Raju Korti
Before this blog suggests anything to the contrary, let me attest that I am as vociferous a protagonist of freedom of speech and expression as anyone else who masquerades as a "liberal" on the social networking sites. But unlike the euphoria generated by the Supreme Court verdict on scrapping Section 66A of the IT Act, I am taking it with cautious optimism.
The apex court yesterday held that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, striking down a “draconian” provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be “allegedly objectionable” on the Internet.
“It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,” said the SC Bench. The definition of offences under the provision was “open-ended and undefined”, it said. I need not cite the examples that have hit headlines in the recent past where the section was invoked, leading to a furore which to me is superficial.
As arbitrary as the provision sounded, Section 66A also provided a remedy against several cyber crimes like stalking, bullying, threatening through SMS and email, phishing and spamming, among others. You do not have to visit the cyber crime cell of the police to know that these crimes are on the rise in a technology-dominated age. The solution is not to scrap the provision but to amend it suitably without taking away the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech. The apex court ruling has not dwelt on this aspect at all. The present IT Act, I believe, does not have enough teeth for many cyber crimes that have been left out.
For the champions of freedom of speech and expression, the apex court ruling is an absolute victory but I am afraid that the very fundamental ethos of any freedom is not getting the same mention in the same breath. With unbridled freedom comes unbridled responsibility. My personal take is Freedom is an anti-thesis of itself. To think of Freedom in isolation is tantamount to chaos if you understand the word "chaos" not quite in the same manner as political scientists do.
Quite simply, the word Freedom has been followed more in breach than practice primarily for the reason that one's concept of freedom more often than not is in complete contradiction to someone else's Freedom. Is Freedom what it is when you uphold someone else's Freedom or trample it? Whose Freedom is it then?
The issue according to me is not Freedom itself per se but the maturity and responsibility with which it needs to be handled. The way political, social and cultural winds have blown -- and continue to do so -- across the world shows that mankind does not have the post-pubescence to deal with what is pompously referred to as Freedom. All that it has served to do is to show that it is a cracker with a dangerously short wick whose burst only leaves some excitement and casualties behind.
Quite expectedly, the focus now has shifted to the "reasonable restrictions" the Indian Constitution places on Article 19 (1) which lists Fundamental Rights among which Defamation is one. It is apparent to me that there are any number of people on social networking sites harbouring the misconception that you can write no holds barred with a unilateral right to castigate. These also include so called liberals who cannot take one word of criticism -- let alone criminal defamation -- in their liberal stride.
I remember my journalist friend Mayank Chhaya making a very pertinent point on Facebook when some of the Censor Board members expressed their displeasure about not being able to exercise the kind of autonomy they expected. Wrote Mayank: Censoring others is what you do for a living. What about their autonomy?" People demand Freedom of Speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought that they seldom use. Abuse simply cannot become a euphemism in the guise of Freedom of Speech. It then becomes freedom of extortion and blackmail.
Nothing is absolute. Not even time. Semantics are at best, a waste of time or an idle pastime. For everything else, there is a raging debate. Freedom of Speech is a double-edged weapon. So if it is taken away and the dumb and silent are led, like sheep to the slaughter, its grant also leads to a situation no less. It is a great concept if you revel in utopia. So here in my limited judgment I will compress the concept: I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
Before this blog suggests anything to the contrary, let me attest that I am as vociferous a protagonist of freedom of speech and expression as anyone else who masquerades as a "liberal" on the social networking sites. But unlike the euphoria generated by the Supreme Court verdict on scrapping Section 66A of the IT Act, I am taking it with cautious optimism.
The apex court yesterday held that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, striking down a “draconian” provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be “allegedly objectionable” on the Internet.
“It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,” said the SC Bench. The definition of offences under the provision was “open-ended and undefined”, it said. I need not cite the examples that have hit headlines in the recent past where the section was invoked, leading to a furore which to me is superficial.
As arbitrary as the provision sounded, Section 66A also provided a remedy against several cyber crimes like stalking, bullying, threatening through SMS and email, phishing and spamming, among others. You do not have to visit the cyber crime cell of the police to know that these crimes are on the rise in a technology-dominated age. The solution is not to scrap the provision but to amend it suitably without taking away the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech. The apex court ruling has not dwelt on this aspect at all. The present IT Act, I believe, does not have enough teeth for many cyber crimes that have been left out.
For the champions of freedom of speech and expression, the apex court ruling is an absolute victory but I am afraid that the very fundamental ethos of any freedom is not getting the same mention in the same breath. With unbridled freedom comes unbridled responsibility. My personal take is Freedom is an anti-thesis of itself. To think of Freedom in isolation is tantamount to chaos if you understand the word "chaos" not quite in the same manner as political scientists do.
Quite simply, the word Freedom has been followed more in breach than practice primarily for the reason that one's concept of freedom more often than not is in complete contradiction to someone else's Freedom. Is Freedom what it is when you uphold someone else's Freedom or trample it? Whose Freedom is it then?
The issue according to me is not Freedom itself per se but the maturity and responsibility with which it needs to be handled. The way political, social and cultural winds have blown -- and continue to do so -- across the world shows that mankind does not have the post-pubescence to deal with what is pompously referred to as Freedom. All that it has served to do is to show that it is a cracker with a dangerously short wick whose burst only leaves some excitement and casualties behind.
Quite expectedly, the focus now has shifted to the "reasonable restrictions" the Indian Constitution places on Article 19 (1) which lists Fundamental Rights among which Defamation is one. It is apparent to me that there are any number of people on social networking sites harbouring the misconception that you can write no holds barred with a unilateral right to castigate. These also include so called liberals who cannot take one word of criticism -- let alone criminal defamation -- in their liberal stride.
I remember my journalist friend Mayank Chhaya making a very pertinent point on Facebook when some of the Censor Board members expressed their displeasure about not being able to exercise the kind of autonomy they expected. Wrote Mayank: Censoring others is what you do for a living. What about their autonomy?" People demand Freedom of Speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought that they seldom use. Abuse simply cannot become a euphemism in the guise of Freedom of Speech. It then becomes freedom of extortion and blackmail.
Nothing is absolute. Not even time. Semantics are at best, a waste of time or an idle pastime. For everything else, there is a raging debate. Freedom of Speech is a double-edged weapon. So if it is taken away and the dumb and silent are led, like sheep to the slaughter, its grant also leads to a situation no less. It is a great concept if you revel in utopia. So here in my limited judgment I will compress the concept: I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
raju garu,
ReplyDeletei liked this article of yours placing the demise of section 66A of the IT act and also the Apex Court views on it.
" Absolute freedom without absolute responsibility? " -
if people in position of importance in society - say politics and public figures make an ass of themselves by saying and doing anything and everything they want unmindful of the public opinion whom they actually serve, then how do we become asses by writing freely and actually spelling out that they are the asses in first place.
effectively, what you are saying is in the present times, we are still not free and the winds are actually still against the common man.
i will have to personally have a talk with you so that my doubts are cleared. :)
However, i loved what you have written and it does bring in a sense of satisfaction as you have dealt with the subject at length. :)
warm musical regards,
R N K