Since I plan to write about freedom of expression today, I am afraid I must be very careful. That in a nutshell is the comic contradiction that mocks speakers, writers, thinkers, artistes, nay, virtually anyone who feels the urge to correct, convince or simply convey something. It looks, free speech will have to slowly seek sanctuary in the suffocating space ‘between the lines’ or worse, get exiled to the oblivion of words unsaid.
No doubt public utterances need a check. Scriptures, savants and statutes, all advise, as a societal virtue, a human courtesy or a reasonable restriction respectively, a certain degree of caution. Still, the broad consensus is curbs can only be self-imposed, not super-imposed, and one must be ready for the consequences, legal or otherwise, of one’s words. But sadly, this ‘speaker beware’ syndrome that was an elemental precaution has now become an epidemic, overturning the scales from within.
Educated, self-imposed restraint has morphed into ignominious self-censorship, for fear of dangerous recriminations. It is easy to say that many had it coming, but even so, it is a sad state of affairs. It does not concern just some sophisticated literati or motivated mischief mongers. Expression too is a nature’s call that beckons all and sundry. It is quite unhealthy to have a constipated mind that is unable to let, er, vent out thoughts spontaneously. And unlike the ‘other call’, this one grants relief only if made in the open!
Those open spaces have zoomed and the manner of expression have changed dramatically in the last decade across all media. With a natural effect on manners too. There is a lot of stink being raised but that is the point. Restraint on free speech is not only unfair but untenable what with the raging tech driven info explosion already out of control. More misplaced is the anger against print which has fallen behind the virtual in the slander race. Sure, offensive material in black and white on paper still have longer shelf life and a greater recall potential, unlike the ephemeral visuals of a TV or the disposable lines on www. But this is offset by the instant insult impact that these new fangled outlets offer. The hit-and-run option in them is a huge attraction. If I wished to throw abundant slush on someone, I would allot the bulk for social media, retaining just a little for paper, for the record.
The reigning reality too cannot be ignored. Public debates are trades in counter-points, not points. The answer to an accusation is invariably a return-accusation, rarely an explanation. Mud is perfect legal tender in arguments, from politics to academia. With loony loose cannons going off at random or snooty primetime anchors cutting loose at will, fairplay has no field of play. Given a scam-ridden scenario and a sensation seeking-mindset, nothing sells like sleazy semantics. Fact and farce are firm friends today. Truth is not only stranger but more scandalous than fiction. Many celebrities would rather prefer an off-the-mark falsehood than the truth about them coming out. Free expression can only mirror and mimic these trends.
There is then the sheer impossibility of deciding what will hurt whom. This was the case in small measure. But sensitivities appear to have inflated quite a lot of late. Touchiness is suddenly a national disease. There are no good sports even in sports. Lost is the innocent humour of even a decade back when personal, caste, regional and religious puns, in reel and real, passed muster with just a smile as response. Today there are belief systems that treat even banal banter as blasphemy and one has to brave bullets, bombs and even beheadings. And worse there are those who deem physical elimination as a fair reward for verbal violence. Such is their ‘sword for word’ world view! With the Darwinian rule of survival of the fittest fitting religion ironically, small wonder competitive intolerance is spiking.
In an irreverent multi-media milieu free speech can only be absolute, like it or not. The unguided missile has long left its launchpad; it will hurt all in its wake and also backfire. Provocations cannot be shackled but protests need to be.
So it looks that one has no option but to ignore. Mouths can shout or shut up; but the Maker made no such provision for the ear. In fact, He has made it worse by giving us a pair.
Or is it that He wanted us to hear more, listen more and learn more?
e-mail the writer at [email protected]