The concept of free speech and the internet

A very interesting debate is on in the blogosphere around freedom of speech with responsibility and accountability. TOI reported that a 19-year old blogger has been charged with a criminal offense for an offensive comment left by an anonymous against Shiv-senas.

Petitioner Ajith D had started a community on Orkut against Shiv Sena. In this community, there were several posts and discussions by anonymous persons who alleged that Shiv Sena was trying to divide the country on region and caste basis.

Reacting to these posts, the Shiv Sena youth wing's state secretary registered a criminal complaint at Thane police station in August 2008 based on which FIR was registered against Ajith under Sections 506 and 295A pertaining to hurting public sentiment.

...After getting anticipatory bail from Kerala HC, Ajith moved the SC to quash the complaint on the ground that the contents did not have defamation value.

Dragon Fly contains a scathing criticism of the SC’s move. ‘‘Totalitarianism is official now, you may have the ways to express but you cannot express and if you do, be prepared to face the consequences,’’ it says. ‘‘The issue of hurting public sentiments is a bit crap idea. What will not hurt the public sentiments? If someone raises the issue of legalizing prostitution, it hurts public sentiments, if someone raises issue of legalizing alcohol, drugs or even abortions it hurts public sentiments.’’

It might seem ridiculous that a brand like shivsena has to waste their time behind a small time blogger considering their moral policing stand and region based fanaticism and the rave reviews they have got from all around, not just bloggers.

TOI quotes the SC,

"We cannot quash criminal proceedings. You are a computer student and you know how many people access internet portals. Hence, if someone files a criminal action on the basis of the content, then you will have to face the case. You have to go before the court and explain your conduct."

The Bench also added,

"You should not have indulged in such activity. You are a student of IT. You are doing something on internet and you should know about it," the Bench said refusing the plea of his lawyer that there was any malafide intention in putting the contents on the internet.

The Bench remained unmoved by the submission that if the case was not quashed, similar cases could be registered in other states and even in foreign countries. "If a case is filed in a foreign country go and face it. You should know what you are doing on internet," the Bench observed.

This brings us to the question of what kind of freedom of expression is within my rights and what is not. I would think I should be allowed to show my support or protest against a political party, establishment, cause or individual as far as I do not cause anybody any physical harm. As a citizen of this country why can't I question the credentials of a media person, an activist, a group, an individual holding or hoping to hold a government position whose job or actions concerns me directly or indirectly. I should be able to raise my concerns, questions using any medium of expression freely. No argument should be headed towards a Big Daddy answer 'because I told you so and you can not question me'. Works only with 5 years old and I doubt it works completely at that age as well. I raise concerns and voice causes because I care for this country. I raise it with whatever limited knowledge I have. The cause I fight for or a campaign I support might not end up with offenders behind bars, or the cause being discussed in the parliament but if the campaign finds enough strength and louder voices, you better take notice. We elected you not to rule us but to serve us, to address our grievances.

Amit Varma of Indiauncut has done a couple of post on freedom of expression in the past which has convinced me that a 'freedom of expression with caveat like responsibility/accountability" will never work and will always be abused under one pretext or the other. Only "freedom of expression with no caveats" can work. In an earlier post I pointed out to an article by Johann Hari, who points out how the defenders of freedom of expression turn out to oppose freedom of expression because of the caveats inserted by religious leaders.

Sanjukta welcomes the SC decision and adds

This would help clean up a lot of shit that goes around the blogsphere, will help us become more responsible and mature writers thereby establishing credibility for bloggers’ opinion and most importantly it would kill the terrible habit of writing all kinds of indecent, uncivilized, abusive things anonymously in the comments thread.

I have discovered a lot of good blogs and bad blogs. I subscribe to the ones I like reading, I forget the ones I do not like. "Indecent, uncivilized & abusive" writings are so, in your perspective, but they could mean differently to a different lot. It is difficult to ring fence blogs as good or bad, its just a matter of personal choice. Abusive or indecent stuff in the comments, is sometimes just for kicks & for laughs. Ignore or Delete it. Why should x be held guilty because Y wanted to kill z and said so on x's blog. Just because X prevented Y from writing it on his blog does not mean Y's intent disappeared. How different would India then be from a communist China? How is this different from people & countries who ban Salman Rushdie and Taslima because they wrote and challenged stereotypes in a religion?

Sanjukta also adds

you cannot just go about blabbing whatever comes to your mind without giving it a second thought, for eg @Gmishra says, “Who defines responsibility? or the border line! Does SC understands blogosphere good enough to judge us ?” This man can actually be booked under contempt of court for suggesting, Supreme Court is incapable of judging a case infront of it.

Maybe SC can book us under contempt of court today, I am not sure. But I don't quite like it that way. As a citizen of this country why should I not be able to voice my dissatisfaction with the verdict freely. It should be perfectly within my rights.

Dhananjay makes a point while he defends the SC's verdict

All that the court has said is that one cannot escape from being accountable for expressions and thus present themselves to defend themselves. That's perfectly reasonable. However it could indirectly hurt freedom of expression due to the burden it places in terms of defense. Defending oneself in a remote state can be an act of punishment itself which could dilute the very strengths the constitutional rights sought to promote. That part does worry me.

