Misunderstanding 'Freedom Of Speech' in India- Case Studies: Islamist Zakir Naik, Maoist Rebels, Film Actress Kushboo, Artist M. F. Hussain. A series of high- profile incidents over the past few months have stirred up conversation among Indians online on the subject of freedom of speech. Not surprisingly, parallels between the cases have been drawn at will to make ever possible argument for and against every side of the debate. This article is an attempt to look at the subject of free speech from a democratic and humanistic point of view. I begin by outlining the essentials of four cases from the recent past. This will be followed by a short discussion on the notion of freedom of speech.
![Be There Download Limits To Freedom Of Expression Meaning Be There Download Limits To Freedom Of Expression Meaning](http://archive.iceforge.com/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ThePowerofLimits.jpg)
Learn About the United States: Quick Civics Lessons Thank you for your interest in becoming a citizen of the United States of America. Your decision to apply for. The Australian Constitution does not expressly protect the freedom of expression and there are also limitations that can inhibit creative freedom in some. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889—1951) Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and regarded by some as the most important.
![Be There Download Limits To Freedom Of Expression Meaning Be There Download Limits To Freedom Of Expression Meaning](http://sealedabstract.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/xkcd-freedom-3.png)
Finally the implications of this discussion will be applied to each case. PRESENTING THE CASE STUDIES1. Zakir Naik Banned from UK and Canada.
The man in question is a self- styled medical doctor turned Islamic preacher who delivers lectures, holds debates and answers questions in front of large audiences worldwide, all in the effort to spread the ideology of Islam. Naik is known for his hate- filled propaganda, delivered with a self- pretentious smugness designed to carry all the appeal of a tough inner- city kid wrangling his pants around his knees as he delivers one cheeky ad hominem after another on the MTV show “Yo’ Mama”. Its nothing short of cheap, logically incoherent, crowd pleasing rhetoric- going for the PWND factor. This image is the vehicle that he uses to promote a deceptively sugar- coated extremist ideology. He works with an Islamic television channel and also frequently travels India and abroad, spreading his version of fundamentalist Islam.
Naik has been in the news recently after being disallowed entry into the UK and Canada. Both governments within days of each other rejected his application to enter their respective countries on his speaking tour of the world. Naik is appealing against both the bans. Verbal Support of Maoist Rebels Banned. The ongoing Maoist insurgency against the government of India and the people who abide by its constitution is comprised of members belonging to various indigenous tribes in the forests of Central and North Eastern India.
Be There Download Limits To Freedom Of Expression Meaning In Music
The Communist Party of India, Maoist, (not to be confused with the CPI Marxist) has been designated a terrorist organization by the government. The Maoists have been responsible for much destruction of life and property in recent years, as they fight the government supported incursion of mining companies into their lands. Early in May of 2. Indian government released a statement warning that those who speak in support of Maoist terrorists could be prosecuted, under Section 3. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1. Supreme Court Clears Film Actress Kushboo.
In 2. 00. 5, Indian film actress Kushboo was charged on 2. There were mass protests in Tamil Nadu where Kushboo was worshiped by some as a goddess. Needless to say, the temples built in her honor were destroyed after this incident. In April of this year, the Supreme court dismissed all 2. Artist M F Hussain Gains Citizenship in Qatar. India’s most celebrated artist in modern times, Muqbool Fida Hussain, took up Qatari citizenship in February of this year. Hussain was awarded the Padma Shri 1.
Padma Bhushan in 1. Padma Vibhushan in 1. Rajya Sabha in 1. He gained notoriety in 1.
Hindi magazine. Initially 8 cases were filed against him which eventually escalated to a large number of cases (about 9. More details here. In 2. 00. 6, the death threats and acts of vandalism increased, forcing Hussain to spend an increasing amount of time abroad. His decision to take up Qatar’s offer of citizenship requires him to give up his Indian citizenship.
ON FREE- SPEECHWhat does it mean to be Free to Speak? Popular conceptions of political ideals vary depending on the cultural mindset of the population in question. In secular democracies the freedom to speak as and when one wishes is tempered with a sort of commonsense that many find comforting. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who didn’t agree that some forms of expression should not be permitted. The problem then is that in practice very few of us can agree on where to draw the line. It is because of this that we must pay attention to the semantics involved in formulating such principles.
Common wisdom on the notion of freedom of speech is that we are free to say anything we want as long as our speech does not impinge upon the ‘fundamental freedoms’ of others. The idea is that one’s freedom of speech must not cause ‘harm’ to others. This sort of reasoning leaves much unresolved, because in reality the problem of deciding what counts as ‘fundamental freedoms’ or ‘harm’ is not so simple.
In fact, the reasoning often seen in the media and as popular opinion is simply designed to ignore the question or pretend that it has been answered. The problems begin just shy of where commonsense ends. The law, when it is shaped by such general commonsense notions, remains ambiguous. Such ambiguity is often necessary, given that moral problems are almost always situational. However, there are practical limits to such ambiguity. These limits are to be determined by objective facts and logic.
Limiting Ambiguity Using Logic and Reason. In order to present a clear understanding of the problem, we must focus on understanding the semantic and political philosophy behind the idea of free- speech.“…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.“John Stuart Mill. This excerpt is from Mill’s seminal work ‘On Justice” which has been instrumental in shaping modern conceptions of the rights of the individual in a democratic state. Let’s see in detail what Mill was talking about. The freedom to criticize/express all ideas is a stranger to every dictatorship on the planet.
The one thing we know for sure about freedom of speech is that the more it is practiced in a country, the less oppressed the people. This includes the freedom to criticize everything, including the state itself. It also includes the right to support any idea, however repugnant that idea might be to you or I.
So, it is clear that such freedoms are a good thing. But how do we reconcile this right to support any idea with the ambiguous notion that freedom of speech must not impinge on the fundamental freedoms of others? According to Mill, there are two major clauses to free speech. The Harm Principle and The Offense Principle. The first is valid (examples of use include hate speech, incitement of violence and making death threats) and the second is not (examples of use include blasphemy, criticizing an ideology, supporting an ideology/religion). This is the foundation of logic and reason over which we can build an appropriately malleable legal structure.
Without such a logical framework, the ambiguity is a tool of oppression. The rest of this section is concerned with understanding the democratic interpretation of the harm principle. Understanding the Harm Principle The only valid restrictions on freedom of speech are those that are clearly meant to prevent harm. However, governments must go about doing this without stripping us off our freedom to offend. We must find a balance between the two. But how do we determine where this line lies? The only way to practice such a balance is to restrict the law to criminalize only those aspects of speech that clearly are intended to cause harm.
Consider a case of hate speech, incitement of violence or making of death threats. A clear and intended causal effect must be drawn between the act of expression and the harm done. This is the only legitimate way in which the Harm Principle can be evoked to restrict certain forms of speech. In order for an act of speech to violate the harm principle, it must call for and/or intend harm against individuals, and/or target specific locations or events. That is, one must express intent towards furthering specific harmful acts for the harm principle to be violated. On the contrary, if an act of speech expresses support for the notion of harm, or argues that harm is the only way for something to get done, it cannot be construed of as violating freedom of speech. This is the nuance that is often missed.
One instance involves verbally endorsing an act of physical aggression (with the intention of furthering said act). The other is about simply supporting an ideology (without calling for harmful action).