Every time the issue of free speech comes up, some joker makes a comment saying “What if I were to insult you and abuse you? How would you feel then?” The recent legal troubles of the AIB roast highlight the problem of busybodies in India. Jobless people who get offended on someone else’s behalf even when they haven’t seen or read the work in question. Or worse, who deliberately choose to watch it, knowing that it’s for adults and with full disclosures.
So just to forestall any future questions:
I hereby given anyone and everyone full permission to abuse and insult me in any way they wish. What’s more, you can also defame me, lie about me, and spread whatever rumors you want, insult my family, my ancestors, any god of your choosing, my (never to be born) kids, or whatever.
For all this, I will not hold anyone legally responsible. However, I may respond on my blog, or abuse you back, or rip you to shreds for any bullshit you may spew. But you’ll never see me go crying to the government to protect my “rights”. It doesn’t mean I won’t be offended either. I might be. But you won’t see me filing an FIR. I will respond to words either with silence, or with my own words. Never with violence, or with legal sanctions.
So if you don’t like me, or don’t like what I say, then let loose! Use the worst insults, or abuses you can think of. Want to see how it feels to vent your spleen? Go ahead!
Mind you – I am under no obligation to publish your comments on my personal blog. I can delete your comments for any reason of my choosing, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. But you’re more than welcome to use your own blog or your Facebook account or whatever. Be creative!
This license also applies to any other works of “art”. You can paint me naked, or paint me doing terrible obscene stuff – I don’t care! So if we ever get into an argument about Freedom of Expression, never again ask the question “What if I were to abuse and insult you or your family?”, this blog post will be my answer.
I don’t really see the need to defame or insult you even if you give permission. It’d we don’t like you, we move onto something else. If we don’t like your opinion, we argue against it. Of course, we sometimes go overboard and eventually become hypocrites ourselves. But yeah, everyone is different and not everyone will agree you 100%.
As for the question, I would always defend me and my family, but never stoop so low as to insult or cuss you. That’s just my two cents.
In reply to Jimmy Liu
Hey, just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you have to do it! In my opinion, we only exercise a fraction of the rights we possess. That doesn’t mean however, that those rights are unimportant. Sometimes you need to exercise a right just to make a point.
So yeah – most people will see no need to abuse me, but that’s not the point. For those who do wish to indulge themselves, I give them full permission to do so.
A dog could insult another dog by calling it a ‘human being’. I don’t think there could be any bigger insult for living beings that that.
Agree…as of today being called a human being / species cd b the worst abuse….!!!
As fr the roast have watched the comedy central roast of Charlie sheen and laughed my guts out….and on the same note did watch AIB roast too and was amused…!!! Definitely a pure adults only content…!!! So if any objections…. It shd b to protect the site Frm kidz view…!! Days it…!!
i might say ” Sometimes you dont use your head regarding certain matters and blindly believe and act upon what you are told, “…
Hello Bhagwad,
I am a long time reader of your blog and this is my first comment, if my memory serves me right. I am curious to know your opinion on defamation. Can there be a judicial recourse for defamation, especially since defamation can have tangible financial impact. For example, if a person defames a brand or commodity, and the defamation can be shown up to be based on incorrect facts, do you think it is necessary to have judicial recourse? I do think freedom of speech is absolute. The defamation aspect though is a bit undecided for me. Perhaps it can be treated under the ambit of some other law. I am not sure. Would be interested in knowing your opinion about it.
In reply to Nicnickelby
You’re right, certain types defamation are thorny. Particularly your example of “false statements of fact” – where the slander is not just an opinion, but actual facts misrepresented.
I confess I don’t really know. However, I do that Europe’s defamation laws are absurd and place an undue burden on the defendant, whereas the reverse is true in the US. In the US, the entire burden of proof rests on the plaintiff who has to prove actual malice. Also, it has to be shown that the statements weren’t “fair comment” or against a public figure…for public figures, it’s no holds barred!
Also, it’s up to the plaintiff to prove that certain statements were wrong. For example, if person A says “Person B is corrupt”, then in order to prove libel, Person B has to actively prove they are not corrupt!
With all this, you can see that the US’s libel laws are hardly ever used, and very difficult to wield against anyone. I think this is the best way to go about it.
In reply to bhagwad
I wasn’t aware of the extreme differences in libel/slander laws in Europe as compared to the United States. However, if they are what you mention them to be, I cannot see why you feel that the version practiced in the United States is a better law. In circumstances where person A’s comment is bound to make huge financial/social impact to person B, wouldn’t it be more logical to expect that person A check his facts before making a statement. Person B, while already being burdened by the impact that slander from person has had on him, shouldn’t possibly be also made to now go hunting for evidence to disprove the factually incorrect statements made by person A.
