My column in today’s DNA
The UK is in the throes of a major scandal involving a child sex abuse ring and the attempts of the establishment to cover it up for over four decades. At the centre of the ring is the late James Savile, a BBC TV host, DJ and someone who had worked hard raising money for charities across Britain. After his death in 2011, stories began coming out of rape and molestation of children in orphanages, in hospitals that looked after children with physical and mental disabilities and children from other vulnerable backgrounds. But it was not just about one man. It was about a ring of powerful men whose perverted desires colluded to keep children abused; a system, run by these powerful men that conspired to keep these abuses silent and a code of silence that only got breached on the death of Savile. Naturally people were enraged. Broadcasters woke up from a 40-plus-year slumber to investigate the issue. Victims began coming forward, and outrage at such blatant abuse of power and cover up began growing. In all this outrage and collective guilt at covering up the crime, the media went the other way. The BBC named an innocent man –Alastair McAlpine- of being part of the ring of paedophiles. The story got picked up by social media and went viral.
Unfortunately for the BBC and people who tweeted links to the story this was not an ordinary citizen accused of a crime he did not commit – this was a rich business man with an army of lawyers. The BBC has publicly apologised has paid compensation. But, the story doesn’t end there. Alastair MacAlpine is suing thousands of Twitter users who retweeted the story and made defamatory comments about him. Neither ‘we didn’t know it was not true’ nor “I have the right to free speech” are adequate protection for those on social media who can be identified, and sent a legal notice by MacAlpine’s lawyers. The compensation claims vary based on number of followers and are to be donated to a children’s charity.
The case has very interesting implications for all of us on social media as we are now seen as an individual publisher/producer of content with the same legal/ethical responsibilities faced by publishers in the main stream. And unfortunately, without any of the protection that journalists or publishers have under the law. We can’t claim freedom of press, nor can we ‘protect sources’, or have the legal muscle to pull in lawyers to fight our case in case we run afoul of someone.
In India, where we are slightly more lax about freedom of speech than in the west – the impact of international precedents like this are scary. Unlike the west where defamation is a civil suit between two parties – the defamer and the defamed – in India it is also a criminal offence (Section 499, IPC). So if you write something about someone that they find defamatory, they can, theoretically, go down to the nearest police station and file a complaint. Following which the police will come to arrest you. But criminal defamation – which ought to be repealed- is not the only restriction to free speech in India. There is the first amendment to the Constitution that imposes reasonable restrictions on free speech and is the source of further laws that stymie our rights, the most recent of which is section 66(a) of the IT Act that deals with sending offensive and/ or false messages. Under this Act, so far, a man has been arrested for making allegations on Karti Chidambaram; two girls were held – one for a Facebook status update questioning the closing of Mumbai on the day Balasaheb Thackeray died, and the other for liking that update; two others were arrested and jailed for 12 days for posting defamatory material against a number of ‘holy cows’ including the PMO, politicians and judges.
The question here is simple – do people have the freedom to offend? If you don’t have the right to offend then what is the purpose of freedom? For it is from questioning and the offense that comes out of questioning “holy cows” that you have any sort of intellectual, societal or scientific progress. If people are touchy enough to take offence, it is really their problem. If they feel that they are defamed, then they can file for defamation in the civil courts. The State has no role to play in sorting out ‘insulted and hurt’ feelings. All that the State can do is ensure that law and order is maintained and the individual’s fundamental rights are protected.
A.C.Grayling, in an essay, has this viewpoint:
” The central point around which the others must revolve, is that free speech is a fundamental of such great importance that without it we could have only the most limited society and the most stunted possibilities for individuals. This is because without free speech we cannot claim to other liberties and rights, or defend them when they are attacked; we could not have democracy, which depends on the expression of opinion, debate, criticism and challenge; we could not have education worth the name, for it depends on the free exchange of information; we could not have any but the most pedestrian and formulaic literature, theatre, television and art; in short without free speech our lives would be as closed as our mouths.
But we know very well that for all its vital importance, free speech is not an absolute. It has to be responsibly and maturely used, all the more so because of its potential for misuse. It can be a fig leaf for doing damage and stirring trouble from motives that are not consistent with the other family of ideals in which free speech is a member.
It is in fact not hard to draw the required line. To speak insultingly or act discriminately- even if you do it indirectly- with respect to the race, sex, sexuality, age and disability if any, of other people, is unacceptable. These are things over which individuals have no choice or control. In respect of what people can choose, such as their political or religious commitments, how they dress, how they entertain themselves, it is open season: people must bear the consequences of their choices, including the disagreements, amusement and even the contempt of others. “Feeling offended’ is no defence against attack on your political or religious views by those who do not share them, and indeed it is a vital feature of a healthy society that over matters of choice there should be a vigorous debate, of which satire and humour are a welcome and often revealing part”.
You are right when you argue that ‘my freedom of speech’ includes the right to offend you or your religion.
sorry for the delay in responding..
i think that free speech is the basis of all other freedoms, and where we don’t express freely or afraid of doing so – we find cultures and expression stagnating.
There is an entire drift towards non offensive, middle of the road content – and for the last 20 years or so the country has seen extremely boring mediocrity in all its art forms, as a result.
A combination of fear of offence, that is also linked with fear of loss of patronage – is not doing the ‘intellectual’ space any favours… there is such vibrancy of thought elsewhere, here it is sadly muted.
And, i am not sure if the Government all is to blame – it is also people who are too afraid to take a chance