In a landmark ruling highlighting the contours of freedom of expression, the Supreme Court dismissed the much abused Section 66A of the IT Act which authorized police officers to detain people for social media jobs declared as "offensive" or "threatening ". Freedom of expression is often believed that one of the most important principles of democracy. Everyone has the fundamental right to express opinions. However, a group believes that it is sometimes necessary and justified by the government to restrict freedom of expression. Do you agree?
Yes Support
• The actual character and testing of each act is based on the circumstances in which it is performed. Therefore, it is justified to restrict freedom of expression, when necessary.
• Restrictions on freedom of expression are as stopping a man from engaging in improper activities. Dissemination of false beliefs and offensive ideas through any media creates a danger of hurting others.
• There is always a need to protect minors from exposure to offensive, obscene, or potentially harmful.
• The Government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from internal and foreign enemies. Therefore, freedom of expression can be restricted acceptably during turbulent times in order to avoid problems.
• Speech Acts prompt physical acts. So political controversy, pornography and hate speech are causally related to the uprising, rape and hate crimes and the need to be stopped.
• Freedom of expression is a right, but every right comes with a responsibility. When people want rights but do not want to exercise them responsibly, the government has to take over.
Do Not
• Freedom of expression is not only a law; It is a mechanism that translates into real and tangible benefits for society to allow people to question the orthodox concepts.
• Placing restrictions on freedom of expression "special cases" kill the whole question, because it is exactly those special cases where established and traditional truth needs to be challenged.
• Real science depends for its development in the continuing challenges to the current situation of always imperfect knowledge.
• What potential problems may arise freedom of expression not repressed; that are less than compared to the severity of the problems resulting from the restriction of an individual to free expression.
• The final results may not always justify the measures. The government may well intend to restrict the publication of information that might be detrimental to your success in the upcoming elections, but in the interest of the people to keep informed about their dirty goals or illegal activities.
• Secret in the name of safety outcomes in unrighteousness. Moreover, society regulates itself and any link between the physical acts and speech acts is false.
Conclusion
It is not necessary that people who commit hate crimes have read hate speech, or people who commit sexual offenses have definitely seen pornography. It is essentially the reverse. The debate clearly leads to a slippery note.
It is a matter of regulating speech on matters that are objectively verifiable and another issue of banning the permissible scope of expression and opinion. The line is very thin and in any case, needs to be protected.
S.Ganesh,MBA, Phd
HR , Group Discussion Team !
Get Free Email Updates to your Inbox!