Freedom of Expression and the Liberal Norm

Freedom of Expression (FoE) is often seen as a crucial component of liberal democracies. However, the application and protection of FoE face numerous challenges.

Complications in the Path to Freedom of Expression

• States and societies frequently devise methods to undermine the liberal norm of FoE.
• Anti-liberals exploit the norm for their own purposes, questioning its legitimacy and effectiveness.
• The inconsistency in upholding FoE in India is evident, as illustrated by two recent incidents involving Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.
• India’s democratic journey, while proud of its credentials, is marked by complexities surrounding FoE.

Myths Surrounding Freedom of Expression in India

Three major myths complicate India's progress toward a robust FoE framework:

• Myth 1: The State as a Guarantor of FoE
  • The belief that the state can fairly regulate FoE is flawed.
  • Legal instruments have more often restricted rather than protected FoE over the past decades.
  • Legislative history, starting with the First Amendment, shows numerous excuses for limiting free speech under the guise of national interest, defamation, and community conflict.
• Myth 2: Safeguards Against FoE Attacks
  • Protection measures for FoE are inadequate, leaving the state as the sole judge of acceptable speech.
  • Political entities in power justify restrictions, while those in opposition advocate for FoE.
  • Confusion prevails over legal interpretations and consequences of FoE transgressions.
• Myth 3: Misappropriation of the Liberal Norm
  • Some exploit FoE to spread hate speech, challenging the boundaries of the liberal norm.
  • Claims arise that any speech, however vulgar, should be protected as criticism under FoE.

The Core Question of Democracy and FoE

India's current crisis extends beyond legal issues to question whether FoE is essential for democracy itself:

• Democracy is increasingly viewed through electoral processes rather than broader democratic principles.
• Vital components like constitutional supremacy and public reasoning are overshadowed.
• Framing FoE within democratic discourse, rather than technical legal terms, is crucial for preserving its role and the liberal norm.

In conclusion, the debate around FoE must be engaged in terms of its relationship with democracy, ensuring that it supports democratic principles and is not overshadowed by technicalities.