Should freedom of expression be curtailed? Give your reasons?

Question

Taslima Nasrin has revoked controversial lines from her book because she was asked to. Should a writer draw a line when writing about sensitive topics or is artistic license a writer's right? What do you think?

Answer 1

I think in any reasonable, real-world application of the idea of freedom of expression, it should be completely unencumbered by any limiting policies.

What I mean by in the real world is that, of course, if a book were powerful enough to, say, invariably draw its readers to suicide or murder, it should not be allowed. But I think the possibility of words themselves being that immediately powerful on the human mind is very distant in our future, if at all possible.

Real-world, functional repercussions are the only ones I could see mattering in terms of censorship. But then you have to contend with what are still real-world impacts, but long term ones. Say, for example, that a child ends up running a militaristic organization against a particular race and the cause was his reading "Main Kampf" as a young one? Unfortunately, I don't think we have the capacity to censor that, if we are to otherwise live free. I think the possible, slow, seeping-like repercussions of reading on people's lives must rely on an otherwise effective society to be shaped.

That is to say, a society such as, say, modern France or Ireland is better equipped to deal with the kind of [in my opinion] outrageous notions in books like "Mein Kampf," because they temper them with the conditioning of far less violent societies than modern America. I am not arguing for the superiority of those countries, simply using them as an illustration of how the slower mind-shaping style of books is best dealt with by the mind-shaping of other aspects of society, and not ever by the elimination of any free speech itself.

Note: if it is true that Nasrin flagrantly insulted Muslims for no reason, I agree that removing it was by far the best move on her part, unless those insults had a true and substantial artistic purpose. Generally, blatant insults don't. Regardless, I disagree that someone should not have the right to insult a group... they should have the legal right to, even if it is useless. The idea of making a law against something is a different issue from whether or not that thing is wise or useful.

Answer 2

No. I don't think a person should be restricted from expressing his views on any issue as long as it doesnt hurt an individual. If a person gives a statement addressing a group why should he be stopped to do so? If India is considered, every individual has the right to express, as per the constitution. If Taslima Nasreen is convicted for having given the controversial statements in her recently released book, then there would many writers who gave controversial statements in their works but are not brought to the limelight. If a writer or any other public personalities are restricted from expressing their views and start drawing line in their work then the common people would not be in a position to look at an issue from the other angle which would actually araise controversies in the society.

Answer 3

We are talking of change in the life-style and attitude of people according to the passage of time. In that sense, why cant we think of curtailing the freedom of expression when people have started talking and giving speeches in direct or indirect conversation thus inciting the people to harm the very fabric of our society and commit crimes.

I am of the opinion that the freedom of expression that our Constitution has given to the people be curtailed to the extent that certain inflammatory or derogatory statements should not be permitted to be aired publicly. The time has changed and so the crimes have increased and we are facing severe challenge from terrorism all around. In today's world of political rivarly and personal enmity running around everywhere, the word power has gained influence among the masses. In this circumstances, we certainly should think about ways and means of curtailing the freedom of expression that can cause harm to the society in particular and the nation at large.

Similarly, a writer should also follow the same rule when writing about sensitive topics. We should not allow misuse of any right or freedom thus guaranteed to the people.

Answer 4

I do not wish to point out any particular writer or artist.

Now a days, Writers or Painters, to become popularity or to achieve good sales, tend to write/draw something abnormal or provocative.

I have not read what Ms. Taslima has written. Writers are supposed to be quite knowledged personalities. They are supposed to know the pulse of the crowd. They are supposed to know what is right and what is wrong.

They should not write anything which is totally against the customs, traditions, rituals or beliefs of the masses. Proper care needs to be exercised while writing on the issues which are controversial.

Answer 5

As someone who enjoys reading and writing a great deal, It would be great if writers were given complete artistic freedom. Unfortunately, We DO NOT live in an ideal world. WE live in a world where we need to accept that people are sensitive when in comes to matters of religion and faith.
Talsima Nasrin's case is even more peculiar for a few other reasons.

She is a refugee in India. She left Bangladesh and came to to this country that gave her asylum. Though I am not a fan of Ms. Taslima's work, I believe that she has full right to write and publish whatever she may want to but she must bear in mind that India is a secular country and in many ways a peculiar country. One would be hard-pressed to find another country on any continent with such diversity from region to region in terms of religion, language, culture, faith, practises, food, clothing, etc. And though this secularist nature is one of our greatest strengths it also brings with it certain complications.

