On Artistic Freedom, Censorship and Responsibility
*** This is a hurried post stolen from a 20-min window at work ***
Dear Readers,
This has proven to be a great discussion…Unfortunately at times, (I feel) it has bordered on the idealistic ignoring the practical. There is no doubt in my mind that the position various people have taken here must be closer to the truth – i.e. freedom of expression must be protected – even of those with whom you may not agree…
A trickier question is this:
How do you induce some sensitivity in art, literature and culture in general, without constraining freedom of expression?
You may take the view that there is no need to consciously do this (for the State would then seem to be interfering in freedom of expression)…however I take shelter in Sanjeev’s words that “freedom brings with it responsibilities and accountability”.
But here is a real hard question:
Are some cultures, communities and religions intrinsically more (or less) inclined to such values as freedom of expression? And if they are, how do you establish a common denominator in a heterogenous, multi-cultural, multi-religious society like India?
What is acceptable in this situation? Do we settle on the lowest common denominator – and constrain expression (and art, literature) knowing fully well that this is not ideal and may not even be desirable?
Or we take the broad, liberal view and say, come what may, we will establish the bar very high..
and finally the hardest question:
Are there ANY limits to such freedom of expression?
What would you say to someone who deliberately insults the national flag? Is that a criminal act or merely a civil crime?
Looking forward to a lively debate.
***
Before closing though, I must mention a few comments on the earlier post by various readers that resonated very strongly with me (read all of them here):
***
Nandan: The point is that everyone is entitled to his opinion. Such opinion must be expressed in a civilized manner. Cavalier and pretentious posturing will not contribute to inducing reform in the society
Sanjeev: In a free society, individuals are constrained by accountability. There is no aboslute freedom. Freedom is not license to smear others.
Nandan: When there is fear there is no freedom. To argue otherwise is duplicity. Then what kind of freedom (of expression) are we talking about? …We can all preach like Buddha, but it takes a Bodhisattva to practice it.
Ashish: Yes, some slopes are slippery. But many are so rough and solid, you can park a truck on them (and you don’t even need to use the handbrake)…..
Patriot: just because some people behave in an uncivilised, irrational and boorish manner, that is no reason for us to emulate them. Then, what would be the difference between us and these animals?
Nandan: Neither do we have an ideal society nor are all the Indians enlightened enough…I am of the opinion that pragmatism has some relevance here…cowardice can never be a good companion to the champions of freedom (of expression.)
vck: a. Let the Cartoon of the Prophet be published in India and then let the course of law take its way.
b. Let the Da VInci Code, Last temptation of Christ be shown in theaters in India and then let law take its course.
Sanjeev: freedom brings with it responsibilities and accountability…I wonder if any Hindu who has been hurt by Hussain’s painting has thought of the idea of forgiveness as a solution? Or simply ignoring Hussain?)
***
Related Posts:
MF Husain, “Artistic Freedom” and a sense of déjà vu…
Dear Shantanu
I thought this discussion was over, but obviously you’ve teased out some intriguing questions related to the exploration of freedom of expression.
1. Are some cultures, communities and religions intrinsically more (or less) inclined to such values as freedom of expression? And if they are, how do you establish a common denominator in a heterogenous, multi-cultural, multi-religious society like India?
In a free society, groups with completely different levels of awareness of liberty are likely to be found. The common denominator needs to be only one: of freedom, with its matching accountability.
We are also accountable to others also for the perceptions we create, not necessarily for what we think we are doing. Someone may be very highly attached to a particular symbol (or there not being a symbol, as in the case of Islam). If X does something that ***actually*** offends the emotions of Y, then X is accountable to compensate Y for that in some way. X does not have unbounded liberty of action.
All things that do not physically transfer energy to others (eg. physical assault), or to other’s property (eg. theft), and particularly those that are not deliberately intended, need to be resolved by civil remedies or by creating special laws (eg. laws against nudity in public).
2) How do you induce some sensitivity in art, literature and culture in general, without constraining freedom of expression?
Artists and writers are held to the same standard as anyone else in a free society. This is not a matter of advancing art, it is a matter of advancing liberty.