An instance that comes to mind, even though a tangible effect is hard to ascertain, is the case of Subramniam Swamy. It appears that he makes accusations with gay abandon without any consequence whatsoever. Be it in the case of Sonia Gandhi or Shashi Tharoor. Malice is written all over his talk. Now if Shashi Tharoor is to take him to court for libel, Shashi Tharoor would have to prove that he is not guilty of his wife’s murder or that he truly does not know who the murderer is. That is in my opinion akin to asking to prove the non-existence of something. To borrow an oft quoted analogy by Richard Dawkins, the burden of proof of proving that there exists a tea pot circling in space must rest squarely on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. And why should this not be applicable to slander as well? Am I missing something in the reasoning?
In reply to Nicnickelby
Well, the burden of proof argument is only used for scientific arguments. When it comes to something like this, it’s a balancing act between determining which harm is more.
The courts in the US have decided for example, that placing the burden on the person making the comments has the potential to restrict speech disproportionately. The assumption is that public figures will always have accusations thrown at them, and no one takes them seriously.
So personally I think Swamy can say whatever he wants. No one listens to him anyway :)
Ah, that answers my question. The decision that placing the burden of proof on the person making the comments has the potential to restrict speech disproportionately appears to be a reasonable one.
No marks for guessing that Swamy has filed a PIL in the Supreme court asking for slander/libel laws to be revoked! I do listen to him from time to time. It is good to keep a tab on his lunacy. I just wonder, how such intelligent men actually stoop to such incredibly low levels. From being a bright and gifted economist to this rabble rousing right wing fanatic, I can scarce believe my ears.
In reply to Nicnickelby
Interestingly, that’s another positive consequence of free speech. When the crazy people have full freedom to spout their nonsense, others see it for what it is. They damn themselves, so to speak. Now isn’t that better than shutting Swamy up, where he will be able to claim martyrdom?
Contrary to what one may think, full freedom of expression actually has the effect of making society more polite in general. People know that they – and they alone – will face the judgment of society for what they say. Ergo, they are much more controlled.
One would think that the US with its strong speech laws is chaos. But the reverse is true. Out of all the countries I’ve ever visited, the US in general is the most unfailingly polite. Strangers greet each other on the roads, people give you compliments out of the blue, everyone is nice to each other…
At the very least, it proves that full freedom of expression does not automatically lead to chaos as many people claim it does.
As I said earlier, I agree with freedom of speech without any caveats. It was the only the instance of slander causing tangible loss that had troubled me. I now do agree that in the larger scheme of things, it is best to even include slander/libel under freedom of speech. As you rightly pointed out, ordinary people like me are almost never affected by slander, owing to the minuscule reach of my social interactions. And for those in public life, I suppose there is always a balance brought about by consequence that one has to face for consistently slandering others. While Swamy might have a fan following amongst the fanatics, I do agree that the right way to counter him is by showing up his remarks for the hollowness and factual inaccuracies. I heard him speak at IIM Bangalore, where he called Manmohan Singh a circus lion. And the intellectual elite of the country who formed the audience, were all clapping in delirium. Eventually, I think public figures are born from the same societies that we live in, and to an extent they are mere reflection of us in the average sense. It would be foolhardy to use slander/libel laws against such people.
Thank you for engaging me. Happy blogging.
If I have the right, I don’t need your permission. If I need your permission, I don’t have the right. ;-)
In reply to Murali
Unfortunately in India, you don’t really have the right :( . You should have it like they do in the US, but in India I can take you to court for a variety of things (including “annoying” me etc!) . So in the context of India, I’m explicitly giving you that right with regards to me.
Freedom of speech/expression is similar to having the freedom to swing your fist in the air until your fist happens to land on someone’s nose.
Today, people’s noses are getting bigger and our space to swing our fists is getting smaller.
How are people’s noses getting bigger? ANyone can argue that malicious content can hurt them financially. So if you have a bad opinion McDonalds somehow, you hurt them financially and they may argue slander and, because they are a large organization, may win.
In reply to Western Point of View
In the US at least, the truth is an absolute defense against slander. Moreover, the person claiming to be injured has an impossibly high burden – they need to prove actual malice which is pretty much impossible. It’s very different in Europe, where slander and libel laws place a much greater burden on the defendant.
Those who are filing FIRs and asking for ban against AIB roast, are exposing their own insecurities.