In many parts of the world; to be a liberal is to say that freedom of expression is not an absolute right to be abused and pushed to its limits.
In India, it is often moderate and liberal constituencies who have pushed for tighter regulations to control freedom of expression. This is in the face of Hindu and Muslim extremists who regularly practice hate speech and incitement against those who don’t think in the same way. This goes as far as death threats and calls for attacks against religious opponents.
Unexpectedly; the “free speech libertarians” in India are those on the Hindu extreme right. Meanwhile it is the artists, writers and intellectuals who are calling for legal measures to limit absolute freedom of expression; precisely so these extremists are not free to persecute the cultural domain and curtail the creativity and freedoms of others.
The paradoxical truth of freedom of expression is that in its unlimited and uncontrolled form, it becomes a tool for curtailing the freedoms and personal safety of others.
Those journalists in Western Europe who argue for absolute freedom of expression are little aware how lucky they are that they are not forced into self-censorship, to avoid arousing the anger of vicious extremists who are vigorously exercising their freedom of expression.
This is a dilemma familiar to liberals in the Arab and Islamic world: Artists, writers and thinkers find themselves targeted by religious extremists who capitalize on their unlimited freedoms to spread hatred and intolerance.
The situation became far worse in recent years with the growth of sectarian tensions across the Arab world. You only have to spend a few minutes in certain corners of the Arabic social media to find Shia being routinely demonized as “Infidel dogs and monkeys”; with similar language being used against Sunnis and other sects.
It is not unusual to hear similarly outrageous language being used from Mosque podiums; and thus it is not surprising we have reached a point where extremists somehow feel they are fulfilling a religious duty to stage murderous bomb attacks against opposing sects in Iraq and Syria.
Those who are using the foulest of language against another religious group may not be committing an act of violence; but they create an atmosphere where violence may be condoned and acceptable against those targets.
In Iran, a reformist newspaper, Aseman, recently published comments by an academic describing eye-for-an-eye Islamic punishment as “inhumane”. There was an inevitable outcry from thugs and hardliners, who said that the newspaper was un-Islamic and “polluting peoples’ minds”. So the newspaper was forced to close. Freedom of expression was entirely on the side of the extremist rabble-rousers and those issuing death threats against the newspaper’s owners.
In Bahrain, measures have been taken against both Sunni and Shia preachers for attacking the other sect. It is good that the authorities are willing to take action, but at the same time this is a very difficult and controversial area: How and when to take action against those using different forms of hate speech?
Freedom of expression shouldn’t be curtailed for political purposes and independent legal channels should ensure that any limits on freedom of expression are only in place to protect the public and ensure that such freedoms aren’t a means for the strong to attack the weak.
In conclusion: It is important to recognize that not everybody who claims the right of freedom of expression is exercising this right for valid reasons. This freedom cannot be used to abuse other people’s freedoms and nobody wants to live in a society where there is a de facto freedom to incite violence and hatred.
To quote the philosopher of liberty, John Stuart Mill; “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. Likewise; the only justification for curtailing freedoms, is to protect the freedoms of others.