1

EMERGING HORIZONS OF FREE SPEECH

-Ankita Sharma & Hirak Mukhopadhyay IInd Year B.A. LLB (Hons), National Law Institute University, Bhopal E-Mail & Phone: ankita.sharma2000@gmail.com (09406543062) mukherjeehirak@hotmail.com (09806143045)

The ideas of free speech have been instrumental in defining human expression, cultural creativity and social progress since ancient times. The trial of Socrates in 399 B.C. was the first recorded instance where a person attempted to guard his right of freedom of speech. During the trial, Socrates reportedly said that If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind I should say to you, Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you., thereby keeping his volition of free speech on a higher pedestal than even his own life. History is a witness to the fact that free speech promotes the growth of civilisation by facilitating a free exchange of ideas. It is considered one of the foundation stones of liberal democracies. The Bill of Rights, 1689, signed by William III and Queen Mary II of England guaranteed this vital freedom whilst in Parliament. Exactly a century later, after the French Revolution in 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was adopted, wherein this right was declared as absolute by stating that The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man... This right has been enshrined, in some or the other form, in almost every modern constitution including India. The importance of free speech in a democracy was also well known to our founding fathers like Mr. B.R. Ambedkar whose initial draft of the constitution provided that No law shall be made abridging the freedom of speech, of the press, of Associations and of Assemblies except for considerations of public order and morality 1. In pursuance of such an ideal, this freedom was enshrined under Article 19(1(a)) 2 of the constitution. In the unamended Constitution of India, the right of free speech was subjected to less rigorous
1

Dr. Kashyap, Subhash, The Framing of Indias Constitution, Second Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, p.211
2

Article 19(1) All citizens shall have the right(a) to freedom of speech and expression;...

restrictions.3 But within two years of adoption of the constitution, the first amendment enlarged the scope of these restrictions by amending article 19(2) 4. In contrast, the U.S. constitution still offers unqualified protection to freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment which reads as Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.5 However, despite the restrictions imposed upon free speech by article 19(2), the Supreme Court, influenced by the U.S. constitution, has time and again come to its rescue. In the landmark case S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram 6., the Supreme Court held that Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people. The fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience of expediency. Open criticism of Government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression. Sadly, the governments stand on free speech is at loggerheads with the Supreme Courts position. Tolerance of dissent is the very essence of democracy 7 and its intolerance would result in the inclusion of India in the embarrassing league of totalitarian regimes like China and North Korea. With its rapidly rising economic strength, India has an obligation to safeguard this natural right of its citizens. Unfortunately, never before has free speech faced such severe assault than what it is facing now. However, it must also be noted that this assault is not India-centric but is global in nature, spearheaded by the U.S., a country which ironically tries to position itself as the greatest advocate of this indispensible right.

The Unamended article 19(2) read as Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, relating to Libel, slander, defamation, contempt of Court or any matter which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State.
4

Article 19(2). Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India,] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
5

Union of India v. Naveen Jindal : 2004(2) SCC 510 (1989) 2 SCC 574, 231 4 Hastings L. J. 118 (1953)

However, that does not mean that speech must be absolutely unrestrained. Nowhere in the world has this right been made absolute and unqualified, nor it should be. This right is not found in a vacuum but has to be read in conjuction with others rights and duties. Reasonable limits should be imposed on speech as far as national security and certain legal issues are concerned. The presumption that there will always be counter-voices in a democracy to resolve issues is flawed. Sometimes, silence is equally vital for the peaceful working of a democracy. This article attempts to bring to the forefront various recent instances where there have been confrontations due to restrictions attempted on contemporary mediums like films, media and the internet, by both national and international governments thereby encroaching on the right to freedom of speech and expression. At the same time, the article has also tried to highlight how certain issues have been overblown in the name of defending the right to free speech and how a reasonable balance can be sought.

