Should Freedom Of Speech Be An Absolute Right?

“A person’s Freedom is ensured when he ensures freedom of others.”

This Statement has been uttered by a great tall esteeming figure “Nelson Mandela”, Gandhi of South Africa. By this very statement, he wants to convey the message that everyone is free to the extent that he does not infringe upon the freedom of others. Freedom is something that everyone holds as he is born free. Everyone has the right to exercise this freedom, whether it is freedom of speech, expression or movement or anything else. Issue of freedom of speech has been too much in limelight in the recent past. There has been too much of hue & cry about it being in absolute sense or limited. Recently a liberal Bangladeshi Blogger Avijit Roy had been killed by the Fundamentalist blogger. Most probable reason for his killing is that he openly criticized about the fundamentalists’ ideas. Wendy Doniger book “The Hindus: The Alternative History” had to be pulled out of the market due to protests raised by some right-wing forces in the country. Not going in much past, some radical elements attacked the Charlie hebdo office. Charlie hebdo is a satirical magazine which had been famous for their liberal satires about religious beliefs and traditions. As evident by these examples, this issue is being debated across the world presently. It needs some serious thought.

“Everyone is born free but still bound by chains”.

This statement is true in whatever way we interpret it. If an individual wants to live in a society, he would have to have some restraints to follow the norms, notions of that very society. Same is the case with Indian society. From the very past in Indian families, Children had the freedom of speech but with certain limitations. They had to follow certain norms like respecting elders, using proper language, not creating dissent in the family etc. Indian Constitution provides the Fundamental Right of freedom of Speech. Nonetheless Our Constitution has also provided certain limitation to freedom of speech i.e. maintaining decency, public order etc. Many Constitutions around the world provide this right like USA, Britain, and France etc. Difference is that to what extent this right could be exercised? This difference varies from country to country depending upon their political scenario and other issues.

By exercising right of freedom of speech in absolute sense, a person could express his opinion in true sense. An individual’s creativity could be displayed; ideas could be generated without any fear. Learning could happen in an open way. Discussions and deliberations could take place freely on all types of issues. Strong voice could be raised against the political masters and their wrong doings. A progressive society could be built up where everyone is free to express.

We could not confidently say that providing right to freedom of speech in absolute sense would necessary lead to a progressive nation and society. Speech is not just associated with speaker or the one who is expressing. It is also associated with the listener or the one who judges the content of that speech. Everyone has his own way of interpreting the things. A person should be mature enough to understand whether the expression of speech was in good faith or having some malicious intentions. Taking the case of India, which is a developing country in a true sense, literacy rate is seventy percent and progressing slowly. So it is a high probability that a person who is illiterate could be moved by malicious speech content. India is that unique nation in the world community which is on extreme edge of a razor in many scenarios. It is multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic nation. Holding the people of India together requires some special efforts. These efforts have been taken in a brilliant manner by national personalities like Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, and Jawaharlal Lal Nehru etc. By the efforts of these people, a feeling of Nationalism has been generated in India and is well articulated in Our Constitution. Our Constitution provides has provided best of the ideals like equality, liberty, fraternity, Secularism etc. Any action or expression of speech which harms these principles should be judged with caution. There are infinite examples of misuse of freedom of speech to gain some political or cultural mileage. If a person is provided a free license to speak anything, it would lead to chaos, hate campaign derogatory remarks etc. It could defame a personality in unnecessary provocative manner. To the extent it could be a threat to a nation’s secular fabric and could lead to its disintegration. Fringe elements of the society like fundamentalist, separatists etc. could use this right for their personal, political and religious ambitions.

In the case of Charlie hebdo, act of terrorism is condemned to the full extent. There is also alternative dimension associated with it. From the past four to five years, Charlie Hebdo magazine was unnecessarily provoking Islamists by putting up Prophet’s image in a derogatory satirical way. Satire is good humour but it has to be with a right and positive intent. It should not be put up to provoke any community or religion. There is a serious lacuna to the human’s nature that When anyone is provided with excessive right, he tends to misuse it in all probability. He tends to forget his responsibility associated with the right.