But the core of the matter still is one shouldn't be punished for having an opinion. It could be an aggressive one, it could be assertive, it could be provocative but those are just varied styles of expression. People causing physical harm or loss should be punished and not people who write about how they feel. Patrix from Nerve endings firing away says it way better than I do. Please hop over for a decent argument in defence of freedom of expression.

Don't punish people for having opinions and ideas. Punish the culprits who molest women on the road, who destroy public property, who moral police the country. If it helps, please get a blog, a orkut or facebook profile and keep off the roads. That way we can have a blog war and not a drop of blood.

Gaurav Chopra...

...who is he you ask? Exactly.

Kiran's Krish was almost run over by this arrogant b@$!@&d in their very own building premises. When Kiran tried confronting, he had the nerves to say he might not be so lucky next time. Whoever the hell he thinks he is, after reading this we think shit of him. I hardly watch any hindi serials, but I swear if I see that face again I will shut off or switch over. The coward appologised only when the well-built intimidating father was at his door demanding an appology which he very reluctantly gave.Like CeeKay said, it takes a mother to understand what runs through you that very moment and a half decent human being to accept a mistake and appologize.

The kinds that make our society today is very alarming. Seriously.

The answer to the problems of free speech is always more free speech

I was reading this excellent article by Johann Hari(link via Jabberwock). It is a long one, but its worth it. Its in response to an article he wrote earlier this year which had the editor and the publisher jailed. The conditioning of the world currently is such that religion has become a very delicate topic best avoided. Johann Hari has put his arguments through so eloquently that you can't but just nod in total agreement. The article invoked very strong reactions from religious fundamentalists. The article explains how fundamental human right to free speech is compromised under the umbrella of "religious issues" throughout the world and even in the UN.

I argued this was a symbol of how religious fundamentalists – of all stripes – have been progressively stripping away the right to freely discuss their faiths. They claim religious ideas are unique and cannot be discussed freely; instead, they must be "respected" – by which they mean unchallenged. So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of "adulterous" women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are "religious" issues, and it is "offensive" to talk about them.

This trend is not confined to the UN. It has spread deep into democratic countries. Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics – Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim – I am accused of "prejudice", and I am not alone. But my only "prejudice" is in favour of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.

I am a religious person. I believe in a supreme power and hence live by believing things will be fine tomorrow or maybe the day after if it is not today. As a christian, Bible is the answer to all my questions, worries and anxieties. Bible is a part of my daily prayers. As a child when I started reading the book of Psalms, a lot of the chapters did not go very well with the basic concepts of christian values of forgiveness and love your enemies. Slowly, I figured out a handful of chapters I liked and stuck to them like a recorder. Psalms 23, 91, 100 & 121 of the 150 chapters :). I would only read one of these or the proverbs or read the new testament.

It is said it is unacceptable to argue the Bible. As my father explained it, the bible can be interpreted in many different ways, it is the written word, arguing over it without the one who wrote it explaining what was exactly meant is very dangerous. Take what you makes sense to you and go back for the rest latter in the years. (He was pretty scared that after one of our Bible study classes we were just going to argue bad and give up on it.) The so-called custodians of the religion today weren't the ones who wrote it or the ones who even heard the sermons. So they are as good as us when it comes to interpreting the written word. Theological seminaries where the bible is taught I am told a lot of other books/subjects revolving around the history of the place and times is taught as well, which brings in factual or circumstantial evidence which ofcourse the commoners are unaware of. That is the advantage we give our priests. God has given us brains to evolve as human beings and not to stagnate as men and women of the garden of Eden. There is this story in the bible Matthew 25:14-30 that goes such,

A landlord had 3 servants. Since the landlord was going far away for a few years, he called all the 3 servants and gave then x amount each. 2 of the servants invested this money in various other activities and made some more. While the third servant dug a hole and preserved it. When the landlord returns, the other 2 servants had more to offer while the 3rd one had nothing more to offer. The landlord then takes away what was given to the 3rd servant since he hadn't used it anyway and the other 2 are given more.

This story as you can see can be interpreted in a couple of ways and I have heard a couple of them but the only one that appealed to me was, God gives you talent and brains to use it and not to preserve it, so use it. Not using it is a sin.

So the religious books should be open to discussions only then would we be able to evolve to laws relevant to the current times. We can not read Genesis and say God created us naked and that is how nature meant us to be right?

Coming back to the point, the article is not a provocative article, it is only provocative to those who are uncomfortable counter-arguing it.

The protesters said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal – but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone.

..The answer to the problems of free speech is always more free speech.

and nothing else. Its never ever violence.

Whatz next?

I generally switch to Zoom for some songs of the latest flicks. Off late I have been wondering why can't we have songs with the girls dressed decently & gracefully. You name a song, and the girls are in skimpy shorts and little bra like things. Almost every song. Be it Katrina, Bipasha or Kareena, they are all busy showing off very deliberately. Whether its a frock, a short, a skirt, a saree or the latest harem pants, its full of slits and stitches showing off everything. Also the facial expressions of trying to look like a seductress is so redundant. Sometimes I wonder they might just freeze that expression moving from one shooting set to the other. Isn't it boring to be showing off cleavages and bronze torsos all the bloody time with absolutely no grace. I think yester year stars Zeenat Aman, Parveen & Helen revealed & danced so gracefully.

Maybe I just a conservative dinosaur.