Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

Every citizen of India has been bestowed with the right to freedom of speech and expression. It is the principle that supports the liberty of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. This has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. In actuality, it is indicative that we are free to express ourselves properly and freely while keeping in mind the integrity of people and society. However in this 21st-century of modern lifestyle with woke mentality at its peak, we as citizens generally tend to forget that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in a secular state such as India is not an absolute license to injure and hurt the feelings and faiths and beliefs of other fellow citizens. This ignorance and forgetfulness allow HATE which is omnipresent in our society to creep into our day-to-day life giving rise to hate speech which carries no explicit meaning other than the expression of hatred, animosity or disparagement for an individual or a group of people on the basis of  their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic different from the majority. It causes undue fear, coercion and verbal repression in certain targeted groups which ultimately refrains them from expressing themselves freely and leads to their withdrawal from public debate. Their right to freedom of speech thus remains unexercised due to some spheres of society misusing this particular right itself. Hate speech not only harms the individuals or groups targeted but also undermines the very foundations of a democratic society. It can divide communities and erode social cohesion, leading to polarization and extremism. Also with the wide-ranging and growing popularity of the internet, the rate of hate speech and hate crime has increased exponentially. It is said that words spoken always have consequences and the things said online are the product or the commencement of offline chaos. Since geography and time don't affect the internet; anything spoken, written or uploaded there affects a large mass beyond boundaries.

In recent times we have witnessed how under the garb of exercising the right to speak freely politicians and influencers have spewed venomous and negatively provocative comments on the internet and on international platforms which in due course have led to mass-scale violence, mayhem and uproar. There was a surge in anti-Muslim attacks in the United Kingdom after the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson called women in burqas bank robbers in a speech made publicly in front of the media. India is still reeling from the aftereffects of the Delhi riots of 2020 which were started by this exact same event mentioned above. Hate speech combined with the internet has become a more potent tool to create widespread unrest than an actual physical incident posing a very complex and kind of ironic problem to freedom of speech and expression as the speech that demeans based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express these hateful thoughts. This causes a clash of ideologies between speaking freely and speaking with empathy and consciousness and also raises a moral question that whether in the name of free speech and expression, all kinds of speech be allowed no matter how vile, offensive or disrespectful they may sound or appear. So to curtail this irony and to present an answer to this particular moral question, The Constitution, under article 19(2) provides for reasonable restrictions against free speech in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or about contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Hate speech constitutes a criminal charge under Section 153A, which is the offence of promoting communal disharmony or feelings of hatred between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. These laws have been a subject of debate since time immemorial and have been termed draconian by left-wing activists as many quarters of the population believe it to be the root cause of the suppression of speech rights. But it is high time now that people comprehend the fact that in the continuation of the fight for freedom of expression in India, we must be careful not to advocate and speak in favour of the other extreme: hate speech. A right to express one’s opinions is one of the precious gifts of democracy but not when it stifles the voices of others, puts them in danger or pushes them to the extremities of their behaviour which is exactly what hate speech does. This country has seen multiple instances of unethical killings of innocents by certain groups of this society who were influenced and pushed to their beast sides beyond any reasoning because of this hate speech. This country is also the witness of various such cases where people who could have transformed an entire situation if they would have just raised their voices, decided to stay shut just to save their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Hate speech is a challenge not only to freedom of speech and expression but also to the right to live as on one hand it risks the very safety of the citizens at the hands of hot-headed and violent individuals whose minds are easily swayed away and manipulated and on the other hand retrenches the speech of all other responsible and cool-headed people who at the prospect of facing dire consequences become too fearful to even raise their voice for genuine and relevant reasons.

Ultimately, the challenge of hate speech requires a sustained and coordinated effort from individuals, organizations, and governments at all levels. By working together to address this issue, we can create a safer, more inclusive, and more tolerant world.

.    .    .

Discus