perpetrators:

> The Supreme Court Friday slammed suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma, for her controversial remarks on the Prophet. While hearing the plea filed by Sharma seeking transfer of the FIRs against her to Delhi, the Supreme Court accused the leader of “igniting emotions across the country” with her “disturbing” remarks.

> “She has threat or she has become a security threat? The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.” “She and her loose tongue have set the entire country on fire.”

> The Supreme Court said her outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident at Udaipur, where a tailor was murdered.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/nupur-sharma-supreme...

As for Kajal Hindustani, it looks like her situation is being handled appropriately:

> Police have registered a first information report (FIR) against a woman activist for her alleged hate speech and detained more than 50 people on the charge of rioting following a communal clash at Una town in Gujarat’s Gir Somnath that left two persons injured, an official said on Sunday, PTI reported.

> “We have registered two FIRs. One is against Kajal Hindustani for hate speech, and another against the mob for rioting," Superintendent of Police Sripal Sheshma told reporters.

https://www.news18.com/explainers/kajal-hindustani-hate-spee...

You can keep spewing non sense like this, but people here are more literate than what you are used to. Your argument boils down to - if you insulted or are perceived to have insulted the prophet of Islam (by even quoting a hadith), then you deserve to die and live in perpetual fear of being murdered by a "ghazi".

No one cares if Nupur Sharma lost a bloody BJP job. You are justifying murder and religious fanaticism.

Don't put words in my mouth. The murder is not justified and the perpetrators deserve the appropriate penalties. As the Supreme Court explained, Nupur Sharma made the incendiary statements that incited the murder. Nobody here has claimed that Sharma deserves to die for her rhetoric. Sharma knew her comments were provocative, which is why she issued her apology afterward.

She literally quoted a Hadith. What is "incendiary" according to you is her tone of quotation. As if people don't quote nonsense from other religions in a non-reverential but mocking manner. Is Islam so fragile that Muslims get provoked by "quoting a hadith"?

I am incapable of putting words into your mouth, you are just taking hilariously diametrically opposite positions in the same conversation.

She apologised after she was thrown under the bus by her party (in a cowardly manner), which got pushback on this issue from India's middle eastern partners. The Supreme Court Judge's comments on her are unprecedented and disgraceful. After having received severe criticism for those comments, the court silently provided her the same relief from prosecution that she had sought in the first place.

The next time you turn up to support islamic barbarism, at least own up to it.

Here is a link in response to all your outdated bogus links: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-protects-nu...

You can do a text search on "Nupur Sharma" on livelaw as well.

Nupur Sharma did more than "literally quote a hadith". She accused a religious figure of "rape" on live television, which is not a quotation of any hadith. As a politician in a country with religious tension, Sharma knew that her incendiary comments would inflame this tension.

The Supreme Court correctly assessed Sharma's comments as irresponsible and inflammatory, which even your LiveLaw link affirms:

> On July 1, a vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala refused to entertain Sharma's petition. During the hearing, the bench made strong oral comments against Sharma, saying that she was "singlehandedly responsible for what is happening in the country". The bench said that being a spokesperson of a political party is not a license to make irresponsible comments. The bench had also said that the petition "smacks of arrogance that the Magistrates of the country are too small for her", and added that she should avail alternate remedies than approaching the Supreme Court. Following the critical remarks of the bench, Sharma's lawyer chose to withdraw the petition.

The fact that Sharma made incendiary comments does not justify the act of violence against her. However, as a politician, she should have known better than to inflame the people she is assigned to serve. The BJP removed her from her position because her behavior made her unsuitable for representing the party.

Your accusation that I am "supporting Islamic barbarism" is unfounded. Criticizing a politician for making incendiary statements is not the same thing as "supporting Islamic barbarism".

There is no hadith with the negative phrasing Nupur Sharma used in her comments. As a politician in a country with religious tension, Sharma knew that her incendiary comments would inflame this tension.

The Supreme Court correctly assessed Sharma's comments as irresponsible and inflammatory, which even your LiveLaw link affirms:

> On July 1, a vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala refused to entertain Sharma's petition. During the hearing, the bench made strong oral comments against Sharma, saying that she was "singlehandedly responsible for what is happening in the country". The bench said that being a spokesperson of a political party is not a license to make irresponsible comments. The bench had also said that the petition "smacks of arrogance that the Magistrates of the country are too small for her", and added that she should avail alternate remedies than approaching the Supreme Court. Following the critical remarks of the bench, Sharma's lawyer chose to withdraw the petition.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-protects-nu...

The fact that Sharma made incendiary comments does not justify any threat of violence against her. However, as a politician, she should have known better than to inflame the people she is assigned to serve. The BJP removed her from her position because her behavior made her unsuitable for representing the party.

Your accusation that I am "supporting Islamic barbarism" is unjustified and also a violation of the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Criticizing a politician for making incendiary statements is not the same thing as "supporting Islamic barbarism".