Limits to Freedom of Expression - 1

A lot has expressed about "Freedom of Expression". As one of the pillars, holding the edifice that is democracy.By its very definition, democracy is rule of the majority. By that logic, freedom of expression in a democracy should be only to the level that it reflects the views of the majority.

But what complicates matters are the individual's right to express his opinion in a democracy.It definitely is hard to know what constitutes views of a majority, until you know the majority of that being expressed. And the majority will feel "free" to express only via "Freedom of Expression" of course.

So how does a government or society tread this fine line? When MF Hussain hurt the sentiments of the majority community of his motherland, he was forced to live in exile. He now has taken citizenship with another country There has been a lot of debate on what went wrong. A thoughtful point made by Sri Sri Ravi Sanka has silenced the din: If MF Hussain were to hurt the sentiments of the majority community in this other country, wouldn't he be subjected to the same.

But if MF Hussain had hurt the sentiments of a minority community, would that be acceptable? Of course not. But the majority could be accepting these views? Unarguably may be, yet it would be wrong. How does a government then protect the rights and sentiments of every community it governs while also protecting the individual's "Freedom of Expression"?

I read someplace that by carrying out censorship and calling something "obscene" is actually an obscenity carried out toward the freedom of expression.It is the same argument I shared above. Having said so, I also think censorship to an extent, is necessary. For example, say you do not place boundary walls to your home/country, what is to stop people from running into your area and setting a fire in the name of "expression". What is to stop a person from lying like there's no sacrilege, even loudly so its perceived by more as truth. Damage done can be both ways, tangible and intangible.

Right now, its the elected body that lays broad rules, the bureaucrats that apply them, all in the scrutiny of a vibrant media (perhaps the acid test).

It has its failings, and on a case-by-case basis, a nation's conscience is pricked. Protests are raised in a democracy when something expressed is just not acceptable (by the government/private body/individual). And the government acts to suppress/revert either the matter expressed, or the protests itself. In all of this, there is considerable waste of property, money, time, and much worse, even life.

Avoidable? If our norms were steadfast. But in a multi-cultural, secular democracy like India, a host to 28 states and an equal number of distinctly significant populations of communities, tied by a myriad range of religions and languages, how do we define such parameters?
(Thoughts welcome. To be continued...)