CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   "Nobody has the right to not be offended. Th... Start Learning for Free
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.
Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?
  • a)
    The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.
  • b)
    The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.
  • c)
    The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.
  • d)
    The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in...
The author's argument that "…defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech." This is captured accurately in option (b).
Incorrect Answers(a) - The author does not address the motive for misuse. This answer choice suggests that the motive is furthering the political agenda. This is not mentioned in the passage.
(c) - The problem with this answer choice is that this alleges a motive as to why the clauses are the way they are. This answer choice attacks the motivation of the law commission - something that is not suggested by the author. All that the author says that subjective nature of the clause creates a problem.
(d) - Firstly, Salman Rushdie's quote is a supporting detail of the argument and not the main conclusion.
Secondly, the author does not give any indication that 'many authors' have highlighted it.
View all questions of this test
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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]Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?

"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Answer the question considering only the following two statements from the passage: (1) The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable.(2) The [Law Commission] report says that [hate] speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion.The relation between the above two statements can be best described as follows

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

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]Answer the question considering only the following two statements from the passage:(1) The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable.(2)The [Law Commission] report says that [hate] speech must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion.The relation between the above two statements can be best described as follows

Top Courses for CLAT

"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 "Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for "Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for "Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 "Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of "Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for "Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of "Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice "Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't 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 Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's 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 one's 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.Q. Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?a)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is used by politicians to further their political agenda by suppressing free speech.b)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech leaves open the possibility of its misuse leading to the suppression of free speech.c)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is designed to be misused so that it can be used to suppress free speech.d)The subjective interpretation of the clauses of hate speech is highlighted by many novelists such as Salman Rushdie.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev