We as human beings have this innate quality to express ourselves, and more importantly express ourselves freely. But in reality, this is not realized. Every society places some limits on the extent to which we can exercise speech, as speech always happens in a context of competing values. In context when opinions differ and views vary.
In status quo different societies have different philosophies regarding freedom of speech. However, there are 3 approaches adopted.
1. Allow absolute free speech, whereby an individual may say whatsoever he deems fit and has complete immunity from prosecution as a result of it.
2. Dismiss notion of free speech thereby censuring and molding the expressions of individuals and society so as to prevent the criticism of the state.
3. Allow free speech, but with reasonable limitations (Like in India). The yardsticks to define what is reasonable are various and varied.
Absolute freedom of speech is not only important and essential for the good of the individual but also vital for societal evolution.
Many opinions come up, and the opinions contrary to the established philosophies must not be curbed, instead they should be allowed and encouraged. Only by this way will these opinions evolve through critique and revaluation and if they don't accommodate the changing sensibilities they must be considered redundant.
Suppressing views based on grounds of being wrong or counterproductive is in itself harmful as it will lead to monopolization of judgement as to what is "okay" and what is "not okay" by society.
Society exists to serve individuals. Therefore, individuals speech must not be subjected to collective's approval.
Truth can only be established through discussion and it remains the truth only as long as it is disproved. Discussion is very vital as it enhances the society's understanding of what they stand for as well. It also breeds "greater tolerance for intolerance".
History is evidence to how things that are deemed eternal truths by one generation might have been considered to be absurd by another. The level of acceptance and tolerance towards a particular view point is subjected to the context and the situational sensibilities.
Now let us consider extreme events which involve outright outrageous matters such as castism, sexism etc. Individuals must be allowed to air opinions of even such a nature. Allowing them to express themselves will enable societal discussions on the matters they propagate. Censuring the individual will make the individual cling on to this opinion even more strongly and moreover will lead to others repressing that opinion even further. In an environment where the freedom of speech is absolute, the society will get desensitized towards expressions engineered to provoke a reaction among the masses.
As long as a thought exists in an individual's mind, he or she will desire to express it. As long as this thought exists, the only rational thing to be done is to allow him/her to express it, so that he/she might share the merits of the thought or stand a chance to learn its demerits by virtue of the crowd reaction to his thought.
What is your stand on "Allowing Absolute Freedom of Speech" ?
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it.
- Voltaire
No comments:
Post a Comment