Truth to tell, there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any society that values its morals, traditions, culture
The Ranveer Allahbadia issue has triggered a debate on the need for regulation of digital content even as the person’s distasteful comments as a guest on a television show has tested the limits of free speech in this age of social media where supervision over a limitless medium has become a nearly impossible task.
Truth to tell, there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any society that values its morals, traditions, culture. What society stresses even in an age of modernity is the need for disciplined behaviour in appearance, clothing, speech and the dissemination of ideas in the public space because untrammelled free speech could be provocatively offensive to others.
The top court’s robust condemnation of the views expressed by the person as well as a comedian who took part in the same show and its views on the parameters of obscenity rang a clear warning on where society is being led by people who are deemed to be popular on social media.
The bounds of decency were clearly breached, and it is up to the court to define how those who transgressed will pay for such flagrant violation of what is deemed to be decent in normal sections of society. However, it is also true that selective action against free speech in the public domain cannot be allowed to prevail.
For instance, any comment aimed at a politician in power has been known to be taken as an offence and the purveyors of such opinions are severely dealt with, including in arrests under various sections of the law. The same politicians speak up for free speech when their opponents become the targets of such calumny or satire.
The outrage expressed against the taking down of a cartoon featuring the Prime Minister in chains seated next to Donald Trump was fine, but that it came from sections of politicians known to clamp down on any similar disdain relating to them made the double standard obvious.
It is time India defined the extent of free speech allowed in its society. And, more importantly, the licence to speak while paying scant regard to the sensibilities of others must be curbed, particularly in the social media that is largely unregulated and where avowed content moderation is a joke that large tech companies play on the public.
Freedom of speech is essential, but it should go with the responsibility to respect societal norms and values, keeping the balance between individual expression and the collective well-being of society. To define its limits is a challenge the top court must take up now.