FILMS
Films and documentaries have been a major source of articulating ones own ideas and also been an instrument of human expression. Unfortunately they have been made subject to constant scrutiny of the Censor Board (formed under the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952). The Board has powers to make producers cut or edit objectionable scenes in their films; the scope of objectionable content is at the mercy of the Board. If this was not enough, political bodies, with no inkling of the significance of such a medium in preserving the freedom of speech, also interfere in order to pacify certain pressure groups. Recently the movie Dam999, based on Mullaperiyar Dam controversy, was banned by the Tamil Nadu government, on the apprehension of law and order problems in the state. 8 Similarly, a few months ago, the screening of the movie Aarakshan, which condemned the reservation policy, was suspended by the governments of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab on the ground of protecting the sentiments of certain social groups, even after clearance from the Censor Board9. Other censored movies including Rockstar (wherein the
8

Tamil Nadu government bans Dam 999 film,(The Hindu, November 24, 2011), (Last Accessed on February 20, 2012), Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article2655859.ece
9

India states ban film on low-caste quotas in education,(BBC News-South Asia, August 12,2011), (Last Accessed on February 21, 2012), Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14501491

Tibetan flag had to be blurred in the song Sadda Haq) , Water, Da Vinci Code etc. are only the tip of the ice berg when it comes to censoring of movies in India. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that a country as culturally diverse as ours certainly needs a body like Censor Board. We definitely cannot have movies mocking other cultures beyond a reasonable extent. Furthermore, the argument of completely doing away with the Censor Board under the garb of freedom of speech holds no ground as majority of us Indians still prefer watching movies with our families and cannot afford to watch vulgarity and violence in such a setting. Without doubt, movies are not merely a source of entertainment but they also serve social purposes. But they may also have an adverse impact, especially on youngsters who are easily gullible and may get influenced by the negative characters of a movie. Studies have proved that there is a definite link between crime rates and violent movies.10 Therefore, a body like the Censor Board is inevitable in India, but there has to be limitations on the powers of the board to the extent of keeping the movies in consonance with the sensibilities of Indians. Its functions should be restricted to categorizing movies on the basis of its content. The Cinematograph Act, the parent act of the Censor Board, is an antiquated piece of legislation and needs to be amended on the lines of censorship regulations of the US, which provide for various age groups for ratings like U (suitable for entire population), PG (Parental Guidance advised), 12 years and above, 15 years and above, and 18 years and above. The Censor Board should also abstain from banning subjects which are considered politically subversive. Also, in no way should politicians have the right to interfere. The above examples are not exhaustive and demonstrate the fact of how the government is eager to ban movies having even the slightest tendency to create controversy. Such indiscriminate banning of movies on such flimsy pretexts is contrary to the principles of a liberal democracy.

MEDIA
The recent comments of Justice Markandey Katju, Chairman, Press Council of India 11, regarding the role of media has trigerred a huge debate, with the media up in arms against his
10

Dahl, Gordon & DellaVigna, Stefano, Does Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime?, (The National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2008), (Last Accessed on February 8, 2012), Available at: http: //www.nber.org/papers/w13718
11

Katju, Markandey, The Role the Media should be playing in India, (The Hindu, November 5, 2011), (Last Accessed on February 11, 2012), Available at: http: //www.thehindu.com/news/article2600319.ece

comments. Mr. Katju had argued that television and radio should be brought under the supervision of the Press Council of India or a similar regulatory body. 12 Back in 2006, the government had tried to pass the Draft Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, which provided for regulation of content on television and radio. According to recent rankings, India ranks at a lowly 122nd position amongst 178 countries when it comes to press freedom, lagging behind countries like Guatemala and Burkina Faso13. The media is considered to be the fourth pillar of a democracy and plays an important role of enhancing the accountability of the government. It helps in forming public opinion on issues of day-to-day relevance and in moulding public viewpoint. Unquestionably the active and enthusiastic participation of citizens is indispensable for the working of a healthy democracy. People have a right to know more about socio-political affairs so that they can form their own opinions about the administration governing them. This is facilitated by the media which provides for ample opportunities for free exchange of information. In India, the media has always tried to ensure its independence by pressuring the govenment to reverse its policies on media restricitions. This emerging clout of the media has both positive and negative consequences. Post Independence, almost all major scams like the Bofors Scam, the Jharkand Mukti Morcha Case etc have been unearthed by the media. It has been crucial in mobilising public support in cases of governmental apathy towards sensitive issues like dispensation of justice, corruption cases etc. Thanks to its effectiveness, more people are now better aware of their constitutional rights and duties. Its role in cases like Jessica Lal murder case, Priyadarshini Mattoo case and most recently the Ruchika Girhotra case also highlights the crusade of the media in getting justice for the victims family when justice is denied due to the interference of rich and powerful. The Media has every right to present any issue of public relevance in a manner as close to reality as possible. The foremost duty of the media is to report facts. However, reality should not be distorted with personal views and biases for this may also affect the decision making
12

