How free is ‘free speech’ guaranteed by the Constitution? Or how expensive is free speech in the free world? Do the rights guaranteed for speech in the Constitution come at a price? The answer is Yes. Exercising the right and airing views can carry social, political and financial costs.
As the argument goes, your freedom ends when the other man’s nose begins! But it doesn’t end there, the litany continues. It results in legal costs, professional repercussions, social and political consequences, fines and jail terms, thereby jeopardizing career prospects.
The finest case in review is that of Leader of the Opposition, then Congress President, Rahul Gandhi. On April 13, 2019, Gandhi in a statement at an election rally in Kolar, Karnataka said, “Accha, how come all these thieves have the surname, Modi?”.
Gandhi’s political remarks were part of his broader critique of the ruling government. But following the remark, an unconcerned individual filed a defamation suit against Rahul Gandhi with a plea that the statement made by him defamed the entire Modi community, to which the petitioner belongs.
The case followed legal proceedings, in March 2023, the lower Court in Surat, Gujarat found Rahul Gandhi guilty of defamation and sentenced him to two years imprisonment. Subsequently, the Gujarat High Court upheld the lower Court’s order, resulting in Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as a member of Lok Sabha under the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951.
It didn’t stop there! The case reached the Apex court. The legal battle raised significant debate over free speech, made several observations and suspended the conviction on August 4, 2023, allowing him to return to Lok Sabha as a member.
One of the interesting observations made by the apex court was “Why no particular reason given by the lower court to justify the imposition of the maximum sentence.”
This is not just an isolated case. Courts across the world seem to have adopted a peculiar approach in handling cases of free speech or defamation that arise from individual messages either mainstream or social media.
Why is there growing resentment of free speech by governments, executives or prominent political personalities? That too when they are aware that free speech is considered essential for the health of democracies around the world. Is it not a fact that an individual’s opinions hold the government and its leaders accountable? Do their opinions not influence their decision-making process? Why is free speech getting expensive for everyone in the game of public discourse, especially for the free speech platforms?
In a recent judgement, Justice De Moraes, Republic of Brazil, levied a fine against X (formerly Twitter) after the company headed by the Billionaire, Elon Musk, refused to appoint a ‘legal representative to respond to the requests of the government to block/remove accounts.’
It doesn’t stop there. The fight goes beyond the fulcrum of free speech!
Brazil’s Supreme Court on Saturday ordered the local banks to seize over three million dollars from the accounts owned by Elon Musk companies, including those other than Messager platform X (SpaceX and Starlink internet services).
Is this a stringent punishment for not obeying the orders of the Supreme Court? Isn’t the ban on X not sufficient to break the financial or advertorial backbone of the short-messaging platform? On what evidence that justice termed the messenger services ‘digital militias’? As observed by the justice, are these messenger services spreading misinformation, supporting the ‘far-right’ leaders?
What is most astonishing is that Justice de Moraes dragged Musk’s unrelated business ventures, Starlink, and Space X into the fray for seizure of funds while the roles performed by these companies are different, except that they are owned by the same person. As a jurist in Brazil argues, “What could Starlink have done to avoid what other companies did?”
Not just in Brazil, executives and governments across the world are getting restless with free speech messenger apps. These include powerful democracies like India, the European Union, Turkey, Australia, France and other countries. Telegram CEO, Pavlov Durov is still not free. He is facing legal hassles in France after his arrest and release by local police, despite making modifications to his popular free speech platform Telegram.
Messenger services like X, Telegram, Facebook, WhatsApp, Thread and others with their technical brilliance have provided a platform for citizens to critique, scrutinize, and make powers accountable by exposing corruption, checking on abuse of power, monitoring misdeeds of the governments, all to promote transparency in governance.
These platforms provide an opportunity for each individual to express their views in a free and fair manner. It is a universal truth that what is palatable to an individual may not be so for the people on the other side of the fence. The platforms not only provide space for critiques, but they also give the same access to governments, policymakers, public and private fact-checkers and so forth.
When every individual is allowed to speak openly on its platform, what bothers the executives, governments and political personalities? Or is criticism becoming difficult for the powers that govern in curtailing criticism through available means to them? Every individual social media platform is a small speck before the mighty governments and their executives. Isn’t law and order machinery under their beck and call? Then, why are the governments resorting to such harsh measures?
No doubt, these harsh measures indicate that the free speech promoted by the messenger platforms is not only becoming unpalatable but also posing a hurdle in defending the indefensible for the powers that be.
Agreed. Nobody is above the law and free speech is essential for ensuring ethical behaviour for people in public office. Democracies do rely on an informed society. Free speech is guaranteed by constitutions and by the elected governments. Then why these back-door machinations? A healthy democracy must not only value majority opinion but also minority voices and dissent, however, it may sound bitter.
If dissent is silenced by force or if wrong precedents are set, it will lead to authoritarianism, ruin business prospects, and deter investments. This may result in violent expression of free speech and lead to social unrest. Free speech is crucial to prevent civil unrest.
The writer is a senior journalist and former Additional Director General of All India Radio & Doordarshan, Prasar Bharati.
| 
