Fangs of Free Speech

In his classic work "On Liberty", John Stuart Mill had made a strong cause for the need for freedom of speech and expression. Voltaire, one of the leading lights of the French Revolution, had famously said that even if he doesn't agree with someone on an issue, he'll defend until death the right of that person to express his/her opinion. Democracy, i.e., rule of the people, rests upon the freedom of expression of the citizens as one of its essential requisites. Why is there a need for the State to occasionally infringe upon the right of free speech? Shouldn't there be an absolute right to free speech? Let us examine these issues in detail, while making a particular recent instance—that triggered [yet again] a debate on the need for having an absolute right of free expression—the focal point of this essay.

The Makers of Modern India, i.e., the members of the Constituent Assembly gave the status of a Fundamental Right to the Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19). This means that an aggrieved individual, whose fundamental right of free speech and expression has been abrogated, can directly approach the Supreme Court of India under the Right to Constitutional Remedies (which itself has been made a fundamental right under Article 32). World over, free speech and expression have been kept as things paramount to the establishment of a democratic polity. It is on this very premise that China and Russia are criticized by the West for having subdued their citizens' rights through strict tools of media censorship. 'Je suis Charlie' and voices against Boko Haram focus on the need to give people the right to express themselves—be it through speech, literature, artistry or through education. Lead bullets are way too weaker than the conviction of numerous Malala Yousufzais, who have an aspiration to rise above the sheepish crowd by exercising their right of free speech.

The rise of social media has provided an entirely new pathway to those looking to express themselves and rise above the curtains of censorship. The small white 'f' in a blue background and the small blue bird—the respective logos of Facebook and Twitter—have become two of the numerous totems that connect 'netizens' all over the globe, many of whom aspire to cast away most of the taboos passed on through generations. While evincing great interest in the social media, there is also a need to keep at bay its ability to fan the fire of rumours and create mass congregations swiftly.

Even amongst clarion calls for imparting absolute freedoms of expression to the people, it should be noted that the wisdom of the framers of our constitution compelled them to subject the rights guaranteed under the Article 19 to "reasonable restrictions"—"public order", "decency", "morality" among the many restrictions explicitly mentioned. One might argue as to who is going to be the authority for defining the terms "decency" and "morality". A logical answer to this, keeping in mind the social contract theories, is the State in due deliberation with the civil society. Besides, this was the most that English language allowed the constitution makers to express themselves. No matter how objective one may aspire to be, there will always be a degree of subjectivity in the words of a statute.

There is a need for the State to exercise restraint while making use of provisions of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as was done in the case of two young girls in Maharashtra after one of them questioned the need for a curfew in Maharashtra after Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it on Facebook. Also, the crackdown on expression of political dissent by numerous Aseem Trivedis needs be curbed. At the same time, content developers have a responsibility towards the society. They should understand that opposition to certain works, which they might have developed with a bonafide intent, may not always be from a bunch of right-wing extremists looking out for cheap publicity by making loud proclamations of attempts of destruction of the Indian cultural fabric. The opposition could very well be a manifestation of the 'inertia of tradition'—the hegemonic presence of certain ideas in the society—to change which will take much more than impulsive outbursts of creativity.

Let us see why movies, videos and music are considered at a different pedestal in India (even by the watchful eyes of the State) as compared to other forms of mass media. It is quite comprehensible that content propagated through the auditory (or audio-visual) route is more effective in conveying information to the listeners (or viewers), as compared to that written in books or in the print media. This may also be because of certain constraints such as lack of literacy among the listeners/viewers. It should also be noted that much of the works of public intellectuals are present in English, and as the ASER 2014 reports narrate, the access to such works may be constrained by lack of adequate literary skills. Another factor may be the prohibitive costs of such works. On the other hand, movies are made in regional languages too. Regional issues are addressed by the movies made in the regional language and the propagation of national issues is taken care of by the swiftly growing system of creation of remakes of movies into other languages. Thus, certain movies or videos or songs have the capability to evoke an outrage among a certain section of the society. A case in point can be the movie Dam 999 which was perceived to be akin to one representing the Mullaperiyar Dam between Tamil Nadu and Kerala. And so, it can sometimes be justifiable to place a certain check on the screening of such movies if they are perceived to be non-conducive to public order. The need for a Censor Board can also be justified on the ground that it serves as an expert panel (whose members have enough experience) to determine what effects a movie can have on the audience and which parts should not be aired in theatres.

I now move to the topic of stand-up comedy. Mime and stand-up comedy are instruments that chiefly employ humour to achieve certain ends—to present political dissent, or to achieve social reform, or to reform an individual, or just to achieve humour as an end in itself. 'Roasting' is an idea that was born in the West. 'Roast' is considered opposite to a 'toast' (in which a person is honoured for a cause). In a 'Roast', certain comedians gather at a place to make mock-fun of certain individual(s) after having received their consent. This is intended in good humour, and the motive is to promote self-criticism and to entertain an audience. In the following portion, I'll move to the focal point of the essay—the controversy over the "AIB Knockout". My interest on this topic was greatly evinced after I read a lot about this in the print media in the past few weeks. One particularly compelling work over the controversy was Sanjay Hegde's article "The lawlessness of humour" in The Hindu dated 23 February 2015.

