George Orwell an English author and Journalist, once said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
A debate will always rage on as to what free speech is. Governments or other authorities seek curbs, if such speeches or writings are perceived to be not in line with the official thinking. What is free speech then? What are our rights and limits? Is it not against the law to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre if there is no fire, just so one thinks, to have a little fun? The act might have caused panic resulting in injuries. Moral and ethical debates dictate that whatever free speech is, it should never go against the larger beliefs of contemporary society. Fleming Rose, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. said “What differentiates open and closed societies is the right to tell and retell our own and other people’s stories”. Profound words indeed.
We also know instances, where people are arrested for having said what they said or for having written what they wrote, whether under the IT ACT, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or under any other prevalent act. As a citizen, one must be informed of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression imposed in the interest of decency and morality. Such restrictions imposed where the content is seen as obscene, are part of Section 292 to Section 294 of the IPC.
The right to freedom of speech and expression is Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the Preamble to the constitution provides us the liberty of thought and expression. The question however is, if this right is absolute. One must read Article 19(2) for answers. Further, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) too bestows the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bestows everyone the right to freedom of speech and expression. As a country, we are signatories to these international declarations. Needless to say, we indeed have a high regard to the basic democratic rights.
Often, questions are raised on the freedom of press. The press must ensure that important information is legally shared and circulated among citizens which is possible only when there is no interference from an overreaching state. Shouldn’t the Journalists be able to report freely on matters of public interest? They must inform the leaders’ successes or failures and in turn convey the people’s needs and desires to government bodies. An open exchange of information and ideas must take place. If this were not to be, how does one hold the political leaders accountable? Or how would creative expressions such as academic writings, satirical work, theatre, cartoons, visual arts, and stand-up comedies be shared?
Journalists have a right to circulate and publish content, broadcast information and report proceedings of a court of law under the freedom of speech and expression. However, one must not spread disaffection, hatred, or contempt against the government established by law or create divisions in society by targeting specific groups based on their religion, culture, gender, disability, language, occupation, or ideology or any other, through their writings or speeches. One must not endanger matters of Security of the State, or cause threat to public order, such as cause rebellion, insurrection, or wage war against the State. That would be sedition under section 124A of the IPC.
The law may treat an attempt to do the above with a view to bring about change in the society, as not amounting to sedition. However, there is a thin line that divides what lawful criticism is and what is not. Oscar Wilde, an Irish playwright, poet, and author of numerous short stories said once “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” Perceptions can change fast and hence one must desist doing from doing the avoidable. As citizens we must develop scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform as provided in Article 51A (h) of the Constitution. Whatever the arguments, a debate will however continue between the proponents and the opponents on whether the section on sedition must be abolished as it is also perceived to be misused.
As citizens, we have a right to know, receive, and impart information. The freedom of Speech and expression right gives us the ability to speak our minds without the fear of imprisonment, punishment or censorship. But, did you know that staying silent is also a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression? In a certain case of a citizen vs the State of Kerala, the court upheld the petitioner’s right to stay silent during the national anthem. But then, one must introspect on such judgements, for how does one build a culture of Nation love and respect?
Our speech and expression must be decent and moral. How does one define what is decent and moral? Can we measure decency of a publication? Maybe to some extent by checking its effect on the most vulnerable members of society. Can our Decency Quotient that depends on honesty, good manners, and respect for others be improved? What restrictions would then suffice? Section 292 to Section 294 of the IPC have answers. However, as a society we continuously evolve and change. Must standards of decency and morality also evolve and change? If one were to argue that the decency and morals are to be interpreted differently, as the society itself has undergone a change over the years, would Contempt of Court punishable under Article 129 and Article 215 be applicable?
Freedom of Speech is sacred to individual autonomy, liberty, and democracy in today’s world. However, it is neither absolute nor ultimate. Slander is defamation by spoken words. Libel is defamation in a permanent form, written or printed. There cannot be a license to defame others or defame reputations. It is a criminal offence under Section 499 of the IPC. There is no immunity here. We must use the right to freedom of speech for the right uses and right reasons. Our freedom must not become another’s hindrance and inconvenience.