This conversation highlights critical legal and ethical aspects of free speech in India, particularly in the context of controversial remarks made on digital platforms. The discussion covers:
The Right to Take Offence – Justice Gautam Patel and Dushyant Dave argue that no legal right to take offence exists under Article 19(2).
Instead, restrictions on speech must align with narrowly defined constitutional limitations such as public order, decency, and morality.
Paternalism vs. Free Speech – They emphasize that speech should only be restricted when it poses a clear danger, such as inciting violence, rather than being curtailed based on subjective moral concerns.
Constitutional Morality vs. Public Morality – They distinguish between constitutional morality, which upholds the values of equality and justice, and fluctuating public morality. The law, they argue, should not criminalize speech based on public outrage.
Obscenity and Community Standards – The discussion traces the evolution of obscenity laws in India, from the outdated Hicklin test to the modern "community standards" test, underscoring how perceptions of obscenity change over time.
Targeting of Comedians vs. Hate Speech by Politicians – Both experts criticize the selective application of speech laws, highlighting that politicians making divisive remarks are rarely penalized, while comedians are frequently targeted for satire.
Regulation of Digital Content – They warn against increased censorship through laws like the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, arguing that such measures threaten democracy by restricting dissenting voices.
This conversation underscores the need for a balanced approach—ensuring free speech while addressing genuine threats like hate speech—without allowing legal provisions to be misused for political or moral censorship.
COMMENTS