Free to Watch What You Want
In the beginning
of this year, triggered by the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, I
wrote a lot about freedom of speech. Here,
here
and here.
I also criticized India’s
stance on freedom of speech.
So you can
imagine how happy I am to find that the government lifted its ban on (most of)
the 850 web sites that had been banned just a short while back because they
were classified as porn. This site made a snide
remark on the retraction:
“Politicians learn the hard way that you
can't get between the voters and their preferred recreational activity.”
But that’s
simply not true for India: it’s mostly urban folks who surf the Net in India
and no politician in India cares about them and no decisions are ever made
based on such people or their views.
No, I am happy
not because I get to watch porn but because of the reasons due to which so many
Indians protested against the ban.
I fully agree
with the reasons cited in this Deccan
Herald editorial:
“Issues of personal liberties, freedom of
expression and access to the internet are involved here. The government’s moral
ideas of what is good or bad for citizens cannot be imposed on them.”
Additionally,
the ban made no sense since no Indian law was being violated in the first
place!
“There is no law in the country that
disallows a person from watching pornography within the confines of his home.”
In any case,
says the editorial:
“There is also no clear legal definition
of what constitutes adult and pornographic content.”
After all, as
one US judge
famously said about what is porn:
“I know it when I see it.”
Besides, the ban
on child pornography still stands. And few would protest about that. But what
adults want to do should be left to them.
It is so
gratifying to see that so many Indians actually stood up on a matter of
principle (freedom), applied it on a supposedly moral topic, and even more
surprisingly, won!
Hopefully, these
are just baby steps in a journey to “total” freedom of speech and expression,
to becoming a truly “free country”, not just one freed from the British.
While agreeing with the essential points about "freedom of expression", I would consider it OK if the law of the land addresses issues go into protecting/safeguarding the people, take care of social health issues that are relevant to all citizens and need not necessarily be limited to hospitals for the poor and such etc. In that context, I wouldn't consider government giving thought about how to address drinking that leads to harm to many (e.g. drunken driving, wife/children beating or killing by men...), prostitution which can have detrimental effects too on the society and such issues. People who are averse to government's intervention in such issues may often label those who consider government's need to intervene through legislation as 'fundamentalists' because such issues are also in the religious domain or as people who are 'opposed to progress' because the meaning of 'progress' can have a non-relative finality from the protagonist of some modernity/progress. One needs to understand balance, not extreme in our approaches - not mindless dismissal of either progress or disallowing some measures on the ground of value system (which of course is relative) but liable for interpretation of being non-progressive.
ReplyDeleteContinuing the discussion from that standpoint, I do think that government's unilateralism and arbitrariness in dealing with 850 websites shows both stupidity and paucity of governing skill. Nevertheless, knowing pornography is not only about viewers but also about producers, it is true those who produce pornography can do plenty of things that are harmful to both individuals and the society. Legislation to protect people from being exploited by this industry is surely required. We can't discuss freedom in that context - nobody has a right to exploit others. If the exploitation of children occurs, then that has to be stopped at all costs. We can't look the other way.
Having said that, it is not easy to prevent such happenings. Legislation, law-enforcement, judiciary are one part of how to prevent wrong things happening. The other component is people's own attitudes to abide by the law, their persuasion and encouragement of their elected representatives to act for the better of the society - etc. count. Corruption looming large is doing great damage too. It is all complex and injustice cannot be subdued or eradicated. We all know. But, we should strive for the right balance and also have a will to insist on social justice, instead of only thinking of individual rights.
Humans rarely avoid being social animals; so such animals do require some taming through self-made regulations that extend beyond individuals encompassing the society they belong to.