Mahapatra, Dhanajay, Does one have a right to bare sentiments on internet?, (The Times of India, December, 2011), (Last Accessed on February 10, 2012), Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Does-one-have-a-right-to-bare-sentiments-oninternet/articleshow/11075590.cms

13

Europe falls from its Pedestal, no respite in the Dictatorships, (Reporters without Borders-Press Freedom Index 2010), (Last Accessed on February 10, 2012), Available at: http: //en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index2010,1034.html

powers of the viewers. This is even truer for those high profile court judgements which the media usually reports. These judgements are discussed in the news channel studios immediately after their pronouncements by people having no knowledge of law who are not fully aware of all the facts of the case. This job of scrutiny should be done only after availability of the copy of the judgement, that too only by people having knowledge of law. Furthermore, in a desperate attempt to raise their TRPs, these media houses pass their own verdicts in certain cases purely on the basis of hearsay facts, even prior to the passing of the judgement by the court. This is akin to the functioning of Kangaroo courts, where judgements are passed without paying due regard to the testimony of witnesses and cross examinations. Such trial by media may also adversely influence the judges conscience. 14 In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat15 , the Supreme Court held that Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. When the Judge is unable to remain impartial due to such reportings, it would be impossible to guarantee that the proper ends of justice are met. Thus, the need of the hour for the media is to properly exercise its right to free speech guaranteed to it under the Constitution with a sense of responsibility in an ethical manner so as to make any kind of governmental unnecessary.

ONLINE FREEDOM
In the past few years, questions have been raised regarding the boundaries of free speech in one of the most unconstrained mediums available for dissent i.e. the Internet. The Internet has enabled many of us to express ourselves to a greater degree and to receive and exchange information in ways previously thought as unimaginable. In some ways, it is more democratic in nature than traditional media like Newspapers and News Channels as it facilitates free dialogue between conflicting views, that too anonymously. These days, governments across the world are engaged in developing new regulations for limiting the scope of this freedom. But whether the concerns that the government has vis--vis online freedom are justified or
14

See Law Commission Of India, 200th Report on Trial by Media-Free Speech And Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (August 2006), p. 60, (Last Accessed on March 3, 2012), Available at: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep200.pdf
15

(2004) 4 SCC 158

not, depends on a lot of factors and should not be readily criticized as being too suppressive. This section deals with such recent cyberspace regulations at both national and international levels. A. ONLINE REGULATION IN INDIA

Not long ago, a raging debate began in the cyber world over Kapil Sibals sudden proposal of pre-screening internet content for apparently controlling the problem of indecent and abusive material on internet. The timing of his suggestion is certainly questionable as it indicates that the government has become insecure after the recent anti corruption campaign led by Anna Hazare and the Arab Spring demonstrations. In both the cases, the majority support of citizens was mobilized via social networking sites. Additionally, in the governments application to Google for removal of 358 items from its site, over 255 items were classified as government criticism and not defamatory or indecent content as claimed by the government.16 Then, in December, 2011, a Delhi based journalist, Vinay Rai filed a suit in Delhi against 21 companies including Google and Facebook for not censoring offensive substance that hurt social and religious sentiments, relying on the section 3(4) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2011 which provides for penalty if a social media is notified of any contravening content and it fails to remove or disable access to the said content in 36 hours17. Subsequently the court ordered all the companies to ensure the immediate removal of objectionable content within 15 days and to establish a screening mechanism to filter such content in future. But what the learned judges and the government have failed to comprehend is that the internet is a self regulating mechanism. For instance, in the video sharing website Youtube, obscene videos are removed within a short span by the users themselves. Instead of third party regulating mechanisms, self regulating mechanisms which already exist in almost all

16

Jebaraj, Priscilla, India wanted 358 items removed, (The Hindu, December 8, 2011), (Last Accessed on February 11, 2012), Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2696027.ece
17

