Hari's Corner

Humour, comics, tech, law, software, reviews, essays, articles and HOWTOs intermingled with random philosophy now and then

Free speech versus responsible speech

Filed under: People and society by Hari
Posted on Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 11:13 IST (last updated: Wed, Jul 16, 2008 @ 21:18 IST)

In this day of instant communication, mass media and an extraordinarily powerful press worldwide, I wanted to talk about a very pertinent issue. It's about freedom of speech. We hear this term used almost every other day and especially on occasions when the media feels outraged at what it believes to be an infringement of its right to free speech. Free speech, to be sure, is one of the fundamental pillars of a free society and a free press is almost always essential to the survival of democracy. It's like the physiological need of a democracy. Like breathing. Democracy could very well pull down its shutters when the right to free speech is restricted or curtailed.

So I do not question the fundamental basis of free speech. In fact, I am a strong believer that freedom of speech is essential to the survival of grassroots democracy. The question I want to raise is really this: does this freedom begin and end merely with the right to express anything and everything that one feels like without restraint and without having to be worried about the consequences or the results of actions which arise from that freedom? I sincerely question those who believe that.

For in the ultimate analysis, what is free speech but the freedom to be heard and to be accepted by the rest of the world without restriction? Figuratively speaking, it is not merely about screaming out loud at the top of your voice, but about making others listen and understand. Democracy cannot survive when people are merely allowed to talk their minds freely. It's also about how effectively those expressions can be communicated and conveyed to the rest of the world in a credible manner. There lies the heart of the matter: Credibility is the pillar of free speech. Without credibility, free speech becomes nothing more than hot air. Theoritically it exists, but the living force of this freedom has been lost. Take the simple example of extremists. Do we really care about what extremists from all walks of life scream about day in and day out? Although they enjoy the same freedom of speech (theoritically) do they have the support of the mainstream media? We can say that they still enjoy free speech, but can their speech really be called "free" in the sense that I mentioned before? They may enjoy being noticed by everybody and they may enjoy high-profile coverage by the media, but do they really benefit from all this? What do they lack then? The answer is quite simple: credibility.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems of the media today is that they do not understand their biggest asset. They think that their freedom to write, speak and express what they believe in without restraint is their biggest asset which should be preserved at any cost. While they want to reserve the right to question the credibility of others around them without any restrictions, they resent the suggestion when it's directed at them. Personally, I believe that they're barking up the wrong tree. Their real focus should be on preserving their credibility. A media that has lost its voice due to censorship can really strike back with a vengeance. Today, with the advance of technology and the advent of the internet and electronic media, they are so powerful that they can literally destroy the forces which dared to try and gag them. The opportunities to break the shackles of restraint have grown so rapidly that censorship is becoming an increasingly dangerous weapon against the ones who wield it no matter how powerful they may be. But a media that loses its credibility cannot survive. For when credibility is gone, they have lost the biggest thing that made them what they are: their audience. The very people who watch, listen or read the news and give this media a life force: the ability to influence public opinion and the ability to mobilize the population. I think all those involved in the mainstream media should seriously think about this.

I think that the most popular newspapers, the most powerful television channels and the best news websites enjoy one thing which is far more valuable than their freedom of expression: it's their credibility. And credibility is not something that gets handed on a platter on day one. Credibility is earned by taking responsibility. Credibility is earned by standing behind what you speak and speaking out responsibility and with a commitment to that audience which you serve. Credibility is about owning up to mistakes and in accepting the consequences of your words and actions. Credibility is about publishing news without blatant bias and without serving vested interests. Credibility is about being reasonable and firm without being harsh and vituperative. Credibility is about transparency and honesty. Last, but not least, credibility is about longevity and staying power. Any newspaper reader will tell you that he gives more weightage to the opinion of a long-established writer in a reputed newspaper than the new kid on the block. In the media, the building called reputation can only be constructed using the bricks of credibility. And let me tell you that while it may take time and painstaking effort to build credibility, it can be destroyed in a single day. That's why I stress on the fact that the media today aren't defending their most vital asset.