When Ms. Taslima or for that matter anyone chooses to be a part of a free, secular, democratic nation they have to, HAVE TO agree to abide by it's laws. They must respect the sensitivities and the sensibilities of that nation. It is fine to criticise and bring to the fore the problems of any community but it cannot be at the cost of questioning the said community's integrity.

India, we must realise hasn't reached the stage of acceptance and tolerance that other countries may have, at least not when it comes to religious beliefs. India will someday get there, but it will take time and it is incorrect to push India in that direction in a hurry in order to account for any one individual's artistic liberty.

In conclusion all I have to say is, in a FREE, DEMOCRATIC and most importantly in a SECULAR setup the fact , though unfortunate, is that even artistic license comes at a price and sometimes that price is the restricted use of that very license. A debate on whether it is right or wrong is futile because it exists and it is here to stay at least for a few more years.

Until then.......Here's hoping for a time when a writers can write what they want to, hoping for a time when adults get to decide for themselves whether they want to read a particular book or not without having that decision made for them by someone else.

Answer 6

Encouraging dialogue is one of the strong pillars of democracy. It is through dialogue that the truth is most likely to come out. So each one must be allowed to express his views and should be heard. We would do well to go back to the days when earth was considered to be the center around which sun and other planets revolved( this belief was widespread and had the religious sanction). This was questioned amidst resistance by the large part of the society. Eventually truth came out when Kepler proved it was a solar system where planets revolved the sun. So lesser the freedom of expression lesser would be our discovery of truth.

Religion, caste, culture and beliefs(including political beliefs) are sort of man-made identies and tools and men( or women) could be wrong either in their formation or practise or usage. Therefore these could be questioned. Hence freedom of expression should not be curtailed. I pity Taslima here. She probably had to do it because she wouldnt find a safe place to live otherwise.

Answer 7

Free speech/expression isn't exactly free. You're perfectly allowed to say what you want but there's a consequence. If you keep controversial words in a book or movie, distributors may not want to work with the project, thus tanking your hopes of spreading your message. If politicians always said what they wanted, they'd lose votes.

Limited censorship can be a good thing. It saves intelligent people who know how to better articulate what they're saying from those who just ramble. Whether it's from the government or soceity at large, setting limits to what is acceptable can be useful if done correctly.

Take for example the controversies surrounding Don Imus, Mel Gibson, Janet Jackson's woredrobe malfunction, Redskins running back Clinton Portis defending dog fighting...if either the government or soceity at large permitted these fools the full range of their "right of expression" they would be an even bigger problem.

Answer 8

My answer is big NO!

The reason for this is that we Indians like to show off very much. If the freedom of expression will be curtailed, then to whom will we show off the most.

In other words, if the freedom of expression will be curtailed then no Indian will be able to express himself.

So, the freedom of expression must not be curtailed.

Answer 9

I think what the writer writes is entirely up to the writer, even if the entire population doesn't agree; it is only a personal viewpoint. If a grown adult doesn't agree with the topic of a book they have the freedom to not read it, right?
It is different in the case of school textbooks but they are pathetic in india anyway.

Another thing I would like to ask the people who think that this book of Ms. Nasreen's has "outraged the muslim community" is that how many of those thousands of protesters and rioters actually read and understood the entire book? Very few if any, I'm sure... they just got a chance to riot on the streets and behave like savages and get talked about on tv, that's all.

Also, has anyone noticed that when the muslim community is in minority they play on the secular and minority rights card but in countries where they are in majority they throw "minority rights" out the window and do as they please? Look at Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sudan...practically everywhere!
--This is just a candid observation so don't start attacking me now....

Answer 10

The Right to freedom of expression is should be a right of a citizen. And it has some value is given by the govt. In ancient days some eminent thinkers were struggled for this right but now a days it is ubusing by somebody. Here whatever we want to express the feelings those shouldn't effect to others at the same time we have to express any kind of feelings at any cost. By this way Taslima Nasrin blamed by muslim community people. She should follow some compramising via's to come out of this contravertial. what i mean to say, here the writers cannot be written the great contravertial writings but write some possible to believe. Thanking you,

Answer 11

No and never it be allowed to curtail ones freedom of expression. Each and every one must have the right to express his/her own idea. Some may not agree to that but this do not mean that every one has to be agree to his/her idea. No body should be hurt about as the sentiment lies with all the human beings including the writer. Without having the freedom of expression, many a truth will remain underground.