- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
RFULL Disclaimer: I don’t think dissent is necessarily always good or even that we should allow any form of expression no matter what to be allowed but I think the scales are inherently balanced against non popular voices. I also believe that most discourse surrounding rights is flawed because it fails to recognise that some rights are only effectively enjoyable by the rich.
Article 19 which deals with freedom of speech has permissible “reasonable restrictions for the purpose of public order , health , morality,decency and incitement to criminal offences” in the text of that Article.The words public morality and decency are very vague and unlike public order , health and prevention of incitement to offence are very subjective to the point that any restriction could be justifiable as long as people want it. Since that’s what public morals means right ?
The idea that “freedom of speech” means the freedom to express anything except if it offends or dissents from public sentiments seems incoherent and self-defeating for several reasons…..
Public sentiments are not monolithic or static; they vary across time, cultures, and individuals. What is offensive to one group may be completely acceptable to another. If freedom of speech were restricted by public sentiments, it would be impossible to determine a clear, objective standard for permissible speech.
If speech is only free as long as it aligns with prevailing public sentiment, individuals may self-censor out of fear that their views will be deemed offensive. This discourages open discussion and prevents progress in social, political, and scientific thought.
Not to mention the very purpose of free speech is to allow dissent and the challenging of dominant ideas. If speech were only protected when it conformed to public sentiment, it would cease to be “free” in any meaningful sense. Instead, it would be a mere license to repeat what is already widely accepted.
Many ideas that were once considered offensive or against public sentiment—such as abolitionism, women’s rights, and gay rights—are now widely accepted as moral progress. If speech had been suppressed on the grounds of public sentiment, these movements would have struggled or failed.If “public sentiment” were the standard for permissible speech, it would give majorities or governments excessive power to silence minorities. This could lead to authoritarianism, where only state-approved speech is allowed, undermining democracy and individual liberty. Any given statement is likely to offend someone. If offense were the threshold for censorship, nearly all speech could be suppressed. This would lead to an absurd situation where freedom of speech exists in name only.
I have a hard time believing that the founding fathers of the constitution didn’t think of this because the struggles that India went through internally ( supression of various weaker sections of society back thenetc at the time) and externally (british colonialism) definately wouldn’t have shaped their conception of the right to be like this. Allowing expression of Dissent is a core aspect of Indian culture in my opinion.
-
-
