Category: Freedom of Expression

Strangling Freedom of Speech and Expression

The UK is on the fast track to becoming a closed society in its hurry to emulate Saudi Arabia. Last week, it denied entry to Geert Wilders of the Netherlands. “Dutch populist politician and controversial anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders has been refused entry to the United Kingdom despite being invited to visit by a member of the House of Lords, the British parliament’s upper chamber. . . Geert Wilders, perhaps best known outside the Netherlands for having made the video Fitna, in which the religion Islam and its holy book the Koran are attacked as providing a basis for terrorist attacks and for the undermining of western democracy and values, had been invited to London for a showing of this film to members of the British parliament.”

Thankfully, Fitna is available on the web and this idiotic attempt to shoot the messenger will only make the message more compelling.
Continue reading “Strangling Freedom of Speech and Expression”

Defending Free Speech

Item: Chyetanya Kunte wrote a blog post “Shoddy Journalism” on Nov 27th, 2008. I cannot give you a link because he has since removed it from his blog (although you may be able to read it on google cache). He posted an apology to NDTV and Barkha Dutt on Jan 26th:

I hereby repudiate and withdraw my post dated November 27, 2008 titled “Shoddy Journalism” and, more specifically, the following allegations / statements made in the post titled “Shoddy Journalism” namely:

* a lack of ethics, responsibility and professionalism by Ms. Dutt and NDTV Limited;

* that Ms. Dutt and NDTV’s reporting at the scene of the Mumbai attacks during November 2008, resulted in jeopardizing the safety and lives of civilians and / or security personnel caught up in and / or involved in defending against the attacks in Mumbai in November 2008;

* that Ms. Dutt was responsible for the death of Indian Servicemen during the Kargil Conflict.

Continue reading “Defending Free Speech”

On Aurangzeb

I have it on good authority that Satyameva Jayate is India’s national motto. The English translation of the Sanskrit is “Truth Alone Prevails.” Is that claim itself true? Can it really prevail in a land where some people are afraid to speak what they perceive to be the truth because some others confront that expression with violence?

Thomas Jefferson claimed over 200 years ago that “it is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” I agree only partly. I don’t think that without courageous people truth has a chance. Truth, in the abstract, of course exists. But for it to triumph, surely it has to be expressed by humans and be part of the mental makeup of at least one human being. The world is spherical is a truth in the abstract. But at some point in the history of human civilization it became a concrete truth. But it required courage to express a truth that in some parts of the world was considered against god and morality.

Truth would have a hard time prevailing in a nation of people cowed down from fear and threat of violence. A recent example of violence shutting out an attempt at finding the truth occurred in Chennai. A bunch of people shut down an exhibition which revealed Aurangzeb to be a tyrant. The police were also involved in the vandalism. The state was involved in suppressing the expression of a viewpoint that some considered unpalatable. Most of the newspapers did not report this.

Isn’t it true that India’s motto basically pokes fun at India’s public actions?

Link: Details of what happened and Kanchan Gupta’s opinion piece.

[Follow up post: B Raman on “Aurangzebs of Today.”]

Ridiculing Religious Insanity

Religious insanity should be ridiculed as strenuously and as frequently as one can. Here I am talking about the recent demand by the Pastafarians that since their religion forbids the eating of pasta without meatballs, all vegetarian pasta dishes be banned. It offends the Pastafarians that people can even contemplate the eating of pasta without the required half a dozen meatballs.
Continue reading “Ridiculing Religious Insanity”

Boycott till the cows come home

A recently released movie called “Jodaa Akbar” appears to have started a movement to boycott the movie. I don’t know what the problem is with the movie and frankly I don’t care. Boycott whatever does or does not strike your fancy, I say. I just pray that they don’t press the government to ban the movie. If the movie is inaccurate, then the response should be to counter it with the accurate version, or to write and speak about it in the press, radio and television. By all means, refuse to go see the movie or read the book or see the cartoons or whatever. Boycott whatever you don’t want to support but for the sake of sanity, please don’t go the route of banning.

The Indian government is only too eager to ban stuff — with votes in mind, of course. It was the first to ban the Satanic Verses and thus provoked the mullahs in Iran to call for the murder of Salman Rushdie. Banning books and other information related goods is shameful, insulting and cowardly.

It is insulting because it means that the people are idiots and do not have the maturity to decide for themselves what to see or read. When a ban is imposed because of fear that some people may go on a violent rampage, then it is cowardly. If the attempt is to conceal the truth by banning something, it is shameful and on self-respecting people should stand for such a government.

Forbidding Expression – Part 2

If your government is manipulated into disregarding the law of the land by rioting murderous mobs, you might be a third-world country.

{Continued from part 1.}

Taslima Nasreen got hounded out of Kolkata by rioting Muslims. The state of West Bengal displayed its spinelessness and instead of providing protection to a visitor, gave in to intimidation and violence. She was packed off to Jaipur. The fear of murderous mobs compelled the Rajasthani government to kick her out. She is now hiding somewhere in New Delhi, the capital of India. One does not expect state policy to be dictated by rioting mobs but it appears that Indian policy is.
Continue reading “Forbidding Expression – Part 2”

Forbidding Expression – Part 1

The question that faces West Bengal, a state in eastern India [1], appears to be whether a Bangladeshi author named Taslima Nasreen should be allowed to stay. The recent news is that “a minority fringe group” has demanded that Taslima be deported.

The answer is absolutely clear to me: she may stay or go depending on what the law of the land says. Rule of law is something that I consider non-negotiable. So the deeper question is whether India at large, and West Bengal more specifically, is a nation that is governed by laws? Or is it that those who carry the largest sticks, those who can inflict punishment on the nation can dictate what the rules should be?
Continue reading “Forbidding Expression – Part 1”

Why Free Speech

Why support free speech, asked Gaurav in a comment on a previous post here. The short answer is: because we are not infinitely wise, our rationality is bounded; because we are not equally wise; because ideas matter, and because markets work.
Continue reading “Why Free Speech”

Hell and Censorship

News from Abroad

Gordon Dryden emailed me an update on the Hell billboards which I had written about in August 2005.:

Hell Pizza

Thus wrote Gordon:

Today, the New Zealand Council of Advertising Standards upheld, in part, a complaint against Hell billboards – with the photo of George W Bush, and saying “Even hell is too good for some bastards”.

Its ruling (seriously) did not find anything wrong with the reference to George B in that context but felt that the term “some bastards” might be offensive to some people.”

I think that putting the word “bastards” on a billboard where one may inadvertently see it is perhaps a bit much. Therefore I do not think removing the word amounts to censorship.
Continue reading “Hell and Censorship”

The Freedom to be Offended — Part 3

“CAESAR: Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
–George Bernard Shaw in “Caesar and Cleopatra”

I titled my two previous pieces exploring the freedom of expression as “The Freedom to be Offended” deliberately. Everyone is free to take offense, which is the flip side of the individual right to free speech. If the speech of one has to be restricted because someone else is offended, then taken to its logical conclusion we would arrive at the absurd position where no one will have the right to express anything.
Continue reading “The Freedom to be Offended — Part 3”