Showing posts with label Freedom of expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of expression. Show all posts
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Difference?
"Burning a Book will invite terrorist attacks on Americans" | "Dressing provocatively encourages rape"
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Political Correctness and Me
(of language) not objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, religion, ideology or any other social grouping such as disability.-Wikitionary definition of 'politically correct' (PC).
Usage notes
...sometimes (also) extended to cover political ideology and behavior, curriculum content, and many areas affected by law, regulation, and public pressure, and is often used pejoratively.
Many internet users euphemize and generalize, not to avoid causing offense, but labels of "commie", "Godless" or "Internet Hindu". The critic or perceived offender is then expected to counter a volley of criticisms of the category he is boxed into. The ensuing defensiveness causes indiscretions like: "all religions teach us love and tolerance", "all religions are (equally) bad", "all politicians are (equally) useless", etc.
This approach is wrong on at least two levels:
1. PC-statements are partial truths or completely false. One can conclude all religions teach love and tolerance only on deliberately overlooking or distorting available facts. This is dishonesty. This behavior follows from the flawed idea that pot must not call kettle black. No, both pot and kettle must call the other black, if relevant, and if possible, without contempt. For, the blackness cannot be removed without showing and acknowledging it.
Moreover, this defensiveness is a tacit acceptance of guilt merely by being born in a community or supporting an ideology. I am not responsible for misdeeds of others born in same community as me. I am not answerable for deeds of the ideologue, unless his ideology I support is the cause.
2. PC causes intellectual laziness. By saying "all politicians are same", I am discrediting the better ones. Through such generalizations, I would shy away from obligation to minutely analyze the available data before infering. PC will prevent incremental improvements in politics enabled through noticing and acting upon subtle differences between politicians.
I avoid and disapprove of PC, though I use some out of fear of physical harm and violating law, and those not doing even that can certainly hold me in contempt. I greatly admire two honest and courageous (for using their real identities) persons - Atanu Dey (click) and Marvi Sirmed (click).
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Freedom of Expression and a Few Hypothetical Situations
In recent times intense debates have raged over the extents to which two almost antagonistic rights should be allowed - freedom of expression against avoiding emotional hurt. Law, as many say, is an ass. Some call justice blind. It would be very tempting to then consider the Judiciary a blind ass, and I used to share this view, too. But, since last few years I realized, the offhand judgments we pass to consider something as ethical/unethical, or allowed/disallowed are too instinctive and visceral. To pass such offhand judgments is easy, but to justify them under an accepted framework of principles and rules is extremely difficult.
I will present a few situations. Person 'A' is the victim and claiming to be hurt because of freedom of expression exercised by person 'B'. For convenience A is a woman, and B is a man. I have enlisted the reasoning that could be given by A to complain and by B to defend his freedom of expression. I would like the readers to state if they feel B should be punished, with reasons if possible, and notwithstanding what the law in India says. One thing I would like to urge the reader is that irrespective of which of the two antagonistic rights (of freedom of expression and right to avoid emotional hurt) gets precedence in your judgment, it should be consistent across all the situations to the extent possible. If the reader makes an appeal akin to "it is widely accepted to be offending", then it must be applied to all situations. Basically, whatever grounds used to hold B guilty or not guilty must be employed in every case to maintain consistency. For, what is justice if not consistent.
I must also add that some of the situations are similar to recent events, but to point out the different standards to judge them that few people had employed is not my intention. And please disregard a few zoological details! ;) Even if some of the situation might sound funny, I am enlisting them here in earnest.
-----
Situation 1
B draws a painting of a goddess who A worships. The goddess has been labeled and shown to be copulating with frogs. B displays the painting in an exhibition. A goes to the exhibition and sees the painting.
A: I worship that goddess, and the way she is depicted hurt me. So B must be punished for drawing and exhibiting such a painting.
B: I felt like drawing, so I drew it. It's my freedom of expression. A had the choice of not seeing the painting.
A: But I had no idea that the painting could hurt my sentiments!
B: Still A could have avoided going to watch the painting. After all if one wants to see paintings, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.
---
Situation 2
B draws a painting of a goddess who A worships. The goddess has been labeled and shown to be copulating with frogs. B displays the painting in an exhibition. The painting becomes controversial. A goes to the exhibition and sees the painting.
A: I worship that goddess, and the way she is depicted hurt me. So B must be punished for drawing and exhibiting such a painting.
B: I felt like drawing, so I drew it. It's my freedom of expression. A had the choice of not seeing the painting and moreover, she knew that those worshiping the depicted goddess had felt hurt on seeing the painting. So why did she go and watch the painting?
A: But how could I be sure that your painting could have indeed hurt me!
B: Still A could have avoided going to watch the painting. After all if one wants to see paintings, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.
---
Situation 3
B tells A, "The goddess you worship copulates with frogs".
A: What B said about the goddess I worship hurt me. So B must be punished for saying that.
B: I felt like saying it, so I said it. It's my freedom of expression.
A: But B never allowed me an opportunity to not hear what he said!
B: If anyone wants to enter any sort of conversation, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.
---
Situation 4
B tells A, "Your religion has many dangerous superstitions. It is very cruel to sacrifice cats on every November 31. What kind of goddess could be so cruel. Also, you people amputate the left little finger of your girl child. How disgusting is it! Why do you people forcibly kill husbands upon the death of their wives? You don't find all this barbaric and primitive to follow?"
A: What B said about my religion hurt me. So he must be punished for saying those things.
