Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech

if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. “

— On liberty, J. S. Mill

Freedom of speech and expression

freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental human right that encompasses the freedom to express one’s thoughts, ideas, opinions, beliefs, and emotions without censorship, restraint, or fear of punishment from the government or other authorities. It is a cornerstone of many democratic societies and is often enshrined in legal and constitutional frameworks.

Key aspects of freedom of speech and expression include

protection from censorship: freedom of speech protects individuals from government censorship or other forms of suppression. It allows people to express their opinions, even if those opinions are critical of the government or established authorities.

Diversity of ideas: this freedom encourages the exchange of diverse ideas and opinions, which is crucial for the development of a vibrant and informed society. It allows for healthy debate and the potential for social progress.

Individual autonomy: it recognizes the autonomy of individuals to make their own choices about what to say or express, as long as it does not incite violence, pose an immediate threat to public safety, or violate other established limits on free speech.

Freedom of the press: freedom of speech extends to the press, allowing journalists to report on and investigate issues of public interest without fear of government interference or censorship.

Artistic expression: it protects the right of artists, writers, musicians, and other creators to express themselves through their work, even if their creations challenge societal norms or provoke controversy.

However, it’s important to note that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and may have limitations in certain situations. Some common limitations include:

incitement to violence: speech that directly incites or encourages violence or illegal activities is not protected under freedom of speech.

Hate speech: many democratic societies place limits on hate speech, which promotes discrimination, hostility, or violence against individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity, or gender.

Defamation: false statements that harm a person’s reputation can be subject to legal action.

National security: speech that poses a direct threat to national security may be restricted.

Obscenity: extremely explicit or offensive content may be subject to regulation.

What is the importance of free speech and expression

this freedom is considered essential for the functioning of a democratic society. It allows for the exchange of ideas, open debate, criticism of government actions, and the free flow of information. It enables individuals to participate in the political process, make informed decisions, and hold those in power accountable.

Right to freedom of speech and expression under the indian constitution

certain positive rights are conferred by the constitution in order to promote the ideal of liberty held out by the preamble of our constitution. The foremost amongst these are the six fundamental rights in nature of “freedom, ” which are guaranteed to the citizens by the constitution of india [article 19]. These were popularly known as the “seven freedoms” under our constitution. As has already been pointed out in the original constitution, there were seven freedoms in article 19(1), but one of them, namely, ” the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, ” has been omitted by the constitution (44th amendment) act 1978, leaving only six freedoms in this article. They are:

  1. freedom of speech and expression
  2. freedom of assembly
  3. freedom of movement
  4. freedom of residence and settlement
  5. freedom of profession, occupation, trade, or business
  6. limitation of freedom of speech and expressions

our constitution gives us such freedom, but there are also some restrictions imposed. Absolute individual rights cannot be guaranteed by any modern state. The guarantee of each of the above rights is therefore limited by our constitution itself, which confers upon the “state” the power to impose by its laws reasonable restrictions as may be necessary in the greater interest of the community. This is what is meant by saying that the indian constitution attempts “to strike a balance between individual liberty and social control. ” since the goal of our constitutional system is to establish a “welfare state, “.

“state”, in this context, includes not only the legislative authorities of the union and the states but also other local or statutory authorities, e. G. , municipalities, local boards, etc. , within the territory of india or under the control of the government of india. So, all of these authorities may impose restrictions upon the above freedoms, provided such restrictions are reasonable and are relatable to any of the grounds of public interest as specified in clauses 2 to 6 of article 19.

Thus –

the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. But this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state relating to:

  • defamation
  • contempt of court
  • decency or morality
  • security of the state
  • friendly relations with foreign states
  • incitement to an offence
  • public order
  • maintenance of the sovereignty and integrity of India

“decency or morality” is not confined to sexual morality alone. It indicates that the action must be in conformity with the current standards of behaviour or propriety. Hence, seeking votes at an election on the grounds of the candidate’s religion in a secular state is against the norms of decency and propriety of the society.

It is evident that freedom of speech and expression cannot confer upon an individual a licence to commit illegal or immoral acts or to incite others to overthrow the established government by force or unlawful means. No one can exercise his or her right of speech in such a manner as to violate another man’s right.

Principium of freedom of speech and expression

freedom of thought and freedom of speech are correlated. There is no independent existence between these two: free thought and freedom of speech and expression. At present, in the most civilized countries, freedom of speech is taken as a matter of course and seems like a perfectly simple thing. We are so accustomed to it that we look at each as a natural light. But this right has been acquired only in quite recent times, and the way to its attainment has lain through lakes of blood. It has taken centuries to persuade the most enlightened that the liberty to publish one’s opinion and to discuss all questions is a good and not a bad thing.

There’s an old proverb that says, “thought is free. ” a person will always be free to believe anything he wants, as long as he keeps his opinions to himself. The only things that can stop his intellect from operating are the limitations of his experience and the strength of his imagination. However, there is little value in the inherent liberty of private thought. It is insufficient, even if the thinker is deceived himself, if he is not allowed to share his ideas with others and they are manifestly worthless to his neighbours. In addition, it is quite challenging to conceal ideas that possess any influence on the mind. If a man’s thinking leads him to call into question ideas and customs which regulate the behavior of those about him, to reject beliefs which they hold, to see better ways of life than choose they follow, it is almost impossible for him, here he doesn’t if he’s convinced the truth of his own reasoning, not to betray by silence, chance words, or general attitude that he is different from them and does not say their opinions. Some have preferred, like socrates, some have preferred, like to socrates, some would prefer today, to face the death rather than conceal their thoughts. So, freedom of thought, in any valuable sense, includes freedom of speech.

Closing remarks

it is in the best interest of human society and civilization as a whole to promote and protect people’s right to think and speak freely, both on an individual and a societal level. J. S. Mill, a well-known philosopher, has argued persuasively for the right to free speech. Mill’s argues that every idea should be stated for the sake of truth, whatever the value it holds. There might be three possible outcomes. There is merit to the opposing viewpoint in the first scenario. Hence, the widely held belief is unfounded. Dissenting opinion may then correct the mainstream perspective and save human civilization from the delusion. Second, the opposing view might be wrong, making the prevailing perspective the correct one. This incorrect viewpoint must nevertheless be spoken so that the reality of the prevailing viewpoint may stand out and be validated against it. Last but not least, the opposing viewpoint could be partially right and partially wrong. If this is the case, the prevailing opinion is likewise only partly correct. If the dissent perspective is silenced, then people will have to make do with just half the truth.

The current era of technical advancement has exacerbated the complexity of the problems at hand. In the contemporary era characterised by advancements in science, technology, and communication, many digital platforms have emerged as mediums for the articulation of unrestricted intellectual expression. Ensuring the preservation of freedom inside this virtual realm is equally vital. Nevertheless, it is important to note that no freedoms exist in isolation. Responsibility must always be exercised. In contemporary times, the use of digital and social media platforms has the potential to be exploited for the dissemination of false information and the promotion of hateful speech under the pretext of exercising freedom of expression. This the burden of responsibility grows exponentially.

References

Basu, Gurga Das. (2002), Introduction to the Constitution of India, Wadhwa Nagpur

Mill, J. S.( 1954), On Liberty, Oxford University Press

Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India, AIR, 2020, SC 1308

1 thought on “Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech”

Leave a Comment