Group of Intellectuals and Academicians has written an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg after he mentioned BJP leader Kapil Mishra’s speech to outline Facebook's hate speech policy.
Delhi Police filed two more charge sheets Thursday. Police said the accused men formed a WhatsApp group where they spoke of ‘taking revenge from Muslims’.
Delhi Police say Jaffrabad incident reveals there was a deep-rooted conspiracy to cause riots, claim there was 'link with India Against Hate group and Umar Khalid'.
Shahrukh has been charged with attempt to murder and under Arms Act. The charge sheet, which also names two others, has been submitted before Karkardooma Court.
A 35-year old PhD student and president of RJD youth wing's Delhi unit was arrested for allegedly hatching a conspiracy to incite communal riots in northeast Delhi.
BBC World Service Group Director Jamie Angus tells ThePrint the broadcaster is willing to face consequences of 'independently' covering events on ground.
Finance ministry says the proposed revamp will focus on structural reforms, rate rationalisation & ease of living, & will be deliberated upon in the coming weeks.
The project is meant to be a ‘protective shield that will keep expanding’, the PM said. It is on the lines of the ‘Golden Dome’ announced by Trump, it is learnt.
Standing up to America is usually not a personal risk for a leader in India. Any suggestions of foreign pressure unites India behind who they see as leading them in that fight.
What utter nonsense! Zuckerberg referred to Mishra’s speech as an example of incendiary speech. How do the events prior to or following the speech change the fact that it was an incendiary speech?
The example mentioned by Zuckerberg was shown as an instance of what could be termed as provocative. There may or may not have been a direct link between the protests and the riots. What is the point that GIA is trying to make here? That Zuckerberg go and stop people from protesting? How was the instance that he put forward as an example wrong in itself? Is it ok for someone especially in a leadership position to make such a statement of taking law into their own hands?
Maybe the speech where a BJP leader mentions during the Delhi 2019 elections that if people don’t vote for BJP, “they” will come to your house and assault your women, and then Modiji won’t be able to save you, is a better example than the one MZ used? I wonder what the fact finders would find fault with there….Hmm…
George Orwell wrote 1984 with mainly communist regimes in mind, wherein the inconvenient history was erased from public memory . I never imagined that one day our country will find resonance with that…
Mark Zuckerberg is a LIBRANDU who can be easily mislead by lies and fabrications of facts by other LIBRANDUS. Members of Librandu club have one peculiar trait that they don’t feel the need to validate the information and data shared by other librandus. A fake research episode of Medical journal LANCET is the recent example of deceit and fakery by librandus researchers. Librandus don’t apply any standard for the one they intensely hate. Expecting any sensible judgement from librandus is like expecting SUN to stop burning. Though most librandus are fighting for their survival, few rich ones often vomit hate.
What utter nonsense! Zuckerberg referred to Mishra’s speech as an example of incendiary speech. How do the events prior to or following the speech change the fact that it was an incendiary speech?
The example mentioned by Zuckerberg was shown as an instance of what could be termed as provocative. There may or may not have been a direct link between the protests and the riots. What is the point that GIA is trying to make here? That Zuckerberg go and stop people from protesting? How was the instance that he put forward as an example wrong in itself? Is it ok for someone especially in a leadership position to make such a statement of taking law into their own hands?
Jai ho.
Maybe the speech where a BJP leader mentions during the Delhi 2019 elections that if people don’t vote for BJP, “they” will come to your house and assault your women, and then Modiji won’t be able to save you, is a better example than the one MZ used? I wonder what the fact finders would find fault with there….Hmm…
George Orwell wrote 1984 with mainly communist regimes in mind, wherein the inconvenient history was erased from public memory . I never imagined that one day our country will find resonance with that…
Mark Zuckerberg is a LIBRANDU who can be easily mislead by lies and fabrications of facts by other LIBRANDUS. Members of Librandu club have one peculiar trait that they don’t feel the need to validate the information and data shared by other librandus. A fake research episode of Medical journal LANCET is the recent example of deceit and fakery by librandus researchers. Librandus don’t apply any standard for the one they intensely hate. Expecting any sensible judgement from librandus is like expecting SUN to stop burning. Though most librandus are fighting for their survival, few rich ones often vomit hate.