FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND IT'S IMPORTANCE

 




Some people have misinterpreted the phrase "Freedom of Speech" because they either do not fully understand the meaning of the phrase or have a different agenda in mind. Every democratic country provides this freedom to its citizens. The same is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. As an Indian, you have that freedom regardless of your gender, religion, caste, or creed. This guaranteed fundamental freedom defines a country's democratic values. India is fundamentally made up of the freedom to practise any religion and the freedom to express opinions and opposing viewpoints without hurting feelings or causing violence. Indians are notable for their secularism and commitment to spreading democratic values throughout the world. Thus, to save and celebrate democracy, India must enforce free speech. Freedom of expression is not only a fundamental right; it is also a fundamental duty that every citizen must fulfil to preserve the essence of democracy. We see "free speech" in developed democracies like the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France that differs from authoritarian countries like China, Malaysia, and Syria, as well as failed democratic countries like Pakistan and Rwanda. These governance systems failed due to a lack of freedom of expression. The freedom of the press serves as a yardstick for measuring a country's freedom of expression. Some governments become extremely hostile when confronted with any form of criticism, and they attempt to silence any voices that may oppose them. This becomes a dangerous governance model for any country. For example, India now has over a hundred and thirty crores of people, and we can be certain that no two people will have the same thought process, views, and opinions about the same thing. True democracy is defined by the diversity of opinions and the mutual respect that people have for one another in the policymaking team. Before making a decision, consider all aspects and perspectives on the subject. A good democracy will involve all citizens, supporters and critics alike, before developing a policy, whereas a bad democracy will marginalise its critics and impose authoritarian and unilateral policies on all citizens. During the pre-independence era, sedition law, a British-era law, was used in India to stifle criticism and limit freedom of speech. According to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, if a person's words, whether written or spoken, incite hatred, contempt, or tension towards a government or an individual, he or she can be fined, imprisoned, or both. The right to free expression cannot be absolute. Hatred, tensions, bigotry, and violence cannot be instilled in society in the name of free speech. Allowing freedom of speech in the first place will then be ironically wrong. Freedom of speech and expression should not be used to create chaos and anarchy in a country. When Article 370 was repealed in Kashmir, freedom of expression was stifled. Not that the government was trying to undermine democratic values, but they needed to keep fake news, terrorism, and communal tensions at bay in those areas. Before formulating any policies, a good democracy involves all of the people - all of their supporters and detractors alike. During the pre-independence era, India had the Sedition law, a British-era law used to stifle criticism and limit freedom of speech. According to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, this law of sedition states that if a person's words, whether written or spoken, incite hatred, contempt, or tension towards a government or an individual, he can be fined, imprisoned, or both. People use freedom of speech to spread hatred, unnecessary tensions, bigotry, and some violence in society. Allowing freedom of speech will, ironically, be wrong in such cases. People in our country have the freedom to express themselves, to share their ideas, views, and opinions openly, where the public and the media can express and comment on any political activities and can also express their dissent towards anything they believe is inappropriate. Different countries have different restrictions on free expression. And it is inappropriate to comment on that. Some countries do not allow this fundamental right, such as North Korea, where neither the media nor the public has the right to speak against or even for the government, and openly criticising the government or anyone, in particular, is a punishable offence.



Post a Comment

0 Comments