Who decides the fine line between absolute and relative freedom of expression?
Moving the discussion further on Pragmatics between moral police and one’s freedom of expression ,my friend Indyeah has a great post,a well thought and well put post on Freedom.. She makes her point clear- in the case of MF Hussain paintings and Rushdie’s Book
Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order, security of State, decency or morality.The government restricts these freedoms in the interest of the independence, sovereignty and integrity of India. In the interest of morality and public order, the government can also impose restrictions.
Agreed.I agree completely.. Then she refers to the case of pub attack ..
It is the equivalent of barging into an artist’s house ,his/her personal space ,tear a painting off the wall of his home ,claim that it offends and then proceed to beat up the artist. Now these men could have registered their protest by filing an FIR ,perhaps citing obscenity and god knows what else,(as others like them hounded Khushboo)but they infringed upon the personal freedom of these girls ,the moment they laid a hand on these girls.
WHEN I SAY FREEDOM SHOULD HAVE BOUNDARIES I AM TALKING OF SELF IMPOSED BOUNDARIES AND CULTIVATION OF A SENSITIVITY.
I have no second opinion in all she said..But I have some doubts on how and who will define the boundaries..Afterall,we don’t live in an ideal utopian society where people behave well.. Sharing my comments on her space.
I agree with all thoughts on putting restristion so that society moves forward in a good way.But what about work of Taslim,Lajja,and a book(forgot its name) based on inside stories of women abuse in Saudi kingdom .Both of these were banned,in the name of hurting sentiments of both nationalists and religious people.Now that both these books have lot of truth inside them,should they be banned,simply for the sake of satisfying my ego?? Now,who sets limits here? Secondly,when you talk about Sri RS,you said that it is fight against human rights,one’s persoanl space.
This is crazy discussion,but there is no such thing as absolute personal space.We don’t live in isolation,but move collectively in what we call society.Am i right to worng? Now that we live in a society, don’t we have the responsibility, like what you said -freedom with responsibility,so that we don’t misuse our personal freedom. As like the example you said about religion,the same logic holds true here too..Drunk people have no control over mind and body,and they make problems not only to themselves,but also to people around,don’t they? A drunk husband is excercising his freedom of expression,is he? He has the right to use his personal space,and as a human,he has the right to get drunk..But when he comes home and beats his wife,has his alchocolism affected another person’s personal space?We are not living in Utopia where one gets drunk and still ahve full control over mind and body.
Now we say ‘Drink in limits’..Who sets limits here?? You and me (i said so bcoz your thoughts are exactly mine)contradict each other in two instances-but you justify one as responsible expression,other as human right,but is there really a difference between both? Now you ask me what my stand is,lol,i don’t know..I am confused… I appreciate and i loved your post..you have written exactly my thoughts..But as i said,there is some contradiction in our thoughts.. My head is burning and expelling fumes 😦
In no way am i against pubs or any sort of recreation..I am against stereotyping pubs as Bars where people come to drink alone and engae in immoral activities alone.. But the problem here is,as per a report in TOI,the legal age to go to a pub is 25(assuming that people grow mature by 25),but currently,60% of pub goers are below 25..Now one may argue that we have the freedom of right,ever since we are born into this world…But what should be done when minors go to pubs?Do they have the maturity to make choices,responsible choices? So now,who makes choices for them?When parents do it,obviously by preventing them from going to pubs,are they infringing kid’s personal space and human rights?? the more we talk of this,the more complicated it is,…
Many days back,we had a news on police raiding and arreesting many boys and girls from a luxury pub,i thik Shakti kapoor’s son was invloved,and later it was found that most of them were using drugs..Nevermind,but why didn’t anybody come out in support of those boys and girls for excercising their freedom of personal space and human right to enjoy..
We can see lot of contradictions around dear.For instance, the name barber in Billu barber is seemed offensive by some people ,and SRK has removed it from the title..Now tell me how justified is that..Shall i call barbers, hair-cutting specialist?or cutters? In my thought,the end point is what Charakan said, if we start setting limits,everbody will push their agendas into the system,and finally freedom will be in Guantanamo jail..
My thoughts aren’t organized..I am just thinking aloud..Do correct me if i am wrong..
Edited to add :
It is indeed hypocritical to say that protests against Danish cartoons are justified on the basis of ‘sentiments’ where as protest against Hussain’s cartoons is termed ‘right-wing extremism’..Both are the same.Period.
bottom line is the same as Charakn said -People are insecure about their faith and morality,so they want others to keep mouth shut,no matter how good or worse their beliefs are..Strange and sad that in most cases,we sing along their tunes…Can there be a change ?Can we stop from moral policing others,for our inferioirty complex sake?
THANKS TO IHM FOR POINTING OUT THE SPELLING MISTAKE IN TITLE..Bad careless me 😦