NEW! SSC CGL Notes | CGL Papers PDF
(Sample Material) SSC CGL (Tier -3) Study Kit "Essay - “Freedom of Speech"
Sample Materials of SSC CGL (Tier -3) Study Kit
Subject: Essay
Topic: Freedom of Speech
The constitution of India grants six types of Fundamental Rights to Indian citizens. These are defined as basic human freedoms which every Indian citizen has the right to enjoy for the proper development of his personality. The Right to Freedom of Speech is recognised as a Right to Freedom under Article 19-22 of our Constitution. Freedom of speech is freedom to speak without censorship or limitation. But in practice the right to freedom of speech is not absolute, it has some limitations also. It is recognised as a Human Right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Actually the right to freedom of expression is synonymous with the Right to Freedom of Speech. Freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech, but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information relating to ideas, regardless of the medium used.
THE first cry of a new-born infant is an expression of its response to the outside world. The desire to express one is a corollary to the human capacity for feeling, imagination and thought. The need to give vent to our ideas and feelings is at times so great that we have no hesitation in talking to ourselves, when alone. The consideration of the rights and wrongs of free expression, however, arise only when such expression takes the form of communication-between individuals or among groups. Communication of ideas has been basic to the very development of society and civilization. Exchange of thoughts contributes to the growth of an individual’s personality even as it helps him or her to understand the world around and the society of which he or she is a part, and, perhaps, contribute a little to that society. However, complete freedom of expression has never been entertained in any society; indeed, it is doubtful if it could ever be countenanced given the imperfect nature of human beings.
After India got independence, the fundamental rights were included in the Constitution by the Drafting Committee. The writers of the Constitution regarded democracy of no avail if civil liberties, like freedom of speech and religion were not recognised and protected by the State. According to them, democracy is, in essence, a government by opinion and therefore, the means of formulating public opinion should be secured to the people of a democratic nation. For this purpose, our Constitution guaranteed to all citizens of India the freedom of speech and expression in the form of the Fundamental Rights.
Freedom of Speech is the most precious gift of democracy. This concept had emerged gradually during the European Enlightenment. England’s Bill of Right (1689) granted ‘Freedom of Speech in Parliament’. This concept is also inspired by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789. In India, the Rowlatt Act in 1919 gave extensive powers to the British government and the police. They were allowed to control individual rights and freedoms like restrictions on public gatherings, censorship of media and publications, etc. The public opposition to this act eventually led to non-violent Civil Disobedience movement throughout the country under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The main demands of this movement were guaranteed civil freedoms and limitations on British government powers.
Buy Printed Study Kit for SSC CGL (Tier -3) Examination
Freedom of expression relates to two forms of communication: purveying of information which is a major function of the media, and the creative aspect which involves the expression of an individual’s imagination or ideas. There is no doubt that free flow of information helps entire nations to progress, and this relates specially to scientific and economic matters. In a democracy, a vigilant press is considered to be an effective watchdog of political behaviour: it plays an important role in both building up and disseminating public opinion. And if a government has national and social interest at all, it wit: be glad to get a true feedback on its policies and their implementation.
Freedom of Speech is a powerful instrument for all civilised and democratic nations of the world. In democracy, freedom of speech mainly means freedom of the press. The phrase ‘freedom of the press’ has not been used in Article 19 of our Constitution but freedom of expression includes freedom of the press. By the press we mean all the media of mass communication. Free press generally means the right to publish, the right to confidentiality of sources, and the right to access. Not only is the press an integral part of the freedom of speech, but it is a part of a system of social control whereby relationships between individuals and institutions are adjusted. The press has the power to monitor all the important social institutions of society like family, religion, polity, law, etc.
Nowadays we are living in a world dominated-by the mass media. It is increasingly occupying the central stage in our lives. It acts as an effective catalyst of the changes in our society. The newspaper is a mirror of the times and has become an integral part of our life. The press in India has a very high tradition. Many newspapers like Balgangadhar Tilak’s Kesari and Maratha, Gandhiji’s Harijan, etc. roused the wave of nationalism in our country. The Indian press played a very crucial role during the freedom struggle. Today also press plays a very important role in our society. It serves the society by highlighting the crimes, nepotism and corruption in our country. It acts like a link between the people and the Government. It is the duty of the press to convey the grievances of the people. It is often seen that sometimes people do complain that the press is partial and not patriotic. The editorials of the newspapers, news coverages on the Television channels are often not objective and impartial, but coloured and motivated. Actually the media is controlled and owned by media barons, corporate giants, industrial houses, etc. Often the media lords use the power of the media to promote their own interest. The media men try to please their patrons and thus their coverages become biased and motivated. Common people think that their grievances and interests are ignored. The electronic media, like the Television and the Radio also plays an important role. Sometimes ago the radio lost its popularity, but now it has regained it. The power of the visual media, i.e., the Television is immense. The Television coverage of an incident can instantly mould public opinion. It can reach every nook and cranny of the globe to cover the extraordinary events like scenes of war, terrorist attacks, violence, natural calamities, sports events, etc. To cover all these, the journalists and the photographers sometimes put their lives at stake. A free press can help to remove the evils of the society, like poverty, social inequality, child marriage, child labour, dowry, insecurity of women, criminalization of politics, etc. A free press can help the society by criticising the corrupt politicians and government officials. Thus press can play the role of a watchdog of our society. Often media does much harm to international relations due to its biased coverage.
