Free Speech
On the flight
back home, I read this column in a Chinese newspaper about free speech. Before
you roll your eyes, this wasn’t about the right to voice political dissent;
rather, it was about the right to say whatever you wanted to in general. The
column asked how far free speech could go, especially on the Internet where the
audience for any rant was so much bigger than in the good, old physical world.
The article got
me thinking. Other than America which places its First Amendment on a pedestal
(it basically states that free speech is sacrosanct and only actions can be
prosecuted, not speech), how many other countries really allow free speech?
Take India.
Remember those girls who got arrested for posting something derogatory on
Facebook when Bal Thackerey died? Ok, that might have been political. But as a
culture, few Indians believe in free speech, especially when it involves
criticizing or spewing hatred.
Europe? Better
than India, but worse than the US. This came as a bit of surprise to me since I
mechanically assumed all Western countries are very similar on this front.
Which got me thinking: why are the US and Europe different on free speech?
Roger Darlington
took a stab at the explanation:
“This approach comes from the history of
the USA which was largely founded by religious immigrants fleeing Europe where
they were persecuted for expressing and practicising their particular religious
views.”
Europe (and I
would extend this to India), he argues, have a different history:
“In contrast, most Europeans believe that
words and actions are related, that the first can lead to the second and that,
in cases of particularly bad speech one should not wait until it actually
results in bad actions… This approach comes from the history of
Europe which was torn apart by centuries of religious wars and most especially
from the experience of the Second World War when the Holocaust could be seen as
the end result of centuries of verbal and other denigration of Jewish people.”
On the other
hand, when the US looks at its own history, at events like the incarceration of
Japanese-Americans during the Second World War or Guantanamo Bay, rendition and
torture, they believe:
“(It) was not the result of bad actions
or even of bad speech – but the paranoia of wartime.”
Free speech is a
very difficult ideal to live up to; not just for the communists.
Many of your points look OK.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is difficult to define free speech and also formulate laws allowing freedom, because from time to time the question on whether the law needs a re-look, with changing situations.
As to your reference, "free speech is sacrosanct and only actions can be prosecuted, not speech", a relatively akin (or at definitely dissociating speech and action) was practiced in UK and some parts of Europe too. Some Muslim fanatics and extremists would air extreme views inducing fellow Muslims to go ballistic against more or less all non-Muslims cultures and nations. Making the general Muslim population believe that they are constantly persecuted, it appears, is not a difficult task! Muslims have this failing of coming together to fight any proposed enemy without having to check truth value and what suits their own welfare, once the word "jihad" is uttered. The Muslims have given this word a bad connotation, but when are they going introspect on this? If the very name Islam stands for peace, should the Muslims not make it actually appear so?
After Sep 11, UK and many European countries realized that "If fanatic words come, can terrorist actions be far behind?". So, looking the other way when extremists harangue may not be wise.
Regarding your point, "as a culture, few Indians believe in free speech, especially when it involves criticizing or spewing hatred", is not true entirely. Yes, for some decades India's political and social situation is so bad that the ruling people or religious fanatics or people who have the muscle power do drown any voice that they do not want people to hear. The oppressors have gone to both highly-absurd and highly-criminal levels too. Agreed. Nevertheless, to conclude it is has a cultural character (or, we can use the term that biology writer Dawkins invented "meme" indicating continued social behavior influenced by the surroundings and not genes) may not be true.
There is recorded history of arguments and exchanges happening almost through every century, and not always the conclusion that the settlement was predominantly due to violent suppression. You said that in USA, the coming in of different national and cultural identity people could be one reason for the freedom of speech, a similar argument automatically rises in favor of India. The Indian religious and cultural society has always tended to allow differences to exist and persecution was nowhere near to the way of persecution that we find in the Semitic (or Abramic) religions. The Indian society more or less lived in segregated religious and social denominations. So, while most interactions between sects were socially prohibited, there never was interference in the practices and beliefs followed by groups. There were plenty of debates and even caustic literary exchanges were occurring throughout our history on religious ideas, not always these amounted to suppression of expression. Violence and threats were relatively less. Almost each group would declare, "if you choose to live in your well, you may be allowed to do so" and leave the opponents to live on condescendingly.
The way of suppressing freedom of speech that we find today, is an certainly aberration of our time. The reason for the extent of suppression today is rarely due to ideologies but the might of one ego edging out another ego. In earlier times people actually believed in principles to a good extent. So, arguments often meant "my belief versus your belief", unlike today when it is mostly "my ego versus your ego. We have fallen.
Since it is not cultural, I do believe -certainly hope - the present degenerate condition will pass and we will come to a state of better freedom for expression. Have hope - after all, between you and me, we never tire of our debates, do we? :-)