I notice a lot of artists worldwide who deliberately insult other religions. That artist should have exercised self-restraint in the first place. If the artist fails to do that, then the person/s affected are entitled to seek compensation. (of course, they can ‘tolerate’ that artist, ignore the artist, or forgive that artist, too; either way, they have to manage their own emotion).
No one is entitled to attack anyone on the ground that his or her emotion was affected.
3) Are there ANY limits to such freedom of expression?
Already discussed. Each action has its natural limits — through accountability.
If a society feels that a national flag is a tribal symbol that cannot be treated badly then it may create a law against it, though it would be inappropriate in general for a society to provide any symbol with such a hallowed status, for then there would be no end to these kinds of laws, just as there is no end to ‘reservations’ once you open such a pandora’s box.
The US does not have a law against the ‘misuse’ of its flag. People therefore even make women’s underwear with the flag design on it.
I just checked and found on Wiki: “The Flag Desecration Amendment, often referred to as the flag burning amendment, is a controversial proposed constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow the United States Congress to statutorily prohibit expression of political views through the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol and protecting free speech.”
Indian laws are quite clear against flag desecration, so this general discussion does not apply.
“In 1950, to guard the national flag against desecration, Parliament included a section in The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, forbidding its use in any trade mark or design unless permitted by the Central Government. Later in 1971 it passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, stipulating three years’ imprisonment or fine, or both, for anyone who, in public view, mutilates, defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples on or otherwise brings the National Flag into contempt.”
While there are boundaries to freedom of expression, the nature and extent of these boundaries (ie. what constitutes accountability) shifts over time.
The US was founded on freedom, hence nothing is censored there, and yet the society functions quite well. In India, though, books, movies, virtually everything gets censored periodically. That is a real concern. India should encourage a culture of civil suits against artists by those affected (eg. class action civil suits). That way the state doesn’t have to get involved in being our nanny.
Finally, I would advocate increased tolerance (each of us developing a ‘thick skin’) in India. So long as no one is physically assaulting us, we should tolerate others. Yes, Hindus generally are more tolerant than Muslims (hence democracy found roots in India but finds it hard to sustain itself for long in Pakistan). The solution: not for Hindus to become more intolerant, but for Muslims to become less intolerant. That is the only path to peace on this planet.
Regards
Sanjeev
In response to the questions (in blue) above, I would say (in an Indian context):
1. Freedom of expression moulds itself from the outside in. When the artist sees that he can get away with things that are clearly hurtful to religions (I bring in religion because that is where the biggest scope for abuse of freedom of expression lies; pornography is just porn if no religion is invoked), he goes ahead.
India has to respect all religions equally..no special favours for any one religion, no taking-for-granted of any other religion. Art will reflect India’s general position. Otherwise, we will keep our one-sided laws, and then complain about art which aimed at insulting. Just like the patient who continues to eat deep-fried cheesesticks all day on a couch but then complains about chest pains. He complains and goes back to eating more super-junk foods.
2. The hard Q:
Is there a culture/religion/community that is in the news on a daily basis for banning simple, everyday things? Banning women/music/education/any symbols in life etc? Yes..Islam. Many, many muslims are great people *in spite* of Islam. (And some, like MF Hussain, get so bottled up by Islam that they let their feelings burst out in in appropriate ways). Is there a culture that has sculptures of naked men and women on the *outside* of their temples to denote the world outside? Yes, Hindu culture.
3. The hardest question:
No, there are no limits to the freedom of expression. But there are limits to tolerance. If things go way, way beyond limits, people will act. (And Hindus are a tolerant lot; freedom of expression etc does not need to be preached to Hindus. Yes, in the Middle East, Muslims who care about Islam need to make such attempts…but only after the Saudi’s petro-wealth –and accompanying prowess– runs out. If you make that attempt today, they will send you back with your cut-off hands in a little green plastic bag with the Saudi Flag on it.)
Is calling for assasination of Modi now “journalistic freedom”?
———————
Karan Thapar in HT:
Where does this leave the regional parties and the Left? They may retain their identity, even their present base, but they will have to line-up behind Modi or Sonia, in the saffron camp or the liberal/secular one. They may even have to submerge themselves within the broad appeal of the camp they belong to.
