Free Speech, Violence and the State

Abstract

In this chapter, the author discussed two elements: Facts and Values . Facts are inevitably supplemented with evidence; values on the other hand are axiomatic assumptions−in the light of which we evaluate the world. Normally, values do not get stated in discourse. And it is when we encounter someone else’s values that one is forced to become conscious of one’s own values as values. The author asserts that free speech is the fundamental value and should be limited if it threatens the right to life or leads to violence. However, often the State supports such violence and uses it as a form of surreptitious censorship, as a way of inhibiting certain behaviour that it is unwilling to prohibit on its own; allowing people to do things that it is unwilling to do on its own. This poses an insightful question; what is it that prevents, and permits, a State to abdicate its constitutional duty. In a polity like India’s, there is always a majority of people who are, in general, disaffected. Since this hypothetical disaffected majority is potentially part of any mob, any mob is, by easy extension, a substitute for a majority. He also mentions that urban India today is ignoring this state supported violence and views this as the price it pays in exchange for right to life and livelihood. He mentions combining actions of “spontaneity” and “provocation” , often the violent actions of the public are justified.