- The citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression was found to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and violence.
- In other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom.
One might argue that why do I need absolute free speech when the probability of anything worthwhile or original, coming out of it is slim? My contention is that people don't hurt other's sensibilities not because the law restricts that, and conversely, people who normally don't, won't start hurting other's sensibilities in the absence of those restrictions either. Every law is based on the premise that "Man is a rational being", except the law restricting freedom of expression, which is based on the premise that only the state is capable of deciding what is rational. Do we need laws to define freedom? Or do we need laws to define restrictions on freedom? IMO freedom of "anything" should be the default position, putting it in words and getting everyone to sign on it is an exercise in futility. That exercise should be carried out for defining restrictions on freedom, and the onus should be on the state and those who advocate restriction to justify the restrictions being imposed.
No person in his right mind, will either advocate or support anyone advocating violence and murder, but isn't putting restrictions on everyone's fundamental right of free speech a very crude way of preventing such hate speech? Have we been able to prevent any of the riots from taking place, fatwas from being declared or convict those who incited these riots on the basis of restrictions on free speech? It's just one example of the ineffectiveness of these restrictions. However what "has" been achieved is a long list of books and other artistic expressions banned by the state on demands of various pressure groups who have got all the more emboldened after the state relented to their demands of curbing freedom of expression. So if enough number of people get annoyed by an opinion, questioning a belief or a piece of expression artistic or otherwise, or if they break enough Public furniture they can get the state to ban that piece of work. Isn't it ironical that a constitutional amendment that espouses curbing a particular type of violent behaviour ends up rewarding the same?
Image from here
I have a long awaited query and an unanswered question, still open for answers... "Is Democracy and too much Freedom a bane for India?"
ReplyDeleteHave we failed as a group of people living in a nation, which is formed by default on various societal, structural and systematic fault lines. The issues which come up each day in the national media are mostly trivial issues and provide comic relief to the majority of sane and discerning grey cells.
It is painful to see the freedom of the country, achieved with so many pains and sacrifice of many generations, go down the drain on pointless and penny issues. Democracy seems to be fast becoming the 'Demonstration of the Crazy'.
The situation even after so many decades of self-rule is failing to trigger a serious introspection in the administrative quarters those yield power and capability to show a saner path. This is fuelling the support to strong views of state control, but who in the state in these situation can be trusted or capable to do the tight-rope-walk of allowing 'Free Expression' and ensuring space available for 'Fair Expression', I wonder, the answer is none!
It is true that discretionary power and discerning about the decisions made are best left to the individual. Provided even the strongest of the strong views are kept to oneself and not try to impose or enforce on others against their will. Certainly the state is not expected to play a role in the decisions and try censor what to see, whom to love, whom to pray and what to read? But, these are all the side effects of electoral politics, which people fail to understand and allow themselves to be exploited. The state too is run by the individuals elected resultant of this political system which likes to play to the gallery. These leaders of men are also cynical to the core.
The state must concentrate on important issues and the issues of culture are better left for the time and society to decide. No one could stop invasion of our society by foreign religions, language, goods, culture, system, spread of consumerism, invasion of technology and even new festivities... Change can't be restricted with regressive and forceful impositions by a section of people, the majority of people will automatically stay away from something that is unpleasant or impractical in the current societal settings.
The state shouldn't decide and mustn't allow any disruption to anything(legally allowed) that is done at the individual level, more so, when it is an expression of art.
I also hoard a contrary opinion, that 'There can't be and shouldn't be anything that is absolutely free', "Lest it will become obsolete and will be abused obsessively".
The last para is open to discussion and debate in a different media...