Only the sudden removal of Narendra Modi can stop this. For he is the agent forcing this change. And whilst he’s with us, he will do just that. I have no doubt Indian politics after Sunday the 23rd is another country. We have to live with new challenges. Some of us have to accept new leaders.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Pr…71-685eb2bbc204
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times
——————————————————–
Send email to BJP, Gujarat Govt and Delhi police on Thapar comments. Lets see whether they take any action.
bjpco@del3.vsnl.net.in, cm@gujaratindia.com, dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in
Congress intimidtion tactics on Hindus. MF Hussain got freedom of expression to paint Hindu deva-devis in crude vulger way, and that is secularism. But a boy in a networking site wrote some bla bla (’I hate Sonia Gandhi’), that is slandering to Congress master. Real fascism in practice in India today. Was not that slandering to Modi, when Congress master called him Maut ka Saudagar? It was much worse. Laws are different for different persons in India, Nehru now Maino clan is above all laws in India.
====
Boy held for slandering Sonia on Orkut
Pune: Twenty-two-year old Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid was arrested by the cyber crime cell of Pune police last Friday from Gurgaon in Haryana for posting vulgar content about Congress president Sonia Gandhi on social networking site Orkut.
“As far as India is concerned, one has fundamental rights but you can override them. But obscene and vulgar data is punishable under IT act,” says DCP, Pune Cyber Crime Cell, Sunil Phulari.
Vaid had posted the content an Orkut community titled ‘I hate Sonia Gandhi’.
He has now been charged under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining to printing of obscene content, and Section 67 of the IT Act relating to publishing of obscene information in electronic form.
Vaid will be produced in Pune’s Shivajinagar court on Wednesday and if found guilty, he will have to face up to five years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
The arrest follows a complaint by a Congress worker in Pune, who saw the comments on the website. The police are now looking for everyone who has posted anything obscene about the Congress leader.
“We were not violent in registering our complaint. We just went to Mr Phulari and asked him if there are laws about the Web outside of India, why do we not have the same in India,” says Member, Pune City Congress, Nitin Gujarathi.
Interestingly, the creator of the community has not been charged as hating prominent personalities or having an opinion is not illegal in India.
Google, the owner of Orkut was asked to divulge details about Vaid and it obliged. In a statement, Google says, “In compliance with valid Indian legal process, we provided Indian law enforcement authorities with the IP address information they requested in this case.”
“Service providers are also liable. There are moderators but they are smart and put up disclaimers,” says cyber law expert Karnika Seth.
So till India has strict privacy laws like the US, the only safeguard is to either join communities after due diligence or stay away.
http://www.ibnlive. com/news/ boy-held- for-slandering- sonia-on- orkut/65642- 11.html?xml
Dear Sir,
Slandering is something that one should avoid at all costs.
If one needs to take action, there is either a political process or a legal process.
Slandering is cowardice and should not be encouraged.
Regards,
vck
Bharat, vck: Thanks for your comments.
***
@ Bharat: I am afraid that we are mixing up issues here.
I disagree with MF Husain too but I would take recourse to legal options rather than slander or violence (or even threats of violence)
The comment on Modi has similarly been already looked into by the Election Comission.
The newsreport suggests that what the boy wrote on Orkut was “obscene” and vulgar – and hence slanderous.
Obscenity and vulgarity is something I just cannot support. As vck has mentioned, “Slandering is cowardice and should not be encouraged” .
The best way to disagree (I think) is calmly, dispassionately and without getting personal (although it is very hard to do)
Thanks.
@ Bharat: I am afraid that we are mixing up issues here.
I wanted to share this issue (which is very important, I felt), but didn’t find any apt headings in your site.
1. Well, there must be codified national standards for abusive words, pictures, images, and standards for execution of laws uniformly. And they are freely distributed in hard copies and soft copies across the net. Would police have arrested that young boy (22 years), had he wrote the same things about some ordinary girls or womans? No, never.
