If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
After the recent controversy about Ward Churchill’s remarks comparing 9/11 victims to “little Eichmanns”, freedom of speech was again dragged into the limelight. Remarks were tossed by fervent conservatives on restriction of certain speech subjects whereas activist folks over at ACLU predictably protested instantly. But isn’t there always a fine line that separates limits of free speech. Thackeray almost got arrested for making inflammatory speeches but he could have easily taken the refuge of the First Amendment, if he was in the US. If I stand at a crowded chowk and exhort my “Hindu brothers” to massacre Muslims, would I be arrested? Probably not; because I do not wield considerable influence to wreck havoc on the public mood. But that is a subjective law; nothing can be more confusing than a law with tons of ad-hoc modifications.
I remember few years back, in a college essay I had advocated restraint on part of artists who choose to paint controversial subjects e.g. MF Hussain painting a nude image of Goddess Saraswati and even supported adequate censorship to maintain social peace. The essay rightly was returned with a short remark, “How will you decide who is qualified to censor speech?” Now, I would grant the artist immunity against any form of censorship. The ultimate form of censorship would be disagreement and rejection. But does that give anyone the right to say or do anything irresponsible?
Consider the recent controversy in America on the supposed mudslinging against AARP, the largest advocacy group for seniors, by the conservative interest group USA Next. They pictured two gay men kissing next to a soldier atop a military tank with a check mark on the gay marriage image and a cross on the soldier; effectively trying to prove that AARP is for gay marriage and against combat troops (how are the two related is beyond me). But clearly this was a false attack, much like the Swift Boat Veterans attack against John Kerry in the last presidential elections (incidentally it is the same group again). A lie, philosophically is defined as a statement intended to mislead. So should speech be restricted if it is proven to be false? Maybe so; but now who will bear the responsibility of what is true and what is false? Advertisers in India are forbidden to expressly use their competitor’s name to promote their brand but in America, you can do so only if you can provide solid evidence of your claim. For e.g. if Coke claims it contains fewer carbs than Pepsi in a commercial, it better be prepared to back it up otherwise they face serious action for misleading.
Not always is the correction noticed as much as the earlier dubious claim. It takes only a wild accusation to besmirch someone’s reputation; an apology or correction might not be noticed by as many people as many noticed the earlier claim. Where do we draw the line?
by Patrix | on Monday, March 7th, 2005 at 9:05 am | 
Society Culture . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
March 7th, 2005 at 10:17 am reply
Here’s an interesting clip i came across a while ago. It’s to do with censorship of music, and whether the govt should regulate what is put out there.A few things have changed since the first interview, but watch it anyway…
The first interview -
Frank zappa on crossfire - http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2658805
The second interview - http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2664570
March 7th, 2005 at 11:34 am reply
D - Thanks! Care to go beyond the D?
March 8th, 2005 at 11:10 am reply
Dee maybe…:)
March 8th, 2005 at 12:08 pm reply
Dee - Yeah! thats not much of a help…just wanted to know if you are the “D” I think you are.