Venkiteswaran, L.D., Web censorship is now law in India, (The Sunday Guardian, January 1, 2012), (Last Accessed on February 11, 2012), Available at: http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/web-censorshipis-now-law-in-india

major websites, should be made more stringent so as to empower users to regulate content themselves.18 Further, a word has different meanings in different contexts. For example, the word sex (as contented by Google during the trial) appears in almost every application form. Blocking this word would even lead to the blocking of the official website of the Ministry of External Affairs which contains passport application forms. Such screening would also result in the blocking of online availability of court judgements and newspaper articles containing words such as pornography, homosexuality, sexual assaults etc. Moreover, attempting to block any website based outside India would be an exercise in futility as it would result in the mushrooming of other unblocked duplicate sites called Mirror Sites having the same content. Technical handicaps aside, such regulations are akin to the censoring policies of the Chinese and Iranian governments which time and again have been criticized for being too repressive and anti democratic. India has the third largest internet users in the world after China and USA and this number is expected to triple in the coming three years 19. Also, the extent of internet is growing exponentially day by day. So it is practically impossible to screen all websites. The only way of controlling such objectionable content would be to sanction a colossal budget of Rs. 39000 Crore20 and employ a mammoth educated workforce as is present in China. To have such a huge workforce solely dedicated to repressing the freedom of speech will be contrary to our democratic principles. So does that suggest that the Internet needs no censorship? Definitely not. Fair criticism is definitely an indicator of a healthy democracy and should never be suppressed. But in no way should such criticism should result in deriding a politician, not least a woman politician. The morphed photographs of the politicians circulating on the net bear testimony to this fact. Expecting toleration of such conduct on the facade of freedom of speech would be a fraud on democracy itself. Thus reasonable limits must be there for a clear demarcation between fair

18

Brown, Ian, Internet Self-Regulation and Fundamental Rights, (January 21, 2010), Index on Censorship, Vol. 1, March 2010, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1539942
19

Google and Facebook block content in India after court warns of crackdown , (The Guardian, February 6, 2012), (Last Accessed on February 13, 2012), Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/06/google-facebook-india?newsfeed=true
20

Status Update? Bad, (Outlook India, December 19, 2011), (Last Accessed on February 13, 2012), Available at: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279280

criticism and unwanted defamation. This can only be achieved via governmental regulations and self regulation working in tandem.

B. WIKILEAKS The American government has always been quick to denounce other countries for impeding free speech and has always acted as a defender and a propagator of online freedom of speech. In fact, on January 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her speech regarding internet freedom had remarked Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable 21. However, the recent blocking of the whistleblower site WikiLeaks has exposed the hypocrisy of the US government. WikiLeaks is a website that releases material exposing the inner workings of governments, banks, large companies and religious organisations. 22 Any person in possession of such confidential data can submit it to WikiLeaks without the apprehension of being caught by the government. It has its own editorial board to ensure that only matters relating to political, diplomatic or ethical significance23 are published. In the past few years, WikiLeaks has raised a storm over political circles in various countries by exposing sensitive information in an attempt to abolish official secrecy. For Example, WikiLeaks leaked previously undisclosed details of the relations of the US government with other countries and exposed a lot more potentially embarrassing secret information 24 involving not only national Governments but also other institutions like corporate houses, religious bodies, banks etc25.

21

Naughton, John, Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice , (The Guardian, December 6, 2010), (Last Accessed on February 26, 2012), Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks
22

Fischer, Dan, WikiLeaks: Everything you need to know, (Herald Sun, December 8, 2010), (Last Accessed on February 15, 2012), Available at: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/everything-you-need-to-know-aboutwikileaks/story-e6frf7jo-1225967791523
23

Wikileaks: Submissions, (Wikileaks), (Last Accessed on February 13, 2012), Available at: http: //wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:Submissions
24

Hope, Christopher, WikiLeaks sparks worldwide diplomatic crisis, (The Telegraph, November 28, 2010), (Last Accessed on February 14, 2012), Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/8166502/WikiLeaks-sparks-worldwide-diplomatic-crisis.html
25

