Article 19 (2)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Article 19(2) puts reasonable restrictions on Freedom of Speech. This article
has been formulated under the assumption that hate speeches that disrupt
public order should be banned.
Protecting an individuals opinion even if it is against the voice of the majority is
a cornerstone of a Liberal country. When and how does a speech incite violence?
Who has the authority or legitimacy to decide which perspective is right amongst
the various contradicting opinions? How does one define the term reasonable? It
is important to answer these questions to understand the flaws or benefits of
Indias Amendment 1.
If a speaker orders a mob to attack a particular group is it incitement through
speech or order through leadership? Is his opinion the problem or the
consequence?
Article 19(2) doesnt target this group. It targets a speaker that disagrees with a
particular society so blatantly that it might incite a violent response. The blame
for a violent response cannot fall on a speaker who states his opinion. A taunt, a
comment, a critic can incite violence. Classifying all these under one norm and
censoring speech is the same as asking an individual to stop disagreeing with
the norms of the society.
The movie PK has led to vandalisms in theatres and protests from Right Wing
Hindus. Isnt it the governments responsibility to protect the opinion of the
individual against these groups? We see people like Taslima Nasreen and Perumal
Murugan lose their voice in the face of these groups, especially due to such
restrictions in the name of societal norms. An individual has the right to
disagree with the society. Sati, Caste System, Dowry, and Child Marriage were
problems prevalent and accepted in the Indian Society. Reformers, who had the
courage to disagree with the majority are the reason from our progress away
from these superstitions. To encourage this, people should be allowed to speak
with an absolute right to state their opinion.
The argument against removing the restrictions against Freedom of Speech is
that in a social structure, one should respect others opinions and that no one
has the right to hurt anothers sentiments. Unfortunately, the people who make
these arguments forget that Caste System is still a sentiment for many. The
instant we say Freedom of speech is good but we become part of the but
brigade.
How does one differentiate something as subjective as a critic vs insult? Is it right
that a majoritarian opinionated government, or an objective court or a group of
people called the Certification Board has the right to differentiate between right
and wrong opinions? India can call itself a free thinking country only when it
allows an individual to express his/her opinion without judging and hurting them
for doing so. The freedom speech, accompanied by the right to ignore should be
an integral part of the society if we have to move forward.