2. Country’s whole machinery is invested to safeguard one clan. Congress party issues fatwa, had anybody dare to say one critical word/or put a finger on their party’s head Roman Goddess or MK Gandhi or Nehru clan. And we get intimidated. But they protect Fugitive Hussain, and why not? That defines secularism. Congress can file affidavit in the highest court denoucing Sri Ram does not exist and Ramayan is a fiction. Did court’s punished anyone? Did police arrested any one? Did Congress party or govt apologised? Was that less a crime, than few vulger or obscene words?
3. Can we survive in this world, if every abusive words and insults are taken to courts or police? If police and courts starts taking such cases, then perhaps one-fourth the nation’s people have to become police and judges, and half the people will live jail, perhaps more. Wives will file cases against husbands, fathers against sons and so on.
4. Are you going to take me to a court for saying, ‘I hate you Shantanu or XYZ’ or another few vulger, abusive words? Please feel free, that would be a golden chance to have a darshan of courts and see how court functions.
5. Regarding ‘Maut Ka Saudagar’ or Digvijay Singh’s saying ‘Hindus of Gujarat are terrorists’ what big EC did? Few simple sweet words, please please don’t use such words! As I said, laws are different in India, depending on the stature and affiliation of the person. We have to make it ONE, one standard for all. We are the shaper of our own destinies, and not the destiny shapes us. We need to come out from fatalistic (destiny-guided) philosophy.
6. Internat is full of rubbishes, browse into US election campaign and see (what can be more vulger than crude racism?). If US police and courts had to look such slanders, then they have to stop other serious works. In India, real criminals like Fugitive Hussain transformed into a icon, even court came out to help him out and praised him in luvish words. Same court and judges will punish anyone for painting Islamic Profet Muhamemd and his mother in erotic form. Where are the standards?
7. I wrote this, not because I love vulgarity and abusive words, but due to our flawed system. Bigger criminals (so many ministers) are law makers, but laws are not applicable to them. They are above laws. Indira was disqulified by a court, she disqualified the court and the country. Same system running the country, even more now. A PM cheated President and the nation to dissolve Bihar assembly, and thats not vulgerity. That wss worst kind of vulgerity, he rapped the constitution. And he was not arrested by the police nor punished by the court (he still PM, above the law).
Bharat
=====
Dear Bharat: Thanks for the rejoinder…and some thought-provoking points.
I will respond in a day or two…
Bharat: below is a response to your points.
***
1. …Would police have arrested that young boy (22 years), had he wrote the same things about some ordinary girls or womans? No, never.
Bharat: I do not know exactly what he wrote…but I am guessing it was vulgar, demeaning and insulting. You are right that the police would not have arrested the boy had he written the same things about some ordinary woman or girl…
Does that mean that what he wrote was “right”? or that there appear to be different laws in India – one for the common people, one for VVIPs?
I think you know the answer.
2. Congress can file affidavit in the highest court denoucing Sri Ram does not exist and Ramayan is a fiction. Did court’s punished anyone? Did police arrested any one? Did Congress party or govt apologised? Was that less a crime, than few vulger or obscene words?
What did the affidavit exactly say? Did it denounce Lord Shri Rama? Did it say Ramayana was fiction or did it say that there was not sufficient evidence to prove its historicity or veracity*?
Did anyone file a complaint? If they did, what was the outcome?
3. Can we survive in this world, if every abusive words and insults are taken to courts or police?
I agree that there needs to be sensible boundaries in such cases..However we (or specifically I) still dont know what exactly was said…I would not like to comment on this without knowing the content. There are boundaries between insults, sarcasm, abuse and vulgarity and I think most people understand that.
4. Are you going to take me to a court for saying, ‘I hate you Shantanu or XYZ’ or another few vulger, abusive words? Please feel free, that would be a golden chance to have a darshan of courts and see how court functions.
No, I would not take you to court for saying that you hate me…If however you say something vulgar and abusive about my family, I will have to reconsider…Note though that it was not Smt Sonia Gandhi who filed the complaint against the young boy.
5. As I said, laws are different in India, depending on the stature and affiliation of the person. We have to make it ONE, one standard for all. We are the shaper of our own destinies, and not the destiny shapes us. We need to come out from fatalistic (destiny-guided) philosophy.
