Can there ever be absolute freedom of expression?

The recent attack on people associated with the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris has initiated discussions about whether there can be absolute freedom of expression? Terrorists killed people associated with this magazine to take revenge for publishing a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad. Many Muslim people found these cartoons offensive and insulting to their faith. This was not the first time any publication, book, picture, or article came under attack for insulting any religion. India is very well known for banning books, attacking authors, or making their lives difficult just for publishing something that hurts people's religious sentiments. So, the question is can there be an absolute right of freedom of expression? If not, then who decides where to draw the line and on what basis? Can there be a general consensus on what should be allowed and what shouldn't?

Every country claims to give the right of freedom of expression to their citizens, but if we check carefully there are some ifs and buts attached to this right. These ifs and buts differ from country to country. I can understand that anyone is not allowed to preach violence, child pornography, or obscenity under the name of freedom of expression. One can very well understand this type of restriction but apart from that why put so many other restrictions. Many people agree that there should be freedom of expression but they also say that in the case of religious sentiments, there should be some limit that should not be crossed. But the problem with this argument is who will decide that limit? Everybody's religious sensitivities are different, whatever is considered blasphemous in one religion is perfectly fine in another, so, in any diverse society how can one draw a line, and how many lines does one need to draw to cover each and every religion and sect so that nobody's religious feelings are hurt? People's sentiments are going to get hurt by something or other as each artist presents their work in different forms and styles. Art in some forms such as satire, paintings, or cartoons can be sometimes offensive, and not everyone can digest them but that doesn't mean that form should be banned or censored. We can not depend on people's level of sensitivities to design any policy related to freedom of expression as sensitivities keep on changing. It will be good to have complete freedom of expression or at least as much as people have in countries like the USA, it should be very clear what is allowed and what is not.

In today's world with so much connectivity and resources to verify any information we should be becoming more broad-minded and tolerant, but it seems our civilization is going in the reverse direction as far as tolerance and liberty are concerned, people are becoming more narrow-minded and less tolerant. They get offended by trivial things like a book, movie, or cartoon and react in a very violent way. To protest or express disagreement with anything is perfectly fine, but it should be done in a lawful and peaceful manner. Whenever people try to question freedom of expression after such a violent attack on a publication for publishing something objectionable then actually they indirectly justify such violent acts. Freedom of expression is not an easy thing to handle. People who feel offended also have the right to express their feelings, people who dislike anything can openly say that, and they can insult or say offensive things but in any case, violence can not be a part of freedom of expression. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Said, "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins." To threaten someone with physical harm is not freedom of expression but an act of violence. We are far away from achieving absolute freedom of expression, and since India has a very poor record in this area (still it is better than most of its neighbors), it needs to improve a lot. The USA has a much better record in this area and I think it is one of the best countries as far as the right of freedom of expression is concerned. Other countries like India should try to follow their example. 

I support the absolute right of freedom of expression except freedom to propagate violence. This will allow societies to become more tolerant and exchange their ideas more freely. Banning something only increases people's curiosity about those things and makes them more popular. Let's not ban any book, movie, article, or magazine just because some people find it offensive. This is a difficult task to achieve but at least let's try to work towards it, maybe one day we will have a society where there is absolute freedom of expression and everyone is using it with great care and responsibility. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. Faith vs Freedom: Is Right to Free Speech Absolute?