Freedom of Expression is being feverishly discussed and debated around the world, particularly in the context of the gruesome terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. In India, the discussion has taken the usual political connotations... and in all this freedom of expression, so much is being said that very little is being heard and understood.
Here are some observations from my side... I am sharing these partly to clarify my own thoughts and partly in the hope that they will help some others in developing their point of view.
1. India does not really have FoE
While there is a lot of discussion around various people's tolerance levels for expression, FoE is not primarily about how each of us react to others' expression. FoE is foremost about how the state (government) treats expression by its citizens. Does it permit, nay encourage, individuals to express what they have in their minds? It appears that most countries / governments accept some form of restrictions on free speech, particularly around speech that harms or offends others.
The issue in India is that the caveats on free speech give enough leeway to the government to act in a highly subjective manner:
These rights are limited so as not to affect:
- The integrity of India
- The security of the State
- Friendly relations with foreign States
- Public order
- Decency or morality
- Contempt of court
- Defamation or incitement to an offence
If there is one thing that must be debated, it is the
First Amendment to the Constitution of India that added "reasonable restriction on freedom of speech" -- it has led to additions in the Indian Penal Code that ensure that true freedom of speech does not exist in India. Anything meaningful that you say will offend someone else and therefore, can give rise to a criminal offense.
The first amendment was brought about, soon after the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, because the then government was unable to silence a critical magazine. All subsequent governments have just enjoyed this cover without questioning it.
2. FoE is not a one-way street
It is amusing that most of us latch on to the FoE bandwagon when it suits us. If we believe in the absoluteness of this freedom, then we must be ready for its consequences. As I mentioned above, any meaningful opinion could offend somebody or the other. If I want to be able to express my views, I should be prepared that others may also say things that I might dislike. By the way, accepting FoE does not mean I have to agree with the content of what others say... this implies that I should be prepared for others to criticize me.
Content creators like authors, painters, movie-makers, etc. seek absolute freedom to say what they want, however, they should then be ready to accept criticism, in whatever (legal) form it takes. If you are not ready to accept people protesting your content, calling you names or filing legal cases against you (not difficult, given point 1 above), then you should not exercise your freedom of expression. Strangely, journalists who believe in the God-given right to ask questions of anyone on any topic are the
first to block others' freedom in asking questions or commenting on them.
3. FoE is just an excuse
Many folks asked if Charlie Hebdo should not have been so irreverent about Islam, particularly when they were aware of the violence threats. Why would you go and provoke somebody who has a different thought process / cultural background?
To this, I will paraphrase something that I wrote during a Facebook discussion on the topic:
Take the "let's not provoke them since they don't like it" argument further ... those who are aggressive and violent will win; those who fear such violence will be silenced. Don't know how this will ever end well.
Further, I don't think the jihadis really care about the cartoons or the "western" notion of FoE. They probably don't understand religion (else why would they kill other Muslims!?)... I think they just want to provoke everyone else into a "war"... Everytime something like this happens, a few people on the other side get pushed to an extreme, will call all Muslims names or make it tough for them; this provokes some of the moderate Muslims into extremism and creates a fresh source of recruits for the jihadis. It's just a power game... God / faith is just a potent fig-leaf.
But the problem with becoming silent / withdrawing expression is that it doesn't matter, no? If the goal is to find some excuse for provocation, then it will be found, how much ever accommodating you are. If somebody wants to be aggrieved, they can bring anything up from anywhere / anytime.
What is shocking is the equivalence that is being drawn between counter-expression and violence as a counter to expression.
In fact, saying shit in response to what you say is actually the essence of freedom of speech. Killing someone or punching them on the face is not.
However,
Pope Francis has now said that some form of violence (but not murder) would be justified for verbal offense. The problem is where do you draw the line? What offense is punishable by violence? And what severity of violence (short of murder) is acceptable? Of course, as long as governments are active participants in the curbs on FoE (see India example above, Saudi example in the Guardian link, etc.)
Absolute freedom of expression can perhaps be an ideal that we aspire for... as long as the world has power asymmetries and cultural differences - forever, I guess, individuals will need to exercise prudence in expression and governments will impose restrictions on FoE. What we should fight for is reduction in such restrictions and greater social & legal protection for those who exercise FoE.