[Reader-list] sedition vs. criticism

[Aarti Sethi]

Dear Kshmendra,

I want to know your philosophical opposition to seditious speech. Not your
pragmatic or strategic opposition. Let me clarify what I mean: You could
argue that seditious speech incites people to commit acts of treason against
the unity and territorial integrity of India. The unity and integrity of
India are good and desirable things, therefore any speech that endangers
these values is dangerous/undesirable and therefore it is a crime. But this
is simply a pragmatic argument, not a philosophical one.

The trouble with this this mode of argument against a certain kind of speech
is that it links it with the achievement of other values, and has nothing to
say about the nature of this speech itself. The problem with this mode is
that is that if it could be established that the achievement of these other
values, say unity and integrity etc, would be served better through the
promotion, rather than restriction, of seditious speech, then how would you
defend your position? So lets not argue on the terrain of strategy or
pragmatic politics...
I want to know why you think it is immoral to question the unity and
integrity of India. As far as I can see the only other legal injunctions
that approach this kind of mystical authority are blasphemy laws in which to
profess that one does not believe is a crime. Therefore, in effect, we are
being asked to take the existence of the nation as a matter of faith. And
like religious belief so awesome and terrifying is its visage that it is
beyond human comprehension, beyond rational discussion, beyond even
imagination. And like with all mystical knowledge, so fragile is its core
that a single question is enough, and therefore that question must never be
allowed to enter the realm of the sayable.

Is this the logic? Otherwise why else is this  specter of sedition so
terrifying?

regards
A



On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Baruk S. Jacob <b_a_r_u_k at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Kshmendra,
>
> Thanks for the bullet point reply. Will try to keep it as coherent, and add
> my replies to each of yours.
>
> > 1. From the Wikipedia page alone,  I would find it difficult to reach
> your kind of generalisation that "Historically it seems most seditions laws
> have been used by governments to silence critics". It may be true though.
>
> ~ The history on the Wikipedia page of how sedition laws have been enforced
>  led me to that conclusion. Australia, for example, where "The new laws,
> inserted into the legislation last December, allow for the criminalization
> of basic expressions of political opposition, including supporting
> resistance to Australian military interventions." It makes me a little
> queasy that any country would require its citizens to support all its
> 'military interventions'. The article goes on to talk of the situations that
> various countries have enforced sedition laws.
>
> > 2. History of a Law being bad or being badly interpreted or having been
> abused does not mean that such a Law should not exist. It only means that we
> should learn from the "History" of such a Law, to try our best to design
> it well and make it insulated from being abused.
>
> ~ I see your point here. I would think, however, that a law that can so
> easily interpreted to suit those in power, AND has a history of abuse and
> misuse, would at the very least have iron tight definitions and clauses
> around it.
>
> > 3. If it is your postion that there should be an open season for citizens
> of a country to indulge in 'sedition' then you and I differ on that.
>
> ~ I don't have a watertight 'position' about the matter. Not yet. This
> discussion is helping me think through, though.
>
> > 4. At least in a Democracy, the Government does not make "Laws". We the
> people make the Law by through our representatives in the Legislatures where
> the Laws are made.
>
> ~ True in principle.
>
> > The Govt only applies the Law. The nature of application/interpretation
> of the Law by the Government is open to challenge.
>
> > 5. What you have called the "modern meaning" is wording (possibly from a
> Sedition Law) Wikipedia says is from the Elizabethean Era (circa 1590). Year
> 1590 is a rather convoluted recognition of "modern". Even so, any Law is
> only as good or bad or loose and open to abuse as it figures today in any
> country and particular to that country only.
>
> ~ Point taken.
>
> > 6. Wikipedia has commented extensively on "sedition" even though all that
> you could see, from some strange reason is a quote of  a definition from
> around 1590:
> > -  Sedition is a term of law which refers to covert conduct, such as
> speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending
> toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes
> subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance)
> to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed
> at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are
> seditious libel.
>
> ~ Do you notice how non-specific phrases such as "tending toward
> insurrection" and "incitement of discontent (or resistance)
> to lawful authority" are?
>
> > 7. There are other critical sentences:
> >
> > -  Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt
> acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code
> to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also
> a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at
> > certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a
> sociological definition of sedition as well, within study of persecution.
> >
> > (do not miss reference to change of definitions at different points of
> history for what constitutes sedition and consequent overviews to protect
> against persecution)
> >
> > -  Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful
> protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by
> democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
>
> ~ In the wikipedia examples given, weren't even a peaceful demonstration
> against a country's war (australia), campaigning against conscription
> (canada), burning a couch (new zealand), advocate the desirability of
> overthrowing the government (US) considered acts of sedition?
>
> > 8. If you continue to see no difference between "sedition" and
> "criticism" then I cannot be of any further help.
>
> ~Thanks for the help you HAVE been!
>
> ~baruk
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>