I honestly believe that responsible speech is not contrary to free speech. On the other hand, responsibility is very much about free speech. For responsible speech is the living breath of free speech. The full benefits of this freedom can only be enjoyed not just by being noticed, but by being accepted as a credible source of news and views. Opinions can be made, changed and influenced only by those who are accepted as credible by their audience. A person who is allowed to speak out on the podium only to an empty hall doesn't really benefit from that freedom. He has the freedom to speak out, but then nobody is listening. Ultimately the media has to realize that their biggest assets are their customers. If the customers who really matter to them stop watching their channels, buying their newspapers and visiting their websites, they might as well shut shop. No doubt they might be able to sustain themselves on past credibility for some time, but that effect wears off pretty soon when they start misusing that privilege.

Let me conclude by saying that we should promote "responsibility of speech" rather than "freedom of speech". While the latter is the basic foundation of a democratic society, the former is the one which gives life and meaning to that democracy.

5 comment(s)

  1. Your last para sums it up nicely. If we equate freedom with power then I am reminded of the dialogue in the movie "Spiderman" - "with great power comes great responsibility". Good blog you have :-)

    Comment by thennavan (visitor) on Tue, Oct 25, 2005 @ 03:50 IST #
  2. Thennavan, thanks for dropping by! I have a tendency to write too long and I feel that sometimes discourages people from reading it. I would sure like some of your feedback (I value it highly) regarding content and style.Regards.

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Tue, Oct 25, 2005 @ 07:16 IST #
  3. This is a very good piece. Its just too bad it will not be taken to heart by the mainstream US press. It seems their goal is to get George W Bush, and the truth be damned.Every time they dig up some more dirt that turns out to be manufactured, they dig themselves deeper into a hole by circling the wagons and giving awards for the very stories which were based on falsehoods.News is about reporting the story, not manufacturing it.But the media has always been political. Its just now, its more one sided than it has ever been in the past.Read articles written about Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln, you can probably find some very vicious articles based on untrue rumors, but there they are.We'll never get rid of partisanship, nor should we want such a thing. But rather, we should push both sides into an honest debate, and hold their toes to the truth.... with the media as it is constituted today.... I'm afraid they'll only hold one side's feet to the fire.Responsible free speech isn't something you demand from other people, it is something you practice. And with it, expose lies (even if you wish the lies were true) as lies and move into the arena of ideas where true democracy is made. Freedom to debate, and to prove that someone is lying, not just claim it for slanderous purposes, is responsible free speech. I don't see much out there as of late.Good blog,John

    Comment by John (visitor) on Tue, Oct 25, 2005 @ 13:05 IST #
  4. Thanks for dropping by with your observations, John. It's interesting that the less credible media seems to become, the higher their rating in the mainstream audience. News media ultimately delivers what the majority of the people want to see, hear and believe which in many cases is contrary to truth.

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Tue, Oct 25, 2005 @ 13:59 IST #
  5. [...] Let’s face it. Some topics are best left to the experts: science and religion in particular. Academics armed with more facts and knowledge are in a much better position to debate these topic on rather more solid ground than laymen. People who rely only on their personal experience, opinions and feelings might not find too much common ground for any meaningful discussion with other lay people. On the other hand, academics who’ve done their research and who have a reasonably knowledge of not only own areas of speciality but also an understanding of why some things are the way they are, tend to go deeper, probe better and get answers which might actually help them and others. With due respect to all laymen including techie “geeks”, I don’t really think they are in a position to carry on religious or scientific debates. I have learnt to respect that and I humbly raise my hands to show that I don’t have more than a cursory knowledge on some issues and I would rather stay out of such discussions than come forward and arrogantly proclaim my ignorance. This is not about freedom of speech, but rather about credibility which I have talked about in an earlier article. It’s about respecting knowledge when you see it and acknowledging your own ignorance. It’s also about owning up to factual mistakes. Unfortunately all I see on most online debates is finger-pointing, accusations and sometimes, elitist arrogance. It’s not to say that you should apologize sincerely each time you make an error but merely to acknowledge that you have made it. Sadly, people shy away from such niceties which are in fact, the heart and soul of debating. [...]

    Comment by Hari’s Corner » Why I don’t debate online these days (visitor) on Mon, Nov 14, 2005 @ 12:05 IST #

Comments closed

The blog owner has closed further commenting on this entry.