Defending the indefensible

The First Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In one sentence lie most of the rights a liberal state accords to its citizens. Freedom of speech has been particularly strongly respected in the US. Two recent happenings illustrate this high protection.

The Economist reported this week upon the Senate by-election in Missouri ("Congress shall make no law..."). One of the fringe (really fringe - he polled 23 votes in a previous run for Congress) candidates has been broadcasting nauseating hate speech (e.g., “Jews control the media”) on radio. Since he is a candidate for public office, all his tirades are considered political speech and granted complete protection under the First Amendment. Radio stations have to accept his adverts and cannot censor them.

The NY Times reported the US Supreme Court's decision today to declare unconstitutional a federal law banning the sale of videos depicting cruelty to animals ("Justices Void Law Banning Videos of Animal Cruelty"). The videos in this particular case were dogfighting videos depicting dogs being forced to fight each other. Other horrors meant to be prohibited from sale under this law include depraved allegedly sexually arousing movies called crush videos, depicting women inflicting pain upon and even killing various creatures with their bare feet or high heels. The Court held however, in a 8-1 verdict, that the law was too sweeping and ran afoul of the First Amendment.

I find myself agreeing with the outcomes, howsoever depressing, in both cases. Freedom of expression is too important and too valuable to sacrifice in the name of preventing useless junk (India TV) or personally repugnant and abhorrent behaviour (hate speech - unless it is immediately inciting criminal behaviour). In the case of the dogfighting of course, the actual practice remains banned, and there is a good possibility of a much more restricted and specific law passing muster.

I think that India has not protected freedom of expression as vigorously as we should have. The merest threat of adverse social reaction leads to books being banned ("Satanic Verses", Lane's book about Shivaji), movies not being screened ("Fire") and people being harassed (Actress Khusboo's remarks about pre-marital sex lead to 22 cases being filed against her, being dismissed by the SC only 5 years later).  Hopefully, as the years pass, the courts and legislatures will strengthen the effectiveness of our equivalent of the First Amendment - Article 19(1)(a).