Free speech comes with responsibility true.

But there is a small matter of who gets to decide what is sensible/moral/immoral/obscene. Specially when it comes to the Internet.

When it comes to free speech and literary works, one can make a distinction between fiction/non-fiction. Fact/Satire.

As long as it remains a work of fiction/art however crass or offensive to general sensibilities it maybe. As long as it not a call to arms/inciting violence it does not hold water legally.

It is like the recent case over gay rights in the Indian Supreme Court. Who gets to decide what is moral/immoral. Although that was about acts between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes, the principle remains. Who gets to decide what is offensive and what is not.

When it comes to fundamental rights majority rule does not quite hold water. Else things like abolition of caste systems/slavery, equal rights for all races etc. may never have come to pass.

For example, the word “beef” was censored out from a sitcom aired on star world in India. It offends Hindus. The word Dick from Dick’s sporting goods (in this case a name) was censored out in another sitcom, because it may sound offensive. Never mind that Dick is a nick name for Richard. I wonder how news about Dick Cheney might be read on Indian new channels.

The point being, it is a slippery slope when it comes to being offended.

Free speech entails the right to be offended, but also the right to be offensive.

The video may appear crass to millions, but it is just that a poorly conceptualised work of purported art, however crass it may appear to many. A video/film.

The Right to Free speech was written with a clause in India. That it may be abridged in the interest of public order/decency/morality. The loophole is big enough for an aircraft carrier to sail through.

It is this loophole which has been used time and again by every “youth” wing of political parties to create ruckus over news/literature/films/music/anything under the sky, which portrays anyone they support in bad light.

It is vague, I cannot say if it was purposefully vague. But vague enough that any judgement even by the supreme court will depend on who is arguing the case and who is sitting in judgement.

It is only recently, that the supreme court has been stepping in and trying to delineate from a legal stand point. Which is good as it will make its interpretation easier.

To make matters complicated, the video was hosted on a foreign website, created by a person living abroad in a country with freedom of speech laws without any clause.

It is one thing for a citizen or even a group of citizens to feel offended.

But it is below the dignity of the government to concern itself with matters like these. As even its illegality is in question.

When one feels it is crass, just thumb it down as one can do it on youtube and do not watch it, or flag it as offensive. But one cannot go around imposing the law of one land in a different country.

http://pugettown.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/reincarnating-gandhi/