Agree whole-heartedly…and how can we change our destiny? by taking power away from the corrupt, the arrogant and the indifferent…by taking power away from the selfish and the lazy, by taking it away from the indecisive and the rudderless…by giving it back to the strong, the willing, the selfless and the committed…
How can this happen?
Only through democratic means…only if we decide to beat them at their own game…only if we decide that poloitical power is essential if we wish to change things..only if we decide to get actively involved in POLITICS…
This was the guiding thought behind my recent post and I sincerely hope that you are with us in this journey.
6. Where are the standards?
Agree with this…
7. I wrote this, not because I love vulgarity and abusive words, but due to our flawed system.
..and that “flawed system” is exactly what we must fight against….what happened here revealed a deeper malaise…it is time to fight the disease not to suppress the symptoms.
***
* I have almost finished editing a post (drawn from recent articles) that addressed the issue of “Historicity” of Ramayana and Shri Rama..I should be putting it on the blog in the next 2-3 days.
Somewhat dated news but needs to be recorded
Fresh storm: Jesus picture in Telugu daily sparks row
Sunday, July 13, 2008 (Hyderabad)
Christian groups on Sunday attacked the offices of a Telugu daily, owned by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy’s family, to protest the publication of a blasphemous picture of Jesus Christ.
The daily’s Sunday edition carried a picture showing Jesus with a beer mug in one hand and a cigarette in the other. The chief minister’s family, which practices Christianity, has tendered an apology.
***
Also: Jesus Christ picture kicks up row
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: In what seems like a big faux pas that may snowball into a controversy, the official journal of a Catholic diocese in Kerala carried a picture of Jesus Christ with a beer mug in one hand and a cigarette in the other on the cover page of its June issue.
Narendra Modis Gujarat ( A satya mave jayate )
From Govt gearing up to gag news websites by Manoj Mitta, 22 May ’09:
Also relevant to On Blogs, Comments, Liability and Being Sued
Thanks to Atanu for alerting me to this.
Note to Myself: Read Noorani on Freedom of Speech and Religion: A Comment
Placing this here for the record:
Comment from another post that was inspired by Harshit:
– A Sanaatan dharmi…believes that there can be different perceptions of the same “truthâ€.
– Every individual has every right to follow and develop (intellectually not by force) his own perception of this fundamental reality.
– But the individual is not bound to believe that the perception of the ‘other’ is naturally equal to his own perception.
– The difference lies the manner in which you go about developing and propagating your perception. Is it in the form of healthy, spiritual debates or by use of sword or inducements or disrespect/denigration of other’s perception?
– if the ‘other’ wants to continue believing in his own perception, (Sanaatan Dharmi)…willingly accepts his freedom and right to do so
But “if the other’s perception of reality says that you should be killed if you don’t convert to his own perception of realityâ€, I think this is what could be called a righteous war.
and finally, “…even if sanaatan dharma considers it a falsehood, it would still respect the right of that individual to excel in his falsehood…†but will not accept violent imposition of that falsehood on others.
A relevant (to this post) video clip of a debate between Shashi Tharoor and Christopher Hitchins in which Tharoor says something like
“Not everyone is like us (i.e. rational?)..
They are literalists..and wil be provoked/outraged..
So should we not be conscious of that?
Should we not be conscious that this will create a law and order problem in the country..
So I can see how under certain circumstances we will have to be balance these things..
Very watchable.
Also read Virtual reality by Shashi Tharoor from which this excerpt..
But — and free speech advocates hate that “butâ€! — every society recognises some sensible restraints on how free speech is exercised. Those restraints almost always relate to the collectivity; they arise when the freedom of the individual to say what he wants causes more harm to more people in society than restricting his freedom would.
And I now realise what would be Shashi Tharoor’s defence re. M F Husain (emphasis added):
My own yardstick is very clear: I reject censorship…But publishing inflammatory material to incite communal feelings is akin to dropping a lighted match at a petrol pump. No society can afford to tolerate it, and no responsible government of India would allow it..