B: It was my compassion for cats, the girl child and widowers that made me point out those things to A. My only consideration was the welfare of those wronged through religion! And moreover, it is my freedom of expression. I felt like saying it and hence I said it.
A: But B never allowed me an opportunity to not hear what he said!
B: If anyone wants to enter any sort of conversation, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.
---
Situation 5
A is going for a movie. As she walks along the road and passes across B, he whistles in her direction.
A: B whistled at me and I felt offended. He must be punished for whistling.
B: I felt like whistling, so I whistled. It is my freedom of expression. A just happened to pass by.
A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his whistle!
B: If anyone wants to walk on the road, hearing a whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided walking on the road.
---
Situation 6
A wears a revealing nightie and enters her bedroom. B, who is her husband whistles at her.
A: B whistled at me and I felt offended. He must be punished for whistling.
B: I felt like whistling, so I whistled. It is my freedom of expression. A just happened to enter the bedroom.
A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his whistle!
B: If A wants to walk into my bedroom, listening to my whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided entering the bedroom.
---
Situation 7
A is going for a movie. As she walks along the road and passes across B's house on the first floor of a building, his pressure cooker on stove develops sufficient pressure and as the valve releases that pressure, A hears a whistle.
A: The pressure cooker that B was using whistled at me. I felt offended and he must be punished for it.
B: But I never intended to hurt A. I felt like cooking food and the pressure cooker whistled. Moreover, it is my fundamental right to cook food, the way I want in my house.
A: B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his pressure cooker's whistle.
B: If anyone wants on walk on the road, hearing a whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided walking on the road.
---
Situation 8
B, who is A's coworker says, "Hi, how are you?".
A: B said "Hi" and asked me how I was. That hurt me. B must be punished.
B: But I never intended to hurt A. I felt like greeting her. That is how I greet everyone. Moreover it is my freedom of expression to have greeted her the way I wanted.
A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his words!
B: If anyone wants to go to workplace, being greeted has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided coming in front of me knowing that is how I greet everyone.
---
Situation 9
Colleague B circulates an email among office workers, wherein he writes in great details the past sexual encounters of A (whether the details are true or not is irrelevant). He does not send that email to A. However, a female colleague 'C', out of concern tells A about the doing of B.
A: B and C hurt my feelings. So they must be punished.
B: I never sent the email to A; I only sent it to other people. Moreover, to write and send whatever I want is a part of my freedom of expression. So nothing of what I did was directly responsible for A's hurt.
C: I told A about B's deeds out of concern. It was not my intention to hurt. Moreover, to tell her of the happening was my exercising freedom of expression.
A: But C never allowed me the opportunity to not hear the offending news!
C: If anyone enters a conversation being hurt by the information has to be an acceptable risk.
---
Situation 10
A is a twelve year-old class topper who had fallen sick just before exams. She could not prepare well and does poorly in exams. Her teacher, 'B', writes her an email with subject: "You should be ashamed of yourself!". The body of the email also contains equally harsh words, and conveys to A that she would be scolded in the class also before all the class mates. A becomes reticent and aloof in the class. Upon being scolded a few more times in the class she becomes tearful. The matter goes to the school principal who warns B against treating A insensitively citing the fact that she is just twelve year old. Yet, B continues his behavior. A commits suicide.
A's parents: B's insensitive behavior led to our daughter's death. He must be punished.
B: I felt like scolding her because of her poor performance and I did just that. To do that followed from my freedom of expression.
A's parents: But B never allowed our daughter an opportunity to not hear his scoldings!
B: Wrong! My email had contained clearly stated that I was to scold her in the class. She could have avoided being scolded by me by not coming to my class. If one wants to attend school, being scolded and feeling hurt have to be acceptable risks.
-----
With this, the ten hypothetical situations end. I want to point out that we all enjoy freedom of expression, but what curtails it many times is not being physically stopped from expressing ourselves, but the fear of consequences including litigation and ensuing punishment. So by extension, any liability attached with freedom of expression hardly amounts to freedom.
I have deliberately made the situations very extreme and ludicrous. One of the aims was to point out how neither of the two above mentioned freedoms could be allowed to fullest degrees without legal liabilities to maintain a functional society. But another much more important one was to try to determine what all are the possible factors that have made the law enforcers take a view that they take of freedom of expression (especially so in India).
Personally, I do not consider the laws in India perfect. But I also acknowledge the fact that India does allow much greater freedom of expression than many other countries both through legal and social acceptability, apathy or inaction.
But neither do I agree with sanctuary that religion is provided as a ground to feel hurt. I quote here one of the statements by a Karnataka High Court judge (click) from an order he had passed, which summarizes the view taken by the Indian Judiciary of religious sensibilities. It must be remembered that this line of reasoning might be used as precedent to be followed by all the lower courts throughout the country, and may not be challenged unless and until someone from a higher court goes out of his/her way to substitute it with another reasoning. The portion that I find most frightening is in bold-face (especially, if juxtaposed with situation 4 above):
While considering the case, the Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Section 295 stating that, Section 295 has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds. Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters, and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court has held that, to find out whether an offense is made out under Section 295-A or not, the susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds is relevant and the Court has to give due regard to such feelings in consideration of the case.
Above rationale is codified in the section 295-A of the Indian penal code (click):
Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Lastly, this post was written with a lot of ideas I arrived at after having exhaustive discussion/debate with The Quirky Indian - Of Freedom of Expression and the Right Not to be Offended (click).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Updates from my new Blog
LinkWithin
