Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am.
Thinking is the fundamental need for existence. It is a process which involves logic and one’s very own sentiments. It is either impossible or very difficult to directly control one’s thoughts. For me, controlling thoughts is same as controlling life! Therefore, I think absolute freedom of thoughts is inevitable for a healthy society.
But what about absolute freedom of action? If I am allowed to think whatever I want, should I be allowed to do whatever I want?
The obvious answer is No, if a peaceful and healthy society is a requirement. Considering the number of different types of personalities and their subjective needs and opinions, we always need a governing body which makes laws and regulates the freedom of action.
For example, freedom of eating is my right. But I should not be allowed to eat the food which I don’t own. Car driving is my right, but I should not be allowed to drive when traffic signal is red. It is a requirement for peace.
A general rule that can be derived from above is that, I should have absolute freedom of every action unless I hurt others’ freedom.
So far what I said is quite obvious. No one should have doubt on absolute freedom of thoughts and limited freedom of action.
Now let’s discuss a relatively complex issue i.e. Freedom of speech or freedom of expression.
Although Freedom of speech seems similar and as harmless as freedom of thoughts but actually it is not. I might be wrong but I regard freedom of expression as a special case of freedom of action because just like you can hurt freedom of others from your actions, you can also hurt one’s sentiments and emotions from your words and that can ultimately result in physical torture.
Just like absolute freedom of action can be violent and harmful for a peaceful society, absolute freedom of speech can also turn into violence. Therefore, I believe we do also need some level of regulation on freedom of speech. But how strict those regulations should be? I think that varies from society to society and we need to identify the related social factors.
I can give examples here to support my argument. Religion is considered to be a very sensitive topic for many people and in some places; tolerance level against religious views is too low. Believers usually have strong emotional attachments with their religious personalities and values. A single word against them can be absolutely intolerant and result into violence.
Politics is another sensitive issue. We regularly observe violence due to public expression on differences in political views. That’s why we often see signs like “Yahan siyaasi guftagoo kerna mana hai (Political discussions are not allowed here)” at public busses and other public places. The intention of these signs is nothing else but to maintain peace.
I would love to support the idea of absolute freedom of speech with no censorship at all. But unfortunately, reality is not favorable in most of the cases. In a society where sprit of tolerance is high and people are willing to hear and observe different views and opinions on every topic, absolute freedom of speech should be there. Infact, Freedom of speech in that case is the fundamental need for progress in society.
But what to do in a society where people take religion or politics in a very emotional manner and follow the teaching of their leaders as an absolute truth, without using their minds and without considering the needs for change? What level of tolerance you expect when you encourage absolute freedom of speech? Will not it create chaos and anarchy and destroy the peace in a worse way?
According to my very limited knowledge and wisdom, absolute freedom of speech in a society, where sprit of tolerance is low, will make the case worse. But isn’t regulation and censorship on freedom of speech is harmful in itself? Can we afford a stagnant society? Doesn’t it limit the flow of healthy and productive ideas? Sure it does. Just like absolute freedom has its issues, censorship or regulation also has some serious problems.
Another problem with regulation or censorship is that who will impose this regulation? If its government? Do we trust on its skills and sincerity?
What is the solution then? An absolute freedom or an absolutely censored system?
I wish that answer was simple. I can’t suggest absolute freedom considering the high risk of violence when the majority of population lacks sprit of tolerance. Neither, I can afford to even think about absolute censorship where a government has a right to control the flow of healthy information.
If we really want a progressive society with freedom and peace, we need to solve the fundamental problems. We need to work on increasing the tolerance level of the population first. We need to identify the factors which can help people to debate on different opinions and learn from each other with peace.
I personally believe that Education is the most important factor. Without basic education, we cannot expect people to have tolerance for debate. By education, I don’t mean traditional academic degrees but I mean the true awareness of fundamental human rights, arts, science and cultural values. By education, I mean the true intellectual enlightenment of minds where majority can see and think out of the box.
Other important factors that are surely helpful for the cause are economic prosperity and social justice. But I think these factors are also dependent on the basic education of the population.
If we are really sincere to solve our social problems, I think we need to focus on root causes. Instead of solving symptoms, we should identify and solve core problem. And in my humble opinion, education is the core problem of my society.
