Article 19 (2)

“"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"”

Article 19(2) puts “reasonable” restrictions on Freedom of Speech. This article has been formulated under the assumption that hate speeches that disrupt public order should be banned.

Protecting an individual’s opinion even if it is against the voice of the majority is a cornerstone of a Liberal country. When and how does a speech incite violence? Who has the authority or legitimacy to decide which perspective is right amongst the various contradicting opinions? How does one define the term ‘reasonable? It is important to answer these questions to understand the flaws or benefits of India’s Amendment 1.

If a speaker orders a mob to attack a particular group is it incitement through speech or order through leadership? Is his opinion the problem or the consequence? Article 19(2) doesn’t target this group. It targets a speaker that disagrees with a particular society so blatantly that it might incite a violent response. The blame for a violent response cannot fall on a speaker who states his opinion. A taunt, a comment, a critic can incite violence. Classifying all these under one norm and censoring speech is the same as asking an individual to stop disagreeing with the norms of the society.

The movie PK has led to vandalisms in theatres and protests from Right Wing Hindus. Isn’t it the government’s responsibility to protect the opinion of the individual against these groups? We see people like Taslima Nasreen and Perumal Murugan lose their voice in the face of these groups, especially due to such restrictions in the name of “societal norms.” An individual has the right to disagree with the society. Sati, Caste System, Dowry, and Child Marriage were problems prevalent and accepted in the Indian Society. Reformers, who had the courage to disagree with the majority are the reason from our progress away from these superstitions. To encourage this, people should be allowed to speak with an absolute right to state their opinion.

The argument against removing the restrictions against Freedom of Speech is that in a social structure, one should respect others’ opinions and that no one has the right to hurt anothers’ sentiments. Unfortunately, the people who make these arguments forget that Caste System is still a sentiment for many. The instant we say “Freedom of speech is good but” we become part of the ‘but’ brigade.

How does one differentiate something as subjective as a critic vs insult? Is it right that a majoritarian opinionated government, or an objective court or a group of people called the Certification Board has the right to differentiate between right and wrong opinions? India can call itself a free thinking country only when it allows an individual to express his/her opinion without judging and hurting them for doing so. The freedom speech, accompanied by the right to ignore should be an integral part of the society if we have to move forward.