As we know “Every Right comes with a responsibility” .This responsibility should be bearing in mind while exercising the right. The responsibility could be of upholding certain values, respecting others rights, maintaining decency etc. So it becomes imperative that every citizen should exercise his right to freedom of speech with responsibility. It is also necessary to have certain exceptions to this right in legal terms till the time India’s literacy level reaches hundred percent. After this maximum level is reached it should be left to the people to decide whether the speech was in good or bad faith.

Is Sting Operation An Invasion To Privacy?

“We are free but still bound by chains.”

Can this be a valid argument in the present context? We are definitely free with no physical barriers. But it would not be incorrect to say that a man is bound by many constraints. These constraints could be emotional, financial, ideological, psychological etc. But where does an invasion to individual’s privacy fit within these constraints? It would be very valid argument to place that an infringement in privacy would create all sorts of constraints for an individual. With this background, let’s delve upon the issue whether sting operation is an invasion to privacy or not?

This debate has been going on since long, but it took fast pace since last three to four years. It took the tide when CIA was alleged for doing surveillance of communication systems of various heads of Nations. And in the recent past, with the growing instances of corruption, governments have come out with various sting techniques to get catch hold of culprits or suspects. Technology has also played its part. With the growing Internet traffic and its misuse, e-Surveillance is being done by various state agencies. The issue is whether doing sting is legal or illegal. And if it is legal, to what extent and by what means? What would be its implications on an individual’s privacy? These are some of the questions we would be trying to answer in subsequent parts of the essay. It would be very imperative to start with “Sting Operation” and then moving to the issue of “Privacy”. And finally looking on the relationship between the two and its implications.

Sting Operations can be definitely said to be the measures taken to protect or prevent something unethical and adversarial, provided it being bonafide. The concerned party on which the sting is done does not possess any knowledge that he is being watched upon. Sting operations may be lawful or unlawful. Issue is to what extent sting operation being is done? In India, it has been justified to an extent to prevent corruption, evading terrorism etc. Due to growing instances of collusive and cohesive corruption, terrorist activities, communal violence, hate speech, overthrowing of legitimate government, States have become bound to do surveillance to check unlawful activities. Sting could be done by various methods. It could be telephone tapping, Internet traffic surveillance or by physical means. “Physical means” could include voice & video recording and catching red-hand. In India, NETRA and CMS are two of the many techniques used by the State to do surveillance. Certainly the issue of Privacy comes to picture while judging the legitimacy of a Sting operation.

Everybody is born free and by virtue of his “Being”, he has some immutable rights. And Privacy is one of them. Everybody has inherent right to enjoy privacy which has been accorded to him. When sting operation is done, whatever may be the purpose “Right to Privacy” is being infringed upon. If he is informed or warned beforehand about the surveillance, he would become conscious regarding it. And to an extent, the potential adversarial condition or activity might be avoided. When somebody knows that he is being watched, he would restrain from doing unlawful activities like terrorism, corruption etc.

Our Constitution also guarantees “Right to Privacy”. Though it has not been explicitly mentioned in the text, it has been accorded the status of a Right by various interpretations of Article 21 of Indian Constitution by Supreme Court. But it is not a right in absolute sense. It has various exceptions associated with it such as “in the interest of national security, sovereignty of the country etc. where it could be curtailed. So it becomes “Categorical Imperative” for the State to protect the Nation from all sorts of contingencies or bad situations. By this virtue, conducting surveillance and sting operations comes within the very ambit of larger public interest. Taking history as a clue, spies were deployed for gathering intelligence during the time of Chandragupta Maurya under the guidance of Kautilya. But those were the times of autocracy. Today the situation has changed upside down. We are living in the world of democracy and era of “Rights by virtue of being”. Individual is supreme. His supremacy is maintained by valuable respect for his rights.

If the stings are conducted for the larger interest of the Nation and public welfare, it has to be done under the ambit of law. It would be unlawful if done extra-constitutionally. It would also be unethical and not moral, if conducted without the consent of citizens. And on the other extreme, if citizens are informed about conduction of surveillance (each and every time it is being done), whole purpose would be lost. So, one of the alternatives could be that to bring sting operation and surveillance within legal boundaries. Agency conducting sting operations should be accountable to the Parliament. Misuse or improper use should be checked. If misused, consequent legal proceedings should be done for the violation of rights.