Freedom of speech is the fundamental right of every individual in any democratic country. People across the globe have fought for it for ages and then only they earned it. People behind the French Revolution of medieval era believed everybody should have freedom of speech, even if they are against their views. Every state on earth who flaunts democratic values guarantees this, at least in theory.
People living in different corners of the world have believed that freedom of speech have existed in the democratic nation they belong to.
People could talk freely in street, address a meeting and write something in a newspaper and any medium they chose. So, it led them to believe that they are the part of a society that honors this freedom.
In every media of expression that existed before internet there was a period of latency, which allowed the party targeted through this to adjust and reciprocate after a reasonable gap, or in some cases even negotiate before the cat goes out of the bag.
However, on internet this latency period does not exist and things go viral in real time.
Hence, the hypocrisy which was always there in the system of governance has got exposed and their hypocrisy get revealed in the action they take against people.
Palaghat incidence near Mumbai, where two girls were arrested for a facebook update is an important indication.
It is not that it was not into existence before. the hypocrisy was always there. The people who expressed faced it. Only difference is that people who express their views through public channel were few but now they have become too many.
So, what was said on a random meeting in street, now gets posted on a social media channel like, facebook, twitter or Google Plus, and they invite real time action. The absence of latency provokes some people and they are just ready to break the law and this fundamental foundation of democracy.
The moot question is whether common people on earth would be able to enjoy this freedom in future, if it finds resistance from the top.
Common people who are walking in the street did not and should not hesitate in expressing what he or she feels whether in real life or on internet. But, the danger is that a piece of writing on internet may land him into a jail, and later on the authorities may shrug their shoulders blaming misinterpretation by executing personnel. They don’t care the grieved person has got famous in a way they never wanted to be. Some may even face dangerous repercussion afterwards. In some developing countries people may even lose the case just because they could not hire a good lawyer. This might mean people would be scared of expressing themselves on internet. This is not something for which people have fought for in different parts of the world for a very long time.
I don’t know if any insurance company offers a policy which offers indemnity against such a situation, but I think people may create a general fund for such kind of people, who would need it to get justice from their state. Either people themselves or the website should take initiative in this direction. People debate a lot on kind of law to prevent the misuse of law. However, it is rarely the law which is at fault! The fault lies with the people executing it and the very nature of the internet media which exposes the hypocrisy of states which they have actually preserved through ages.
People won’t need law alone to fight against infringement on their fundamental rights, they would also need some kind of financial support to fight the injustice, properly, and feel secure that some powerful person may not be able to show the legal muscle against him. More than the laws securing your freedom, you need to feel free, because only then you can express freely. Suppression of this freedom is dangerous for healthy progress of mankind and all efforts should be made to secure this freedom.
No comments :
Post a Comment