By Geeta Spolia
In this three-part essay I will attempt to negotiate the complex territory that is the domain of freedom of speech and expression. In the first two parts I begin by balancing arguments in support of and against free expression. In the final part I will explore the treatment of the issue, more specifically, in India.
What is interesting about freedom of expression is that no one will argue that it is unimportant in a democratic state. Rather, most people agree that it is intrinsic in the very nature of democracy and is complementary to its other features such as liberty, justice and equality. While freedom of speech and expression is, indeed, vital to a democracy, it is also equally contentious. Thus, while there is nearly universal agreement as to the importance of the issue, there exist opposing sides that convincingly argue the cases for both the extension and the contraction of the right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as others who cannot place themselves entirely in either category. The following are arguments in support of minimal restrictions on free expression.
The Right to Be Heard
One argument is that every opinion, idea or sentiment, no matter how unpopular, deserves the chance to be expressed because no matter how untrue or illogical, it leads to the enrichment of society. Here I invoke the hugely famous words of John Stuart Mill,
If all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one other person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would no more be justified in silencing that person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Thus, if one does not want to hear the silence of uniformity, one must learn to tolerate the cacophony of variety. Indeed, there is beauty in this cacophony.
Mill argued that free expression and debate are essential to the progress of society because they assist in the discovery or refinement of the truth.
How is this to be?
First, Mill says, even if an assertion is untrue, as is proved after it is discussed, its expression is nonetheless essential as it resulted in the reinforcement of the merit of the truth. Without challenge, the truth, no matter how clear and precise, would degrade and become dead dogma. What reason would subsequent generations have to adopt this truth if they were required to submit to it without having the liberty of understanding it by first questioning it? Would not this unquestioned imposition incite rebellion? People are essentially curious, and knowledge is best gained through experimentation and trial and error. It would be futile to expect permanent and unrivalled currency. The truth stands to only gain from challenge and contestation, which provide it the chance to prove its intellectual might. Those who are fortunate enough to have discovered it, should thus be unafraid to defend it and instead of stifling opposition, should welcome it.
Secondly, in the event that the assertion is true, and better than the dominant opinion, not allowing it expression would result in a huge loss for society, as it would be sentenced to being misinformed forever. Society would never be able to gain from the real truth, to test their beliefs against it or adopt it, because it would be crushed under the domination of the false opinion masquerading as the truth. If dissent were to be forever silenced, the falsity of opinion would never be established.
The Inconvenience of Expression
Another view argues that difference of opinion must not be looked upon as undesirable, inconvenient or even threatening because when it comes to societal questions, there can be no static certainties. Debate over social questions is never as exact as science, and cannot yield results that can be definitively objectively tested. Human beings are naturally diverse and vibrant, and must not be trained to become bland and uniform. Imagine a painting or a song made entirely of a single colour or a note and this line of thinking becomes more compelling.
Another vein of argument asks, is unregulated expression really so impactful that it cannot be ignored? Can words do the same harm as actions? And if they are, is blanket censorship the solution? Finally, what is one to do with the troublesome relationship between intent and offence?
The Right to Hear
Coming to the issue of censorship, the authority invested in a state or a small group of people to adjudicate on matters concerning an entire population is often questioned. Each one of us has a right to hear all sides of a matter to arrive at a judgment and in order to feel fully empowered as citizens and as individuals. A government, which is considered the repository of the trust of the people, or a single censorship board or committee is simply not entitled to exclude all others from any decision on free expression and assume such a position of power.
Tolerance & Magnanimity
Another supporting argument is that the attitude of tolerance that is promoted by limiting restrictions on free expression fosters a general spirit of magnanimity that extends beyond the realm of free speech. In a world that is increasingly becoming as inward looking as it is interconnected, encouraging tolerance would have positive consequences for mankind on the whole. People would be more open to generosity and to understanding other cultures and lifestyles.
Exposure and The Significance of Silence
Sometimes, silence can be as significant as speech. Sometimes, it can be more corrosive. False, hateful, destructive, prejudiced or otherwise negative thought is better revealed through expression. If it is never expressed, it can never be challenged. If it is never challenged, it can never be defeated or laid to rest. Often, suppressed malevolent thought, never having been countered, grows into more dangerous and violent forms, and surpasses the point where it can be controlled.
While these arguments raise valid points, there are several questions that arise out of them. True to the spirit of this essay in the next part I will examine counter arguments to the ones presented thus far.
The author is a writer, researcher and travel blogger. She is a graduate in political science from Hindu College, University of Delhi. She is currently working for Mr. Arun Sharma, education consultant and author. She is an AIESEC alumna, and has held leadership positions in Corporate Communications and Information Management in her term. She is interested in and wants to pursue a management career in corporate social responsibility. She can be reached at geeta.spolia@gmail.com.