Political Science

Name – Animesh Khare

SAP ID – 76012200292

Submitted to – Prof. Anand Prakash

What is Freedom of Expression without Freedom to

Offend? Evaluate.
‘What is Freedom to Expression? Without the freedom to offend, it
ceases to exist” suggests that the right to freedom of expression is
meaningless without the ability to express ideas and opinions that
may be offensive or controversial to some. This phrase is based on the
idea that the genuine test of freedom of expression rests in the
willingness of a society to tolerate and preserve speech that is
unpopular, offensive, or even shocking to some people. The main idea
underlying this quote is that this willingness is the true test of freedom
of expression. Without this freedom, communication will be confined
and limited to what is thought acceptable by those in authority, which
will effectively undermine the fundamental purpose of having the
ability to express oneself freely.
This citation emphasises the significance of preserving one's right to
offend as an essential component of one's right to freedom of
expression. It acknowledges that some people may find particular
expressions offensive or distasteful, but that this does not mean that
they should not be protected under the principle of the right to
freedom of speech. This is due to the fact that having the right to
offend enables for the expression of ideas and opinions that may
question the power structures, societal norms, and prevalent beliefs in
a given society. Debate that is open and honest, the ability to think
critically, and the ability to hold those in power accountable are all
fostered by it.
On the other hand, the quote seems to imply that the freedom to
offend is not unrestricted and that it needs to be subject to certain
constraints in order to safeguard the rights of other people. It
recognises that certain types of communication, such as speech that
promotes hatred, can be harmful and should not be protected under
the pretence of the right to freedom of expression.
Should individuals be permitted to day or express whatever they like,
regardless of whether or not it would cause others to feel offended?
Should there be restrictions placed on what people are able to think,
say, or express in order to safeguard the rights of others? In this
article, I will argue that freedom of expression cannot exist without
the right to offend others in order for there to be true freedom of
expression.
The right to freely express oneself is fundamental to democratic
principles and is necessary for the proper operation of a free and open
society. People would not be able to openly express their thoughts and
ideas if it were not available to them, which prevents forward
movement and stifles creativity. People are also able to confront those
in authority and hold those in power accountable for their actions
when they have the freedom to express themselves. For a democracy
to function properly, its constituents need the ability to take part in
debates that are both open and honest. This, in turn, necessitates the
right to freely express thoughts and viewpoints that may be deemed
contentious or unpopular.
The idea that offending other people or groups can be damaging to
them is one of the primary justifications for opposing the freedom to
offend. For instance, rhetoric that incites hatred can bring about
mental anguish and physical injury to marginalised people, as well as
help to maintain prejudice and violent behaviour. Having said that, it
is necessary to acknowledge that the damage that can be caused by
hate speech is not always directly or immediately apparent. The
damage might be psychological or emotional, and it can have a
detrimental effect on a person's capacity to fully participate in society
as well as their sense of self-worth and belonging. However, the risk
of injury should not be sufficient grounds for restricting freedom of
expression. The most effective method for dealing with offensive
expression or speech that promotes hatred in a free society is through
conversation and debate. We can confront the beliefs of those who
express offensive views by engaging with them and demonstrating
why they are incorrect through conversation. We also have the option
of using counter-argumentation in order to demonstrate the
weaknesses in their thoughts and arguments. On the other hand,
censorship and prohibition do nothing but stifle free speech and stop
the flow of ideas from one person to another. Governments and other
institutions often use censorship and prohibition to silence opposition
and maintain their power. For example, in authoritarian regimes,
censorship is used to prevent citizens from challenging the
government or expressing dissenting views.
It is also important to note that the freedom to offend is not absolute.
It is subject to limitations such as the protection of public safety,
national security, and the rights of others. Similarly, speech that is
defamatory, slanderous, or infringes on the privacy of others should
not be protected. These limitations ensure that freedom of expression
is balanced with the Freedom to offend.

Some arguments and examples for why freedom of expression cannot

exist without freedom to offend.
Open and honest debate is necessary for democracy, thus the freedom
to offend is a strong argument. Democracy requires the right to
express unpopular or controversial views, challenge authority, and
keep power accountable. However, censorship and prohibition simply
stifle speech and ideas. We cannot challenge views, expose
corruption, or transform society without the freedom to offend. US
Civil Rights Movement illustrates this. Despite being insulting and
contentious, the campaign demanded change. The movement ended
segregation and discrimination.
Artistic and creative expression is another benefit of free speech. Art
has always expressed contentious thoughts and feelings. Art often
questions society, culture, and politics. Without the freedom to
offend, artists could not freely express their thoughts and dreams,
making the world poorer. The Danish cartoon scandal shows how
artistic expression requires the ability to offend. A Danish newspaper
published provocative Prophet Muhammad drawings in 2005. The
controversy raised questions about free speech and the role of
offending in artistic expression.

Minority rights require the right to offend. Minority groups may not
be able to fight for their rights if they cannot express unpopular or
controversial opinions. Example: LGBT+ rights. The right to offend
helped the LGBT+ rights movement overcome prejudice and
discrimination. The Stonewall riots in 1969 were a protest to police
brutality and harassment of LGBT+ New Yorkers. The riots were
offensive and divisive, but they highlighted LGBT+ discrimination
and violence and helped altering society.

Let’s see a case study regarding the same.

Highlighting the importance of the freedom to offend in the context of
freedom of expression is the controversy surrounding the publication
of Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses" in 1988. "The
Satanic Verses" is a novel that explores themes of immigration,
identity, and religion, and includes controversial depictions of the
Prophet Muhammad. The publication of the novel sparked widespread
protests and outrage from the Muslim community around the world,
with many calling for a ban on the book and for Rushdie to be
punished for blasphemy.
The book's debate brought up important questions about the limits of
free speech and the right to offend. Supporters of Rushdie said that
the book was a legal use of the right to free speech and that the author
had the right to say whatever he wanted, no matter how offensive it
was. Others said that the author was being irresponsible by putting out
the book because it was meant to upset and hurt people.
The debate over "The Satanic Verses" shows how important it is to
have the freedom to offend when it comes to freedom of speech.
Some people might have found the book offensive, but the freedom to
say what you think and believe is one of the most important parts of a
democracy society. Without the freedom to offend, people and groups
may be silenced or censored, which can stop new ideas, growth, and
creativity from happening.
The freedom to offend must be tempered with responsibility and
respect for others' humanity and human rights. Free speech shouldn't
be used to spread hate, prejudice, or violence. People should use their
freedom of expression and freedom to offend to promote
understanding, respect, and discussion, even when they disagree.
In the end, the debate over "The Satanic Verses" shows how hard it is
to find a good mix between freedom of speech and freedom to offend.
People have the right to say what they want, but they also have to be
aware of the responsibility that comes with that right and act in a way
that helps others accept and understand them.

In conclusion, Freedom of expression requires the right to offend.

Without the right to offend, people and groups may be silenced,
impeding creativity, innovation, and progress. A democratic society
requires freedom of speech. However, freedom of expression and
offence must be tempered with accountability and respect for others'
dignity and human rights. Even if there are disagreements, the right to
offend must encourage understanding, respect, and dialogue.