Supra n.Error: Reference source not found

10

Governments across the globe have responded sharply to the disclosures made by WikiLeaks. Consequently, its main site has been banned in almost every country. Moreover, all major online payment processing companies like Paypal have frozen its accounts to prevent any donations to the site26. Thus, it now has to depend on proxy websites and anonymous donations in order to sustain itself. These attacks on WikiLeaks have raised an important question regarding the very future of journalism itself. However, one must also take into account that Wikileaks has now started resembling a private intelligence organization, accountable to none, due to the sensitive nature of information it disseminates. WikiLeaks, being a part of media, must similar liabilities that any other media for what it publishes or broadcasts. In 2010, WikiLeaks revealed a list of infrastructure sites globally considered crucial for national security by the US government. Ironically, this list was compiled by the US government in order to protect its interests from terrorists. Thanks to WikiLeaks, such an important list is now available to every person at the click of a button and could be used by terrorists or saboteurs to wreak havoc. Thus, accusations of WikiLeaks releasing information without regard to national security are not completely baseless. Apart from National Security concerns, WikiLeaks has also often disregarded the rights of privacy and intellectual property of an individual. More than often, WikiLeaks infringes the right to privacy of non-governmental and non-corporate bodies, which have absolutely no bearing on public policy or security of the state. Such publishing of confidential information without sufficient cause is the worst form of Information Vandalism27. Intellectual property rights of authors are also treated with disdain by WikiLeaks. On March 2nd, 2009, it released a book on corruption in Kenya titled Its our turn to Eat on its website28. This book had been banned in Kenya due to its supposedly controversial content. WikiLeaks, with complete apathy towards the intellectual property rights of the author, justified such a release by claiming that people of Kenya should have had access to such a book. But what it failed to

26

PayPal cuts Wikileaks access for donations, (BBC News US & Canada, December 4, 2010), (Last Accessed on February 16, 2012), Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11917891
27

WikiLeaks says transparency, critics say vandalism, (The Indian Express, July 2, 2010), (Last Accessed on February 13, 2012), Available at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wikileaks-says-transparency-criticssay-vandalism/652059/0
28

Kenya sleaze book sparks shop ban (BBC News, February 27, 2009), (Last Accessed on February 16, 2012), Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7911007.stm

11

realise was that by releasing a pirated copy of that book worldwide instead of simply restricting it to Kenya, the earnings of the author were hugely affected. Many cables leaked by WikiLeaks also quote various politicians and other world authorities speaking candidly in private regarding their relations with authorities and politicians of other countries. Such information could have the capacity to sour relations between two countries. It is a known fact that in order to prosper, some things are better if they remain in private. Leaking such information would have no positive effects whatsoever, but would further deteriorate world peace. Thus, it can be said that some information are released by WikiLeaks not because they are of public importance, but merely because it has the ability to make it public. But this does not mean that WikiLeaks has no relevance, especially in the contemporary political environment where concealment of sensitive information under the guise of official secrets is commonplace. Therefore, equilibrium must be sought between the need to expose such data and preserving reports which can put national security at stake. Additionally, extra care must be taken to ensure that only those data are exposed that promote government accountability and transparency and not publicity.

C. PIPA and SOPA India has always been accused by the West of not valuing the right of free speech and expression. According to an article in The Sydney Morning Herald, a leading newspaper of Australia, Freedom of expression is a Western notion that has never really taken root (in India).29 But the most alarming attack on the right to free speech has come from the West itself. A regular Wikipedia user would be well aware of the controversy that has taken the online community by storm. The US Senate and the House of People introduced the Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) respectively with an intention to curb online piracy of copyrighted material. Media giants supporting the bill argue that the existing legislations are inadequate in controlling intellectual property. On the contrary, critics of the
29

Dhillon, Amrit, Rushdie affair reveals free speech is a slippery idea in India, (The Sydney Morning Herald, January 31, 2012), (Last Accessed on February 20, 2012), Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/rushdie-affair-reveals-free-speech-is-a-slippery-idea-inindia-20120130-1qpls.html