The free press has played a very significant role in our democracy. Several newspapers came up with blank editorial pages at the time of emergency declared by the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. It was an unfortunate time, when the fundamental freedom of the press was curtailed. All the political activities of non-Congress political parties were banned and no newspaper was allowed to report the factual position. Organisations for protection of human rights have been set up in many countries. In India, many Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are engaged in spreading awareness of civil liberties and empowerment of women and other weaker sections of the society.
Freedom of Speech is essential for our society. Without it, our literature, science, art, and music cannot flourish. If there is no Freedom of Speech, how can an epic be written or an invention be recognised ? Freedom of Speech is necessary for the development of our civilization. It has great value for both the individual and society. Here arises the question of social responsibility. The individual should realise that he cannot publish anything that he desires. The Right to Freedom of Speech is not absolute. It is bounded by our social duty and moral obligation.
In the presentation of information, however, bias can enter-political, racial or social. The opinion of the controlling authority, be it the government or a private party, often colours even what goes by the name of ‘news’. The question of media censorship of material which criticises the controlling authority or that which does not agree with the declared ‘editorial policy’ is part of the complex issue of media autonomy and editorial prerogative. But broadly speaking the freedom of expression is not an absolute freedom anywhere in the world. Our own Constitution puts “reasonable restrictions” on it in the interests of “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state. friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”. A pretty long list of restrictions, one would say, and yet it has not been able to quite define the boundaries; the controversy over free expression rages as furiously as ever.
No sane person would disagree if one requires freedom of expression to stop short of abusing or maligning any person or community. However, it is not quite so easy to set limits on freedom of expression in so far as it conveys subjective ideas, thoughts and views. One’s thoughts are free-at least one hopes so-but can all one’s thoughts be expressed freely? If one has ideas greatly in variance with what society believes in and cherishes, there is bound to be a conflict between the individual and society. Most people like a smooth routine and cling to old beliefs: it gives them a sense of security; they look with suspicion on anything that might cause a change. And yet change is essential for a society to be dynamic, if it is not to stagnate and be fossilised. It takes a brave individual to speak outpour fresh ideas and views uncaring of consequences on a personal level. Ironically enough, religion which today is made an excuse to curb free speech has progressed mainly because individuals have, from time to time, questioned existing norms and tenets. The Buddha, Mahavira, Christ, Prophet Mohammad, Martin Luther, Sankara, Ramanuja, Nanak-all dared to express ideas which were at variance with the then widely prevalent beliefs, and either reformed religion or set up new sects. But their distinguishing trait was that they had something positive to offer, and did not merely indulge in destructive criticism of existent beliefs.
Generally, liberal and progressive opinion all over the world is against attacks on freedom of expression, especially artistic expression. It is averred that a prudish establishment can hardly be expected to be an arbitrator on art and obscenity. Very few people quarrel with the idea that crude vulgarity and unwonted or pointless violence should not find a place in creative work. However, when artistic expression appears to conflict with conventional morality, liberal thinkers would want informed critical opinion from respected persons in the arts to guide the restrictions or any censorship. On the whole, people should be free to see a film or read a book and arrive at their own opinion. By the same yardstick, an artist has a right to express his or her viewpoint which has its own validity.
If authorities bowed to the wishes of each and every group to ban this or that work because it hurt some susceptibility or other, there would come a time when little artistic work would be produced, and that little would be insipid and not worth reading or viewing. Of course, every individual or group has a right to protest if it feels injured, and it would be within its rights to insist that its views too be aired in a suitable media. But it is wrong to insist that its views alone should be given importance and anything opposing it should not be expressed.
In the debate over free expression and restrictions over it, the champions of freedom tend to be seen as ‘broadminded’; the other side is supposed to be full for prudes and bigots. However, let us not forget that a bigot is anyone who clings to the idea that his or her group alone can be the arbiter of taste or decide what is right and what is wrong. Today, we have bigots on both sides-those who champion the cause of absolute free expression under any and every circumstance irrespective of the audience or its likely impact and those who are equally rigid in the view that nobody has a right to question what is held sacred by the ‘believers’. Both sides seem to think that they alone know the answers, and that these are valid for everyone, everywhere and for all times. What we see today is a sharp polarisation of attitudes on any issue, each side fiercely attacking the other as wholly wrong and showing supreme intolerance for any view but its own. There is no place for a viewpoint that is neither uncompromisingly for nor uncompromisingly against an issue. Things are viewed as pure black or pure white, and no place is left for grey where even if opposing views do not exactly meet, they could at least talk to each other.
A call for a liberal outlook is not to be confused with licence to legitimise any and every point of view-one must guard against fascism and racial and communal ideals on which compromise must be avoided. But even if we cherish certain ideas, and some things are basic to our identity, should we simply be debarred from questioning them? We may love and cherish our parents and friends, but in case they quarrel with others, would it be wrong to want to hear the other’s point of view? It need not mean condemning our parents or friends. Similarly, we can raise questions about the limits of concepts like secularism and democracy even while not invalidating them. But when we raise those questions, need the language and tone be acrimonious-the language of combat, rude and offensive?
The rights and wrongs of free expression are not absolute; what may be right today, or wrong, may not be the same tomorrow. Perspectives change, social values change; free expression of ideas can change those values, and one can only hope the change is for the better.