—-
Note: I usually avoid unnecessary political or religious discussion in public and try to keep my views to myself or to a limited audience only. But a recent incident forced me to write this post. I am writing this after some interesting and detailed discussion with my friends. Their opinion helped me to modify my some views and I would like to name those here. Many thanks to Madam Jehan, Sohail Abid, Ammar, Fariha, Talha and some participants of last Karachi Bloggers Meetup.
March 23, 2009 at 12:21 am |
Nice post Munir but hey you haven’t the mentioned the conclusion that we reached yesterday (or did we not? :S…may be I was trying to draw a conclusion so that I can get an ice cream :P) I think we all agreed pretty much to all the points you have mentioned here, our question was “why should this all lead to restrictions on blogs/blogging?” If the content of any blog leads to violence or any other unlawful action, then the laws that we already have can be used to fight against it and punish the people responsible for that unlawful act.
We can’t really wait for the society to turn into an *ideal* society where everyone has a reasonable level of intellect and tolerance and then allow people to blog…trust me such a society might never come into being..if it does then I’ll in fact we all will find “utopia”.
If you have certain developed countries in mind where you think people have got a good level of tolerance than let me tell you that even there crimes like “cyber-bullying” exist and have forced people to commit suicides. Have they also restricted blogging or should they? The solution is to use the existing laws to counter these problems.
Additionally. I think we should use blogging itself as a tool to bring about the change in mindset of our people- the change that you, me and many others want to see, that makes people understand the moral, ethical limits as well the boundaries of law.
People will blog and make mistakes but others need to help them correct those mistakes!
Aaaa…laaaang comment..this discussion is to be continued over the McFlurry Session..waiting for the invitation! :)
March 23, 2009 at 1:58 am |
Hey Fariha,
Two important things you mentioned in your comments:
1) We can’t wait till our society to turn into an ideal society where everyone has required level of intellect and tolerance.
I agree with you. But achieving an ideal society is not my point in the post. That’s simply impossible. My point was to focus on general education of the people so that “majority” achieves the required level of tolerance.
2) Existing laws are enough to protect against violence caused by freedom of speech. And we should use the free internet media to change the mindset of the people in a positive way.
For first part, it reminds me a nice quote of Albert Einstein here:
“Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. – Albert Einstein”
But don’t take my point as something against freedom of blogs. I am just asking all to put attention on the real problem of the society. Without it, true freedom is impossible to achieve. Yes the freedom of blogs should be used for constructive stuff like education as you said. But there are times when freedom can have more negative effects.
March 23, 2009 at 1:59 am |
And for your 3rd universal point about McFurry, wait for 31st March ;P
March 23, 2009 at 6:45 am |
@Munir: Communication, complex, multilayered communication, is the hallmark of our species. It has enabled the creation of such finely honed concepts as participative democracy, social justice and the like. It does not, by itself, work either for or against the needs and demands created around our primeval instincts, such as hunger or protection against the elements.
It is simply not possible to channel, or place within a hierarchy, a concept like social awareness, before another like democracy, but in any case, neither can even be discussed in the same framework as communication, which transcends them. For this reason, the ’spirit of tolerance’ for which you quote Einstein, must include the very concept of communication itself.
Certainly, there will be those who, either from misplaced passion or perverted reasoning, will seek to sway others, and some will succeed. Abraham Lincoln, perhaps more famously than your quote of Einstein’s, noted that you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but not all the people all of the time.
Those who succeed in curbing communication totally within any societal grouping, including the group of people who can access the Internet, will achieve the first part of Lincoln’s epigram. Those whose eloquence is mightier than their good sense or concern for their fellow beings, will achieve the second.
But neither will prevail.
For that reason alone, unleashing the curbs on freedom of expression is hewing closer to the path of discovering truth, for all and by all. It is more likely to achieve the kind of universal education you champion, than cloistering within the portals of truth a privileged and enlightened few, who may, in an Utopian vision of some future age, lead their fellow beings in that direction.
March 24, 2009 at 8:04 am |
@Munir, I understand your concerns about intolerance in society. However, I think we need to address this issue from both ends. We need to maintain freedom of expression and at the same time create social awareness for tolerance of each other’s views – in fact, I would advocate more than just mere tolerance. Listening to the other’s viewpoint, trying to understand it and be willing to change your own if he/she makes a good case.
A Utopian society in my view would be quite boring so let us not aim for one. Let us try and make this society a better one and that can only be achieved if we are able to express our views, educate people through a reasoning process and be able to listen to the viewpoints of others. Some elements of strategy and good sense will have to prevail of course. Regulation or censorship, however, is not the way forward. To put a leash on your power of expression only ends up in frustration which doesn’t lead to anything positive at all.
