Question Description
Passage - 3"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesnt exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdies words, however, will have very few takers in todays India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as ones race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:a)Race and religion are assessed through subjective interpretation.b)The only way to suppress free speech is through misuse.c)Hate speech should not be allowed.d)Subjective interpretation can lead to confusion.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Passage - 3"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesnt exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdies words, however, will have very few takers in todays India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as ones race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:a)Race and religion are assessed through subjective interpretation.b)The only way to suppress free speech is through misuse.c)Hate speech should not be allowed.d)Subjective interpretation can lead to confusion.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage - 3"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesnt exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdies words, however, will have very few takers in todays India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as ones race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:a)Race and religion are assessed through subjective interpretation.b)The only way to suppress free speech is through misuse.c)Hate speech should not be allowed.d)Subjective interpretation can lead to confusion.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage - 3"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesnt exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdies words, however, will have very few takers in todays India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as ones race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:a)Race and religion are assessed through subjective interpretation.b)The only way to suppress free speech is through misuse.c)Hate speech should not be allowed.d)Subjective interpretation can lead to confusion.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Passage - 3"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesnt exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdies words, however, will have very few takers in todays India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as ones race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:a)Race and religion are assessed through subjective interpretation.b)The only way to suppress free speech is through misuse.c)Hate speech should not be allowed.d)Subjective interpretation can lead to confusion.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage - 3"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesnt exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdies words, however, will have very few takers in todays India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as ones race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:a)Race and religion are assessed through subjective interpretation.b)The only way to suppress free speech is through misuse.c)Hate speech should not be allowed.d)Subjective interpretation can lead to confusion.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage - 3"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesnt exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdies words, however, will have very few takers in todays India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as ones race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:a)Race and religion are assessed through subjective interpretation.b)The only way to suppress free speech is through misuse.c)Hate speech should not be allowed.d)Subjective interpretation can lead to confusion.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage - 3"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesnt exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdies words, however, will have very few takers in todays India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as ones race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:a)Race and religion are assessed through subjective interpretation.b)The only way to suppress free speech is through misuse.c)Hate speech should not be allowed.d)Subjective interpretation can lead to confusion.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage - 3"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesnt exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdies words, however, will have very few takers in todays India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as ones race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:a)Race and religion are assessed through subjective interpretation.b)The only way to suppress free speech is through misuse.c)Hate speech should not be allowed.d)Subjective interpretation can lead to confusion.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.