October was a busy month. For social media clicktivists and professional outragers. Yesudas spoke about jeans, Kiran Desai gave an out-of-touch interview about not wearing western clothes in India, RR Patil added himself to a long list of politicians who have said politically and actually incorrect things about rape, and more recently, Chris Brown viewed the Ebola outbreak as population control. Not that Chris Brown needed anything new to tarnish his image, though he was quite eloquent: ‘S--t is getting crazy, bruh’.
Good times for headline writers (so many puns). There’s this thing about freedom of expression. It doesn’t apply only if you have progressive, liberal views. It applies even if you have other views. The moment free speech is mentioned, the Voltaire misquote is trotted out. “I disapprove of what you say, but I’ll defend to death your right to say it.” A fine quote to live by, or at least to say out loud in gatherings where everyone nods thoughtfully. The same people then react angrily when a 74-year-old man is found to have anachronistic views, especially about women.
In literature on free speech, what strikes me as the best depiction is John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle. “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” If we look at the harm principle in full, only those types of speech that cause actual harm need to be restricted.
If you take the jeans controversy, a khap panchayat has more chances of causing actual harm to the women who fall under their rule, than Yesudas does in your life or mine. A “boys will be boys” comment from Mulayam Singh Yadav, a man in a position of power and authority, has direct impact.
It isn’t the first time politicians, and authority figures have misused their right to free speech to demean a category of people who, to quite an extent in India, lack agency. This percolates to lower rungs in administration which is why domestic violence cases are still not reported in large numbers.
Does this mean taking offence is the right way to respond? Are we losing whatever little ability we had to debate a point of view in a civil manner? Almost every difference of opinion is incomplete without personal attacks, abuse and unnecessary name calling. Godwin’s law applies now even if a discussion on the internet has just begun. If you say, “I don’t agree with that,” you are ‘literally’ Hitler.Stephen Fry has, by far, the most interesting thing to say on this. “It's now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more... than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so f!@#$%& what.”