People will learn how to say what they need to without offending someone else, or without stepping on other people’s sensitivities. On the other hand we may even learn to accept criticism and learn from it rather than being overly sensitive about everything. Religion doesn’t need us to protect it. As for politics, it could do with a little more openness.
I enjoyed our lunch and our discussion. Continue to keep an open mind Munir, and thanks for being such a good sport.
March 25, 2009 at 11:11 am |
I believe, absolute freedom can only exists for animals. Humanity can only thrive on certain limitations that empower certain freedoms. I believe in laws and boundaries because it won’t let people exploit in the name of freedom.
March 30, 2009 at 10:59 am |
@lubna: It’s the age-old conundrum, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who among us is so pristinely suited to determining which boundary applies to which person? We are quite incapable of finding even one boundary that fits all.
Murder, you might think? We empower our soldiers to kill on demand (and get annoyed and grieved when they choose to obey alternate demands).
Your very thesis begs rejection: “absolute freedom can only exists for animals”, and what, pray, are we? Do you, can you, reject the freedom to express the truth, that we are just another animal, evolved enough, certainly, to include the question (and till we can open our ‘ears’ to other voices, we can’t be sure we’re the only ones who do that)?
Which freedoms will you empower, and which, through the natural fallout of restricting the paths to truth, will you find disallowed willy-nilly?
Let us recall Tagore’s words (if only because he said it so well):
“Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where the words come out from the depth of truth; ”
….
“Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit”
There is no more surefire path to dead habit than handing over the keys of freedom to a bunch of elitist supremacists, who hide their narrow ambitions beneath the black folds of religion, law, or other human fancies, and seek to control truth within the constraints of their naked power.
April 2, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
It is a clear trade-off. You have a utility function with freedom of expression as input variable and you have constraints on that variable, like an upper limit or some topics not to be discussed in public . Our goal should be to maximize the utility function within the given constraint set, i.e. use the available freedom to our advantage, the more advantage we gain will ultimately relax the constraints – e.g. help society be more tolerant to new ideas as you point – and would ultimately lead to a convergence to optimality.
What I am saying above might as well be very idealistic but it is reasonable. :)
May 7, 2009 at 11:53 am |
*This is totally unrelated to your post*
Published date of this post is:
March 22, 2009 by Munir
Today is:
May 7, 2009
So much for being regular ‘taap’ blogger!
July 7, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
Freedom of speech in an intolerant society.
Well just a simple question.
When Denmark published cartoons of our beloved Prophet(SAW) that was done in the name of “Freedom of Speech” and it brought a huge reaction. So would you call that a reaction of an intolerant society??
Rushdie also advocates freedom of speech, would you support that?? So when we are against Rushdie we are an intolerant and uneducated people, are we??
July 7, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
The modern democratic civilization is still at a failure to understand the meaning of the right for expression of speech, they just brag things in books and their ideas still remain bookish or debatable… . it was Islam 1400 years back which didn’t have the idea in books only… but things were well implemented as social norms.Jeetay Jaagtay loog ……e.g. an old woman uses her right to ask question on Haq Mehr to the state ruler Caliph Umar(RAA), and man asks State Ruler Umer RAA, from where his piece of cloth came when maal e ganeemet was limited where state ruler gives justification that his son gave him his piece of share….. Glorious history of islam was practical not like slogans of liberation in democracy.
Is it our problem of freedom of speech???This is the debate for West in their glorious period(another dark age of world’s history), they have still not resolved even such a small issue and claim to be world leaders of social ethics.This is the problem of West which they should be discussing.
July 7, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
These issues are simply toys imported from Western doctrine to keep people engaged in something of an artificial problem created by the West.Our focus is our problems not problems imported from the Western doctrine.Here blood is being shed like water in Iraq,Afghanistan and Kashmir and freedom of living is being violated by a civilization who are the biggest exporter of the problem of freedom of speech………..and the unfortunate aspect is our people easily fall into this freedom of speech trap.
October 23, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
Empty rhetoric —Najmuddin A Shaikh
The only conclusion that the world could draw was that no one studies things in Pakistan or, having studied them, deliberately keeps quiet until a false crisis can be created:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2009\10\23\story_23-10-2009_pg3_2