"AIB Knockout" perused Out-and-Out

According to the AIB team, the AIB Knockout episode was one meant to be viewed by a private audience. The proceeds of the programme went for a charitable cause. The organizers had obtained the consent of the parties involved. Further, any of their works is not intended to offend anyone but is rather a creative work intended to arouse humour. Additionally, they cited the number (~8 million) of 'hits' and 'views' of their YouTube video as something that signifies their popularity. Let us go for a step-by-step evaluation of their assertions.

First of all, as mentioned before, the concept of roasting has been taken from the West (from the US). Considering that the Indian society is still conservative at large, except for a section among the middle class and the rich which has got influenced by modernity (they can very well be assumed to be a coterie, if their percentage is calculated out of the population of India), holding such an event would have been a risky proposition due to pungent criticism as one of its fallouts. It could still have been considered acceptable (it would have remained in obscurity and would have only been discussed by the audience in their future conversations) had it not been openly shared by the AIB group (only to be removed later) on YouTube. The group might have posted disclaimers in the video itself. However, it is a common observation that people may not stop biting into the 'forbidden fruit' for the very simple logic—what harm may come from watching a video? Then, this very act of promotion of such content that is acceptable to only a small coterie of individuals raises questions on the use of "All India" in the title AIB of the group. This group can, in no way, be pan-Indian in character.

Next, let us examine the issue of 'hits' and 'views' on YouTube. The AIB team have themselves admitted that they rely on social media for hosting their content owing to a resource crunch. Social media works through a mechanism of peer review. And that is possible only when people watch the content. A large number of views does not necessarily mean that the people have approved of the content. Also, a substantial number of the 'views' may very well have been of NRIs. The problem with 'hits' and 'views' is that they do not count the 'views' based on an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the viewer (which is an address unique to the device on which the content is viewed). Thus, it is quite possible that a person may have viewed a video multiple times on the same device (this rests on the assumption that the person might have removed the history on his/her internet browser). It is also possible that the same person might have watched the video multiple times on different devices (say for showing it to someone else). Then, the 'likes' and 'dislikes' may not be an exact parameter for determining the general perception of the video among the society.

Further, the AIB team have themselves thanked the people for not having downloaded the whole video and for not having put it on a torrent website. Had they been more careful in their deeds earlier, they would not have to face the music later. Besides, a chickening on such an issue represents the lack of courage to stand by their work. Let me put an allegory as well. Putting that video on YouTube was akin to hosting a bacchanalian event in a small corner of a busy market place. Even though the participants might assert that they do not at all intend to outrage the modesty of the society, the event has to be censured and repressed by the Leviathan-like instruments of the State (read police) for having ample statistical evidence that such events have created social disorders in the past.

Then, the video contains not disguised but explicit sexually-coloured remarks, references to genitalia and vulgar language. Such a video should not have been shared on a social media platform. And merely classifying it as humorous doesn't help either. I issue a blatant, unequivocal, strenuous censure of this and I overtly say that it wasn't humorous at all. And let me add, for all those who will be quick to categorize and compartmentalize me [on the basis of my views] into preset fashionable categories, that I'm in no way affiliated to any right-wing fundamentalist organization. In fact, I am open in the condemnation of such groups whenever they commit any dastardly act.

And let me demolish the final pillar of their reasoning. It has been stated that the proceeds of the event went to charity. And the audience was entertained. Very well. In Ancient Rome, the game of gladiators used to be very famous. In the present day, would it be entertaining to watch a Maximus Decimus Meridius hack human beings to pieces in real life (even if the proceeds were to go to charity)? This would go against the Kantian maxim of treating each man as an end in itself and not using other humans as means to an end. People may say that there is a vast difference between physical violence and such a roasting event. Recall what the veteran Bollywood actor Aamir Khan has expressed (who is venerated in the society for his show Satyamev Jayate)—that violence need not always be physical and the AIB Knockout event was akin to 'verbal violence'.

Having analyzed all this and before concluding, let me present a case of psychoanalysis. What the so-called comedians of AIB Knockout have tried to do is to use the theory of 'cognitive dissonance' of psychology (which assumes that human beings have an inherent desire to remove any internal contradictions. The method used by these jugglers was to present a video which might create a doubt in the minds of the people about well-established norms of socially-acceptable behaviour. The rest of the work was done by the so-called proponents of free speech who are always on the lookout for any opportune moment to vent out their ire at right-wingers. Unfortunately, in this case too, the Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Bombay High Court by certain members of a Hindu right-wing affiliated group. This gave some merit to the supporters' views. Meanwhile, the AIB did succeed in achieving a lot of publicity through this controversy. If their aim was to initiate a process of a social engineering by acting as the harbingers of roasting in India at a grand level by roping-in Bollywood actors, it remains to be seen if they have achieved it or not.

As of now, in the interest of public order, such tendencies need to be curtailed in the near future (if not in the distant one). John Stuart Mill had also given a condition when free speech could be suppressed by the use of power—if this free speech had the effect of harming the society (referred to as the 'Harm Principle'). The same needs to be done in the abovementioned cases as well. The creative people also have a larger responsibility towards the society. They need to thoroughly assess the social realities and the likely outcomes of a creation before releasing it to the public. In this regard, it would be apt to keep hyper-liberals in check in the desire for a peaceful society. 'Free speech' is an utopia. To conclude, I quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau—man must "be forced to be free".