Thus publishing the Danish cartoons is inciting “communal feelings” but Husain’s paintings are not drawn with any such intent and hence must be allowed!
Adding this link here for the record: http://www.firstpost.com/india/sc-comments-in-nandy-case-arent-good-for-free-speech-610997.html
Do read and be worried. Hope to add excerpts later on.
From “Freedom of Speech” in the United States Constitution by Xinyi WANG
:
…This article…will focus on the following two issues: why speech receives constitutional protection, and what the scope of protection is as envisioned by those who drafted, defended and enacted the First Amendment.
The most accepted justification for freedom of speech has been the theory of the market place of ideas, which holds that truth will emerge from an open competition of ideas.
…
Should the right to freedom of speech extend to extremely offensive opinions as well? For instance, should we protect the advocacy of employing genocide to solve problems of difficult-to-integrate ethnic minorities? Should we allow someone to advocate in public that women should be barefoot and homebound? The answer is “Yes.” The marketplace logic implies that any ideas having even the slightest redeeming social value should enjoy full protection. History has taught us again and again that the conventional wisdom of society often turns out to be wrong.
The First Amendment’s basic guarantee is that of freedom to advocate ideas, including unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, and even ideas offensive to the prevailing climate of opinion. In regulating speech, the government should be neutral toward different ideas.
Although the marketplace theory is dominant in explaining why speech merits special protection, there are some other justifications of such protection worth mentioning here. Some legal scholars have proposed the “liberty theory,” according to which freedom of speech is part of the liberty of the person fostering individual self-realization and self-determination. Freedom of speech thus becomes part of a larger right to freedom of self-expression and personal development.
Another important approach advanced by scholars is the “tolerance theory,” which maintains that the special value of freedom of speech lies in its ability to promote and teach tolerance. In this view, in a heterogeneous society, adherence to the value of free speech itself constitutes a bulwark against intolerance in its many pernicious, society-threatening forms (racial intolerance, religious intolerance, etc.).
The tolerance theory emphasizes self-restraint as the appropriate response to even the ideas that we personally may hate. Through the exercise of tolerance we learn how to participate in a democratic, oftentimes conflict-ridden society.
Although freedom of speech, being a systematic right, is entitled to heightened protection from the government, this protection is not absolute. Our common sense tells us that freedom of speech does not include the right to tell the cashier, “I have a gun, give me the money;” nor to falsely tell a child that his or her parents have just died. As Justice Holmes said, “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
In legal practice, the Supreme Court imposes some very narrow restrictions on freedom of speech by defining a few established categories of speech, which are deemed not fully protected under the First Amendment. These categories have traditionally included advocacy of imminent illegal conduct, defamation, obscenity, and fraudulent misrepresentation. ..
…
The dividing line between legal advocacy and illegal incitement of criminal conduct is drawn by the use of the “clear and present danger” test. The government cannot punish speech because it has a tendency, or even a reasonable possibility, of inciting illegal conduct. Before the government can punish speech on the grounds of incitement, a three-part criterion must be met. First, the speech must be directed to inciting lawless action. Second, the advocacy must be calling for imminent breaking of the law, rather than illegal conduct at some future time. Finally, the advocacy must be likely to produce such conduct. This clear and present danger test focuses on the probability and imminence of the danger arising from the speech in question. Up to the point of clear and present danger, the evil to be prevented by outlawing the advocacy is not as great as the harm of outlawing it. At the point at which a clear and present danger becomes evident, the evil to be prevented by outlawing the advocacy of illegal conduct outweighs any damage to the right of free speech, including advocacy of illegal conduct.
The “clear and present danger” test is a very high standard to meet.
…
Another well-established category of unprotected speech is defamation. False statements of fact prevent the marketplace of ideas from functioning fairly to let ideas stand or fall on their own merits. Therefore, publicizing false facts should not be protected by the right to free speech and expression. However, the line between false statements of fact and political opinion is sometimes hazy.
…
Rules that regulate when, where and how a message is expressed are called time, place, or manner restrictions.
Placing this here for the record: The Crooked Lives of Free Speech by Pratap Bhanu Mehta