Limits to Free speech: A Comparative Study of Philosophical and Legal Perspectives on Hate Speech

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

© 2020 by SSRG - IJHSS Journal

Volume 7 Issue 4

Year of Publication : 2020

Authors : Asifa Zunaidha F

10.14445/23942703/IJHSS-V7I4P107

How to Cite?

Asifa Zunaidha F, "Limits to Free speech: A Comparative Study of Philosophical and Legal Perspectives on Hate Speech," SSRG International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 7,  no. 4, pp. 38-43, 2020. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23942703/IJHSS-V7I4P107

Abstract:

In 2014, the Supreme Court of India asked the Law Commission of India to examine what would constitute „hate speech‟ in the context of numerous Public Interest Litigations being filed against political leaders for their speeches inciting hatred and violence against marginalized communities. In this context, it has become necessary to engage in a discussion on the philosophical and legal debates regarding „hate speech,‟ and look into the complexity of striking a balance between the liberal ideals of prioritizing the search for truth by individuals and the communitarian ideals of ensuring social harmony in a deeply plural and culturally heterogeneous society like India. This paper attempts to question whether hate speech in India should be identified with „fighting words‟ as in US leaving wider scope for free speech than is currently existing; or should hate speech be conceived in terms of “dangerous speech” as conceived by Susan Benesch which leads to hate crimes against communities; should a specific law be enacted by the Parliament to explicitly and concretely define and prohibit hate speech and if so, what should be the philosophy guiding such a law in the context of India whose colonial past and partition legacy has left bitter marks on Indian psyche.

Keywords:

Freedom of speech, Hate speech, Constitutional rights, Group rights, Individual rights

References:

[1] J.S. MILL, ON LIBERTY (Batoche Books 2001) (1859), available at http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liberty.pdf.
[2] NIGEL WARBURTON, FREE SPEECH: A VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION 24-25 (2009).
[3] Bill of Rights Transcript, NATIONAL ARCHIVES, available at https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript (last reviewed on Oct 6, 2016).
[4] Abrams v United States, 250 US 616 (1919).
[5] Center for Culture, Media and Governance (CCMG), Hate Speech in India, JMI., 21, available at http://jmi.ac.in/upload/menuupload/11_ccmg_hatespeech.pdf.
[6] section 153 A (1): Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony; section 153B: Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration; section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs; section 298: Uttering words etc, with the deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person; section 505 (2): Statements conducing to public mischief.
[7] Under the Government of India Act 1858, the British Crown assumed direct control of India from the East India Company.
[8] THOMAS MACAULAY, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 101 (The Lawbook Exchange 2002) (1838).
[9] Asad Ali Ahmed, Specters of Macaulay: Blasphemy, the Indian Penal Code, and Pakistan‟s Postcolonial Predicament, in CENSORSHIP IN SOUTH ASIA: CULTURAL REGULATION FROM SEDITION TO SEDUCTION 178 (In Raminder Kaur and William Mazzarella ed., 2009).
[10] Lawrence Liang, Love Language or Hate Speech, TEHELKA, (March 3, 2012), http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=hub030312love.asp.
[11] Statement of Dr Ambedkar, CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, vol.VII, 40 (4 November 1948)available at http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/constituent/vol7p1.html.
[12] Article 19 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Freedom): 19. (1) All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
[13] Indian CONST. art. 19(2).
[14] Siddharth Narrain, Hate Speech, Hurt Sentiment and the (Im)possibility of Free Speech, LI ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, 17, 122 (2016).
[15] A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27, 69.
[16] Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633.
[17] Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 867.
[18] Gopal Vinayak Godse v Union of India and ors. AIR 1971 Bom 64.
[19] Baragur Ramachandrappa and ors v State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 11.
[20] Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 620. [21] N Veerabrahmam v State Of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1959 AP 572.
[22] Sajid Sheikh, Supreme Court Erred Again: Mistaken on Hate Speech as Free Speech, LAWLEX.ORG (Mar 5, 2014), http://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/supreme-court-erred-again-mistaken-on-hate-speech-as-free-speech/9420.
[23] Fighting words, Legal Information Institute, CORNELL UNIV LAW SCHOOL, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words.
[24] Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).
[25] Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
[26] J. Weinstein, An Overview of American Free Speech Doctrine and its Application to Extreme Speech, in EXTREME SPEECH AND DEMOCRACY, 81 (I. Hare and J. Weinsten ed., 2009).
[27] SS Kathleen E. Mahoney, Hate Speech: Affirmation or Contradiction of Freedom of Expression, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 789 (1996).
[28] Saba Mahmood, Religious Reason and Secular Affect: An Incommensurable Divide? In IS CRITIQUE SECULAR? BLASPHEMY, INJURY AND FREE SPEECH 78 (T. Asad, W. Brown, J. Butler and S. Mahmood ed., 2009).
[29] Judith Butler, The Sensibility of Critique: Response to Asad and Mahmood in IS CRITIQUE SECULAR? BLASPHEMY, INJURY AND FREE SPEECH 126 (T. Asad, W. Brown, J. Butler and S. Mahmood ed., 2009)..
[30] Express News Service, 38,000 in relief camps, most not yet ready to return home, INDIAN EXPRESS (Sep 14, 2013) http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/38000-in-relief-camps-most-not-yet-ready-to-return-home/1169138/
[31] Tanima Biswas, 3 Years On, Victims Of Muzaffarnagar Riots Find New Homes, NDTV (Aug 13, 2016) http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/4-years-on-victims-of-muzzffarnagar-riots-find-new-homes-1443602
[32] Delhi Minorities Commission, Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on the North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020, p.99. Available at https://archive.org/details/dmc-delhi-riot-fact-report-2020.
[33] R v Keegstra [1990] S SCR 697, 744-749.
[34] Michel Rosenfeld, Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis 24 [35] CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 1523 (2002-2003).
[35] Rajeev Dhavan, Harassing Husain: Uses and Abuses of the Law of Hate Speech 35 SOCIAL SCIENTIST 16-60 (2007).
[36] Susan Benesch, Dangerous Speech: A Proposal to Prevent Group Violence, WORLD POLICY INSTITUTE (Jan 12, 2012) available at http://www.worldpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Dangerous%20Speech%20Guidelines%20Benesch%20January%202012.pdf
[37] This suggestion is based on the assumption that state and its courts are part of the society and cannot be considered as neutral arbiters standing above the society at all times.