Freedom of expression and PK - Page 5

Originally posted by: LondonDarling

I don't think anything they showed in PK was offensive. Everything shown was done with much sensitivity and the message in the movie was that there is nothing wrong with any religion but it's the "managers" that make everything look bad.

Now what happened in Paris is beyond awful. We live in a time where freedom of speech should be an equal right for everyone. People should say whatever they need to without the fear of getting killed. Unfortunately some of the stuff posted by Charlie Hebdo was a bit offensive to some people. Not that it gives anyone the right to go ahead and kill but the murders were the exact people PK warned about in the movie.

Originally posted by: LondonDarling

I don't think anything they showed in PK was offensive. Everything shown was done with much sensitivity and the message in the movie was that there is nothing wrong with any religion but it's the "managers" that make everything look bad.

Now what happened in Paris is beyond awful. We live in a time where freedom of speech should be an equal right for everyone. People should say whatever they need to without the fear of getting killed. Unfortunately some of the stuff posted by Charlie Hebdo was a bit offensive to some people. Not that it gives anyone the right to go ahead and kill but the murders were the exact people PK warned about in the movie.

Originally posted by: adigaag

Off topic

PK was not about idol worship only...It was just trying to show the world from the eye of an Alien...I mean what the hell is wrong there I'm not getting that at all😕...I do believe in idol worship precisely for the inherent liberalism reasoning which is mentioned in the TOI article...The main premise of the movie is fear ...Most of the times our fears engulf our mind completely that we tend to do things we shouldn't fall for in the first place without thinking rationally...Tapasvi Maharaj is the main player here...had some really bad personal experiences with the so called managers...the worst part is fell for few of them again and again.I know my fault out of fear...In small villages I have seen places where there are pictures of God in places where one should not pee...I mean what is anti religion in that.. PK will definitely not change anything I'm sure about it...same goes for many many other things highlighted in the movie but it did show a reality is my point...offensive or not is how people take it...and comeone there was security outside and inside the theatre which I went to...so many people had issues with it accept it...same way with the cartoon thingy as well...but killing somebody is so not acceptable come what may

Originally posted by: Azor_Ahai

And whats the criteria to decide what was shown in PK was not offensive and whatever was in the cartoon was offensive?

Originally posted by: AllBlacks1

64 Millions dollar question! And one offense create protests, other kills innocent ppl.

Originally posted by: Star_girl

Wow, you're amazing, really. Are you actually comparing one horrible atrocity with another? BTW let me remind you, it was the Indians and their ridiculous intolerance which drove M.F Hussain out of India. He would have been killed if he hadn't left the country. He wasn't really doing anything different from Charlie, except he was much more talented and artistic than him. He was not even mocking anyone's faith like Charlie is accused of. It's not like Hindu radicals didn't attempt to do the same thing to him. His luck he survived and left the country and Charlie didn't.

I love how NRIs talk about India and Indians like they live here and know everything about it.

😆

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Wh says fiction does not depict Islam or Mohammed.

The great HG Wells wrote the book "The Invisible Man". HW made it into a movie in 1933. The problem is only when you make Mohammed visible.

Oh I crack myself up so sometimes.