Freedom of expression: a dangerous paradox

By: Devvrat Raghav | 12 September 2016

If you have been watching the news in the last few months, then chances are that you have
come across the term “freedom of expression” being bandied-about plenty of times. Be it the
seditionist activities at JNU1; Arvind Kejriwal with his fabrications2 or the persistently annoying
stone-pelters in Kashmir, all of them use their ‘free speech’ to justify their unlawful behavior.

So what exactly does ‘free speech’ mean? Well, in a vacuum, it refers to an individual’s
right to express whatever he or she wishes, without restriction or censorship. However, in the real
world, this right entails with it a responsibility to use it wisely, and within the ambit of law.

Instead, some of these self-professed champions of ‘free speech’ consider it to be

permission to violate laws, flout regulations and deliberately hurt others, which reflects their
incomplete understanding of the concept. This is exactly why a debate about the limitations and
consequences of ‘free speech’ is absolutely necessary, and from my perspective – long overdue.

To begin with, I find it laughable that the advocates of unrestricted ‘free speech’ consider
it to be their constitutional right, especially when Article 19 of the Indian Penal Code3 very clearly
demarcates the limits on an individual’s expression. In addition to racist or casteist behavior, it
also outlaws the very activities these people are trying to protect, i.e. defamation, incitation of
violence and propagating separatist views that threaten our existence!

Case in point, our predecessors obviously recognized that unlimited ‘free speech’ was a
liberty that human beings simply cannot enjoy, given the tendency to disrupt order and cause
chaos, which is exactly what some anarchists are doing under the name of ‘freedom of expression’.
Unfortunately, nowadays it has become somewhat fashionable to disagree with the law and abuse
the privilege of speech granted to them by the constitution.

1
Mehta, Avantika. “JNU student leader Kanhaiya gets 6 months bail in sedition case." Hindustan Times
2
Luthra, Chander Shekhar. "DDCA Files Defamation Suit against Kirti Azad, Arvind Kejriwal." DNA India
3 (Constitution of India, 1950) “Art. 19”
 Let us consider Zakir Naik, the radical Islamist preacher who claims that “every Muslim
should be a terrorist”. In addition to shamelessly supporting terrorists like Osama bin Laden, he
also openly condemns other religions as false, while peddling his conspiracy theories about 9/11
being an inside-job.4

This is a clear and tragic case of ‘free speech’ being misused by people. Yet, there were
still plenty of “intellectuals” out on TV media who vehemently defended Naik. In fact, they even
claimed that he has a right to continue his “teachings”! What these people perhaps don’t realize is
that they are supporting a very dangerous trend, one that is capable of emboldening terrorists and
anarchists looking to dish out more pain and misery to the rest of the world.

I simply fail to understand why someone like Zakir Naik should be allowed to profess
violence and hatred against non-Muslims. Why is his right to ‘free speech’ more valuable than my
or your right to ‘freedom of faith’ that he violates by spouting his hate-speeches? If the world can
come together to condemn the Islamic State (IS) for killings thousands of innocent people, then
why do people support the voice of individuals who encourage such killings?

The simple answer is – there’s no reason. I cannot think of a single valid reason for the
hypocrisy that translates into the support for people like Naik. Similarly, I don’t see how his rights
are more important than mine, or anyone else’s rights. Nevertheless, there are people who continue
to argue in his favour and worse, those who act like him.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the separatist Hurriyat leader, has been churning out his hateful
narrative for quite some time now. He continues to stroke the fire amongst citizens of the Kashmir
by accusing India of controlling the valley by force and shamelessly supporting Pakistan 5. But of
course, he remains conveniently ignorant of the dangers of his toxic ideology. His violence and
anger-inciting rants are a blatant misuse of ‘freedom of expression’, yet this buffoonery is instead
accepted by many misguided people as revolution.

But despite all this hate, anger and violence, the proponents of ‘free speech’ tell me that
while these things are unfortunate, they are necessary to uphold this “fundamental human right”!
In my opinion, their argument is a load of hogwash, an entire mountain of pathetic, grade-A shite.

4
Biswas, Shreya. "Who Is Zakir Naik? Were the Dhaka Attack Terrorists 'inspired by Him'?" India Today
5
Saha, Abhishek. "Pakistan a Friend, India Occupying Force: Kashmir Separatist Leader Geelani." Hindustan Times
Let’s be realistic, entrusting these malignant actors with the power to influence the masses has
only one logical outcome – chaos and anarchy.

To the skeptics, I ask you to consider what I’m about to say. Does ‘free speech’ translate
into the right to deliberately violate the rights of other human beings? Should it be a license to
spread lies amongst the masses, defame others and provoke violence towards innocent
communities? Is it a valid excuse to propagate seditionist and separatist ideologies that question
the very existence of a nation state?

The answer is no! In any civilized society, there are simply lines that aren’t meant to be
crossed, lines that facilitate the functioning of a fair, equal and moral world. That being said, by
no means am I claiming that our world is all of these things. If anything, it is some distance away
from any of those, but that does not give anyone the right to uproot the concept of civilization and
replace it with dystopia.

Oh, and I should also mention that I don’t support the gagging of individual expression that
occurs in totalitarian states. That’s the other extreme, which is equally horrid. Nevertheless, we
can’t have absolute, completely unrestrained speech in a law-abiding society. Sorry, but no, it just
isn’t possible in a world that requires some reasonable limitations to sustain itself.

Instead, I simply wish that people express themselves within reasonable constraints, which
are defined by the law of the land. It is only through this, that we can finally hope to actually build
upon the existing foundations of civilization, rather than dismantling the current structure and
replacing it with one full of instability, confusion and unbridled madness.

Word Count: 988

Works Cited:

 Biswas, Shreya. "Who Is Zakir Naik? Were the Dhaka Attack Terrorists 'inspired by
Him'?" India Today, 6 July 2016. Web.

 Constitution of India, 1950

 Luthra, Chander Shekhar. "DDCA Files Defamation Suit against Kirti Azad, Arvind Kejriwal."
DNA India, 10 Jan. 2016. Web.

 Mehta, Avantika. “JNU student leader Kanhaiya gets 6 months bail in sedition case."
Hindustan Times, 3 Mar. 2016. Web.

 Saha, Abhishek. "Pakistan a Friend, India Occupying Force: Kashmir Separatist Leader
Geelani." Hindustan Times, 9 Sept. 2016. Web.