Valson Thampu

Freedom of expression is a major concern today. Speech and action are basic to being human. Speech distinguishes us from animals. In Greek thought, speech was a greater attribute of heroes than action. A worthy hero was one who not only acted mightily, but cannot spoke memorably. Even today, every handbook on leadership lists power of communication as a basic requirement of leadership.
To recognize the irreducible significance of freedom of expression is also to recognise the need to regulate it. No mode of freedom can exist without ‘reasonable restrictions’. The all-important question here is, ‘how are we to determine the reasonableness of such restrictions?’
As regards upholding freedom of thought and expression, it is not enough that hindrances to its exercise are removed. Of course, It is desirable that the State create conditions conducive to citizens exercising this right fearlessly. But, the State needs to go farther than that. The larger dimension of the State’s mandate is the duty to develop and ennoble citizens, though this seems far-fetched to us today. How a person exercises his freedom depends on how developed and civilized he or she is. In the hands of a barbarian, freedom of expression is bound to be abused. Fundamental rights have to be exercised heeding public good as well. This cannot, however, be taken for granted. This mode of self-regulation can be expected only from those who respect and cherish the nobility and unity of India as the supervening good.
Let us consider this from another angle. Individuals act as per their perceptions and interests. What we express is stamped with who we are. Also, the quality of the sentiments we express depends on the nature of the given company. Amidst the crude and the vulgar, one’s inhibitions about articulating what is cheap and crude evaporates. On the other hand, amidst a noble and refined company of people, the very same person would endeavour to express himself nobly and suavely. Creating an uplifting social or national ethos must be deemed integral to the duties of leaders at all levels. Likewise, if parents would mind this pattern in nurturing their children, the required refinement in public taste and sentiments can be created nation-wide.
Let me put this idea simply and directly. Freedom must be understood as a condition conducive to being and expressing ones best in the given context. The notion that freedom involves only protection from hindrances to citizens’ behaving as they please is as shallow as it is dangerous. It is helpful to invoke the Socratic discipline here. In exercising one’s freedom of expression it is helpful, indeed necessary, to ask: Is what I am going to say the truth, and nothing but the truth? Does it help, or enrich, those who hear me? Does it help me? Or, do I exceed the boundaries of good sense in expressing it in the given context?
We need to recognize and respect the link between freedom of expression and the educated awareness of the public, even if this higher reach of democratic duty exceeds the remit of legal or Constitutional obligations. The fact that our public utterances do not provoke hostile reactions is no proof that we are exercising our freedom in a healthy and responsible fashion. It is possible for a demagogue to vulgarise public sentiments and then to abuse his freedom of expression in inciting them, and be applauded all the way for doing so by the masses. A responsible teacher is mindful of what she says in the class, for the reason that she is with an audience that lacks the capacity to respond freely and critically. In particular, her students lack the capacity to identify and reject what’s inappropriate. By degrading public taste, a demagogue can afford for himself the license to abuse freedom of speech. If he does, he turns freedom of expression into a dangerous thing for the entire country. Strangely, the excesses and aberrations of propaganda -especially the malignancy, especially, of State-sponsored fake news- is not discussed in light of this issue. They need to be.
The assumption, therefore, that everyone is equal vis-a-vis the right to freedom of expression is simplistic and untenable. At any rate, not everyone can use this mode of freedom equally. We jail those who abuse this right, depriving them of fundamental freedoms. As of now, the duty of the State in this regard is understood narrowly as that of punishing those who, other than itself, abuse this freedom.
All said and done, liberty is only a means; not an end in itself. What is the point in having a tool, if we do not know how to use it to good effect? Scalpel is a useful and necessary tool in the hands of a surgeon. What if a madman, or a street rowdy, wields it? Equally, the extent to which one may exercise this freedom wholesomely will be shaped by the prevailing culture, national ethos, and social culture. Jesus’s words are apposite here: ‘Cast not your pearls before swine’. This cannot be, prima facie, a legal obligation. The scope of one’s freedom of expression has to depend not only on the worth of one’s pearls, but also on the dispositions and tastes active in the given human ambiance. Spreading and consolidating a wholesome democratic culture is, hence, basic to claiming and exercising democratic rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Consider this also. What, if any, is the nexus between freedom of expression and originality of thought? An original idea needs no one’s permission to come into being. No one can forestall or destroy it. As Victor Hugo said, no one can stop an idea whose time has come. It will find its reason and season, in spite of man’s worst. It is the formation of this inner strength that spirituality advocates and prioritises. When inner freedom harmonises with external conditionalities, the web of human existence becomes healthy and affirmative. That is the ideal state; of which it is now nearly become, alas, an obligation to be cynical.