Privilege, Not Right

I have heard a lot of "Kolaveri" about Kapil Sibal's statement on the liability of social networking sites such as Facebook to filter and manage content that could be objectionable. While there is also a considerably voluminous view that the internet is renegade and needs to be controlled and regulated. The usual arguments in favour of this view are in the following broad statements:

1. Freedom of speech cannot be absolute, there have to be limitations.
2. The content hosts (Google, Facebook) should have effective filtering mechanisms to remove objectionable content.
3. If the mainstream media has limitations to what it can say, why should new media be exempt?

For a moment, let's not even get into the debate about who decides what is offensive (*), or that what may be offensive to your community might be commonplace in another and that you may be imposing your sensibilities on someone who does not want them. Let us forget that if you find a Facebook page which is offensive to your religion (or indeed to your political leader) you could just block that page and ignore it from then on so as to not get offended again. Even then, all of these statments are either factually incorrect or are progeny of incoherent logic. Let me tell you why...

Freedom of speech cannot be absolute, there have to be limitations

This has to be one of those statements which sounds so reasonable and accurate that even staunch defendants of freedom often fall prey to its lure.The temptation (in part) to say this arises from the feeling that anything that is not done in moderation is bad for us. However, when you give someone Freedom of Speech, you are providing them - by definition - the ability to say something that you donot want to hear. So, to say that "I will give you unbridled freedom of speech as long as you say only what I want to hear" is ridiculous. Freedom of Speech either exists absolutely or does not exist at all. While it may be justifiable to expect a speaker (or author) to say (or write) his views in an inoffensive manner, the prerogative to do so rests with the sender of the communication and not the receiver. If the receiver restricts what is communicated, it is (again, by definition) not free speech.

The content hosts should have effective filtering mechanisms

I would ask a pertinent question: Why?
Why should they do that? If you are a company that makes raised diases for political rallies, is it your liability to ensure that nothing untoward is said there? Does such liability extend to phone companies, if someone says something offensive on one of their networks? Sounds outrageous, doesn't it? Let's say that even if that were to be the case, how exactly do you propose that be done? To date there is absolutely no way to filter communication from telephones - devices that were invented over half a century ago, yet loud cries continue to demand filtering of messages sent over Facebook or Twitter which is practically impossible.

If the mainstream media has limitations to what it can say, why should new media be exempt?

There is no need to refute this strange assertion because it is not true. Mainstream media (at least in India) is free to write/ show/ broadcast on any topic they want. If there is regulation it is self imposed (hence a prerogative of the sender of communication). Let me take an analogy, would you as a reader have been okay with the idea of the Telecom minister using his influence to stop publication of an offensive op-ed about Sonia Gandhi? It would have been scandalous no doubt. Which is why, the anger directed at Kapil Sibal by internet users (I refuse to call them "netizens") was because he had no business trying to impose regulation on speech by asking social platforms to intercede when he should have been appealing to content creators (bloggers, posters etc.) to maintain restraint. Now if the first thing that popped into your head was "But convincing one editor about the offensiveness of an article is a considerably easier task than convincing the raging wilderness of maniacs that post on the internet", then you know how Facebook feels, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

The freedom to run upto the fence but no further is the kind of freedom only prisoners can appreciate. If our soceity is to grow, become more progressive and open it is imperative that we take offence to fewer things and express displeasure in a way that does not impede fellow persons. Inoffensiveness of content should be considered a privilege, freedom of speech a right.

* (Let me clarify that I am talking about information that is considered offensive without alluding in any way to facts (or the lack thereof). Anything that misrepresents the truth MUST be removed from public view.)