Freedom of speech is considered a pillar of the western democratic society and helps to ensure free discussion or criticism of views and policies that may be enforced or imposed by elected governments putting into danger the principle of election that brings them to power. Denial of such freedom usually defines the dictatorial regimes, but the right of any citizen to criticize in a bid to correct some irregularities in government without fear of prosecution is regarded as a hallmark of a democratic set-up. However, this right of free opinion is often abused by some media and press agents to serve some power lobbies, turning a democratic right into a tool for denigration. Free expression should be guided by rational reasoning and not be reduced to a game of fisty cuffs, forgetting that there are restrictions attached to every right. The restriction in this case is that of mutual respect for the beliefs or convictions of others, be they individuals or communities, as established in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human. Ironically, the Western modernity has replaced the religious sacredness with a secular one, and the religious fundamentalism with a market fundamentalism.
A violation of respect for peoples’ religious beliefs provoked the deadly Charlie Hebdo episode in Paris early this year, claiming the lives of some journalists and cartoonists involved in satirical publications in which they ridiculed the prophet Mohammed of the Islamic religion. About a month later a similar attack occurred in Copenhagen. It is believed that a controversial Swedish cartoonist who had caricatured the prophet Muhamad, was among the speakers at the event, and apparently he was the intended target of the attack.
What needs questioning is not the right to opinion, but the way of doing it with due respect for the religion of any people. It is a blatant crossing of such boundaries that needs to be checked, if we do not wish to invite the wrath of the offended who cannot expect justice in a dominant power structure which abets the abuse under guise of the right of freedom of expression. Terrorism is provoked by abuse of freedom, causing the loss of lives and putting many more at jeopardy. More discretion and restraint in publications or speeches would ensure public welfare.
Freedom of speech is not a license to abuse. Self-control, or in its absence, an institutionalized censorship must not be ruled out in every article (text, cartoon, graphic drawing) you intend to use to express yourself. The freedom to debate ideas does not justify freedom to use derogatory expressions targeting ordinary individuals, particularly those who are often helpless as compared to those representing political or economic groups and institutions. That is precisely why Section 499 of IPC rules that defamation as punishable crime implies a public imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, which lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person. The law lists ten exceptions, including one which concerns imputations about an author of an article, book or performance, which are open to judgement of the public, but does justify going beyond the purview of that publication or performance.
In our digital age and banalization of e-mails, the freedom of expression permits some vicious characters to troll their selected targets with unsolicited mail containing defamatory contents, which they copy to dozens or more other e-mail users who are expected to take cognizance of such unsolicited information and get influenced negatively about the main target of trolling.
A year ago I was victim of a Swindon-based Goan shippy. He used different IPs for sending his mails from different ports he visited, hoping perhaps to remain undetected. He copied his e-mails to dozens of prominent Goans in Goa and diaspora almost week after week. His grievance was that I was a defender of Goa’s liberation from colonial rule. Unfortunately for him, The UK cyber-crime police acted quickly on my complaint and the troller left me in peace. I wish the recent outfit of cyber-crime cell of Goa Police works equally well in protecting the victims of trolling among the internet users in Goa.
Vigilance is also increasingly needed to check the proliferating internet groups, which can be very helpful when used responsibly, but not when they become platforms for gossip and defamation. Some such groups with specious names and pretending to be serious and academic get high-jacked by characters with their own personal agendas. Internet should help more freedom, but not more abuse.
Even in closed groups, where non-members cannot defend themselves, they are often subjected to personal insults. This variant of defamation usually goes unchecked, particularly if the offender is the owner or moderator of a group. I am reminded of the Aesop’s fable of the scorpion and the frog, when even a professor of a respectable college leaves his responsibilities of a pedagogue at the door of the class room and gives in to his nature of a scorpion while interacting in internet groups. A renowned English historian of the Portuguese empire wrote once that overseas colonies served as places for outdoor relief. Today we have the internet groups and blogs as digital colonies where to relieve ourselves from life’s frustrations?
(Teotonio R. de Souza – Founder-Director of the Xavier Centre of Historical Research, 1979-1994.)
