[Reader-list] Censorship from an (Un)usual Quarter

[Sarang Shidore]

Jeebesh -
 
The idea of free speech may be under attack from all quarters, but to me that makes it imperative that the idea be defended even more energetically. 
 
I agree with you that using pejorative language may not be the most rational way of dissecting and understanding an issue - whether the language is used to characterize acts of the "far right" or the "far left" or whoever. But we are still left with the basic problem that, all too often, those who claim to speak on behalf of "the people" are themselves attempting to impose an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy may be different from that practiced by the state, but it is an orthodoxy nevertheless, and like all orthodoxies demands absolute compliance, or else...
 
History is littered with revolutionary movements that degenerated into mechanisms of coercive conformity. From the Sendero Luminoso in Peru to the Khalistani militants and the PWG in India to the Al-Gama'aiya-Al-Islamiya in Egypt, such movements simply mirror the extreme and repressive actions of the agencies of the state. Surely one can make the argument that in many cases, it is the failure of the state that is at the root of the despair. Still, there is no doubt in my mind that were such entities to come to power, their vision of the new order would not be terribly different from the contorted ideas propagated by those they had displaced. There will be a huge cost in blood and treasure, and the cost is usually paid by "the people". It will not lead us to Nirvana but something much darker.
 
I suppose I am saying that the means are as important as the ends. It is an old argument.
 
Now even if one accepts that free speech is not a derived and ephemeral slogan, but a fundamental human value, then one can still ask the question as to whether there can be limits to free speech. As someone once said, you do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Many societies also have laws against slander and libel that effectively restrict some forms of speech or expression. This is an involved area of debate, and my instinctive answer is - yes, nothing is absolute. However, when in doubt I would rather err on the side of unrestricted expression than the alternative. More later.
 
Sarang

Jeebesh Bagchi <jeebesh at sarai.net> wrote:
On Monday 15 September 2003 05:10 pm, Shuddhabrata Sengupta wrote:
> Dear All on the List,

A few comments from a list member on Shuddha's posting on censorship:

If i get it correct Shuddha's argument are not based on a constitutionalist
understanding of `free speech`. He is against the constitutional limits to
free speech posed by the holy trinity of national security, public order and
public morality. His examples clearly shows that. Then what are his ground
for defense of free speech?

I would think that it is based on ideas of recognition of difference and
human dignity. He will i think agree that a defense of free speech needs to
acknowledge that `votaries of limited speech` are also articulating an
intellectual position and be part of any engagement, and be given the same
recognition and dignity. It is here, that i have a problem in the posting
with virulent and prejorative naming of opponents of `free speech`. This
culture of `naming` to my understanding is not a creative way of arguing for
free speech.

The posting catalouges very accurately all the various `censorship` drives by
various political or social organisations and conglomerates. But, it fails to
go beyond that. All political and social bodies are part of an intense
conflict and contest over control of domains of knowledge, representation,
production and surplus. This contest will accelerate and so will manifest
attacks on `speech`. Can an argument for `free speech` be grounded without
engaging with this control over domains and understanding the dense
architecture of `conditionalities of speech` in society.

Free speech to my mind cannot be understood as a `sui generis` concept that
needs to be conformed to. It is an practice and an idea that evolved over a
long and tortuous passsage of time. The survival chance of this idea is very
slim given the rise of survalliance societies, national security states and
intellectual property regimes. As an idea, it can only be cultivated through
practice and building creative resources to ground in a rich terrains of
earlier practices. A flame war will not help this process.

Salaam
Jeebesh

-------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
List archive: 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20030917/c7aee5e4/attachment.html