Open discussion on freedom of speech:
On one hand you have people like Todd Akin who makes ridiculous statements and hide behind "Freedom of Speech". While his ideas are deplorable I personally feel he should have the right to say it without retribution from the government because he will be punished appropriately in the public arena aka elections.
On the other hand, you have the government of India clamping down on parody Twitter accounts and YouTube in the name of "maintaining peace". Is it ever ok to clamp down on free speech?

I'm an absolutist re: free speech although it can be a bit hard at times. I think actions should be punishable and not speech that inspired or instigated them.

How would an absolutist reconcile free speech in the public v/s private domains? For instance, let's say the CEO of a major company makes a controversial remark. Should his company be able to punish him, since that could affect the company's image?

Public versus private domains are always tricky. The corporation can 'punish' him because it affects the company's images thereby leading to lower sales but I think we are talking primarily about speech in a public domain.

I am going to a play a bit of devil's advocate here. For a large population like India, where news does spread like wildfire thanks to SMS/phones etc (think milk miracle, monkey man etc), I think the Government, though shortsighted had the right idea in their heads - to make sure that source of false information is contained. That said, they've never done a good job at it - and this government has routinely confused parody with threats. I am sure a part of this comes from how "sensitive" we as Indians are to pretty much everything. Government's step when considering average Indian mentality is actually pretty understandable.

I beg to differ. First, in regards to this specific block, there was no evidence of link of the content on social media to the riots that ensued. Second, riots in India have always been spurred by rumors (no FB/Twitter/Orkut in the post-Babri riots or Partition riots) thus that indicates lack of trust in institutions and law & order rather than the medium the rumors are propagated by.

If actions are punished severely than people will think twice before acting out on any rumors and then seeking refuge in "but he told me that.." Just because people are "sensitive" doesn't mean we have to pander to the least sensitive of the lot.

The U.S. also has a large population (320 million) and might I add, with nearly 200 million guns and more connected via the Internet and social media than India yet no riots take place on a regular basis. The immediate response to any shooting is enough to deter random and spontaneous acts of violence. No one ever offers the excuse that I was instigated by something I read on the Internet and doesn't get laughed at.

In the end, its all about effective institutions and enforcement of law & order without political influence. India, admittedly, is a young country and may have a steeper 'learning curve' but should not be treated differently.