12

bills, including internet giants like Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia etc claim that the bills will give enormous powers to the government to block websites making even a minor unauthorized use of copyrighted material. This would mean that if a small section of an article in Wikipedia is picked up from a copyrighted source, which the editorial board of Wikipedia failed to notice, the entire site may be pulled down by the government. Compared to PIPA, SOPA is bound to have an even greater impact on online freedom as it provides for prosecuting sites including search engines like Google if they fail to act in preventing piracy. This may sound very simple, but is not. Google processes approximately over 20,000 terabytes of data each day.30 If this bill is passed, Google will have to monitor every website for intellectual property violation and delete offending websites, which is practically impossible. As a result, on January 18, 2012, many major websites such as Wikipedia, Reddit, Wordpress etc blacked out for a day as a part of the largest online protest ever conducted. But online piracy is undoubtedly a major problem which needs to be checked. According to a survey by the Motion Pictures Association and L.E.K., an international consulting firm 31, every year billions of dollars are lost due to illegal distribution of movies, songs and books. The software industry also faced a massive loss of $53 billion in 2009 alone. Online piracy is not restricted to movies, songs and books, but also includes selling of important day-to-day consumer goods such as pharmaceuticals. These fake products are of inferior quality and can pose a serious health risk. This may not harm large publishing and media houses to a great extent, but it could deliver a death blow to smaller companies. Even from any craftsperson or artisans point of view, piracy is a major detriment to creativity and artistic spirit. Even if the intention of the U.S. Government may seem bona-fide, its ends are not justifying the means being used. No bona-fide ends can be achieved via questionable means. The bills entrust regulatory control of the internet to the US government, a practice prevalent only in authoritarian regimes aimed at stifling free speech. As mentioned above, such control should be the sole domain of internet users, albeit with a few restrictions. A better alternative would be to promote self regulating mechanisms among websites which can report copyrighted
30

Schonfeld, Erick, Google Processing 20,000 Terabytes A Day, And Growing, (Techcrunch, January 9, 2008), (Last Accessed on February 20, 2012), Available at: http://techcrunch.com/2008/01/09/googleprocessing-20000-terabytes-a-day-and-growing/
31

The Cost of Movie Piracy, (Last Accessed on February 20, 2012), Available at: http://austg.com/include/downloads/PirateProfile.pdf

13

content by themselves. Only those websites which deliberately promote copyright violation should be at the receiving end of legal authorities and should be the main focus of such regulations. The Internet is possibly the finest medium of speech ever invented. Blocking of websites like Wikipedia and other open source websites is a huge attack on freedom of speech. The Internet has faced censorship before, but it was only limited to the country censuring the internet, without affecting the Internet services of other countries. Passing of these bills in their original form will be an unprecedented move by any country to shut down websites across the world. Till date the internet has had no nationality. PIPA and SOPA threaten to change all that.

CONCLUSION
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a successful democracy. But nowhere in any democracy has this right been made unqualified. This privilege might have been pivotal in development of human civilisation, but too much of this freedom may well result in its stagnation. An unfettered right to free speech can be potentially detrimental to the entire community at large. The ancient phrase Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me holds no value in todays context. Speech has the tendency to demolish reputations, built in years of hard work, in minutes. Malicious and defamatory words against a person are equally damaging as any physical injury and maybe even more. Thus there is a need to balance the unconstrained use of this right against the restrictions imposed upon it not only in order to protect national security, but also to respect the reputation and religious beliefs of individuals. Unfortunately, any governmental attempt at restricting the freedom of speech is met with scepticism by people. We should not look at Governments laws per se but at governments reasons for enacting those laws32. Most people fail to realise that no right is absolute and that all rights are accompanied by a corresponding duty of respecting others rights. There is definitely a need to oppose censorship but there must be proper reasons for doing so. No

32

Larry Alexander, Freedom of Speech Volume I: Foundations, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, Second Edn., p. 6

14

unreasonable restriction should be allowed to reduce the sanctity of this sacred right to the extent of making it meaningless. The dawn of the internet has brought a new era in the easy access to information and has thus enabled people to better assert their rights as citizens. Such an easy access to information has always been viewed with unease by governments round the world. In fact, majority of the Constitutions across the globe reflect the ideals of free speech; yet governments willingly suppress these very ideals. This is evident from the new multinational treaty AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which will supposedly take the place of PIPA and SOPA in combating Online Piracy and Intellectual Property violations globally. Without the ratification of the major economies like India and China, the treaty would result in a complete failure. If these countries ratify this treaty, it would surely be the last nail in the coffin for freedom of speech. The freedom of speech may face even greater challenges in the days to come. But come what may, this privilege of free speech should not be misused in a way which is antithetic to our democratic ethos and the fundamental values of truth and integrity. Freedom of speech is certainly an essential right, but definitely not an absolute one.