Je suis Charlie. The hashtag trended on Twitter and Facebook. People put up RIP messages, and expressed their shock and disgust at what happened in Paris.
Solidarity is something that can very easily be employed, but it ignores what happens in our own backyard. Article 19 of our Constitution says Indians have the right to “freedom of speech and expression,” but the law also specifies that this is not applicable if it affects “public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” Article 25 says we have “freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion,” as long as it is “subject to public order, morality and health.” These two articles are what drive many PILs against “offence-causing” material. The very loose definition of offence makes it difficult to ascertain what is actually offensive and why.
Apart from legal remedy available to offence-takers, there is also that glorious cornerstone of our democracy — vandalism. When PK released, “activists” vandalised theatres and protested against the actor because he belonged to another religion. This is the country where an actor speaking about AIDS awareness had to issue a public apology, because premarital sex is considered against “Indian culture”.
France’s freedom of expression too is subject to certain riders. A French citizen cannot “insult” the national flag or anthem. Citizens cannot “insult” those who serve the public — magistrates, police, teachers, fire-fighters and bus conductors. Publications which disagreed with the country’s restrictive drug laws were often slapped with heavy fines. Charlie Hebdo was one of them.
While defending freedom of expression is an admirable thing, it also requires some self-awareness, that the freedom of expression granted to us isn’t absolute, no questions asked. The issue here isn’t if this makes the law correct, but whether we recognise our own flaws as a nation before we quickly criticise those who oppose free speech. We still have a colonial era sedition law that’s freely used. 7,000 villagers in Kudankulam were charged with sedition because they protested against the establishment of a nuclear power plant in their village.
American political and legal philosopher Joel Feinberg suggested an “offence principle”: “It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offence... to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end... The principle asserts, in effect, that the prevention of offensive conduct is properly the state’s business.” Feinberg also suggested that a number of factors should be taken into account before taking action — social value of the speech, if said speech can be avoided, motives of the speaker, number of people offended, intensity of the offence, and general interest of the community. These factors help in not limiting free speech. Maybe our serial PIL-filing vandals should take note.
