FoE has two pillars to rely upon - 1)laws protecting speech 2) social protection for speech.The laws invariably protect against Govt intrusion though there is no reason why such laws should apply on private companies, but they don’t today.Comparison between India & US wrt these:
US still has stronger laws on FoE. The First Amendment. Nothing remotely comparable in India. The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to define hate speech simply because of the subjectivity involved.
But the laws can take one only so far without social backing. In fact cultural ethos is any day a far stronger deterrent on free speech because social influence is pervasive while the Govt can sanction only so many. This is exactly where India today scores over US.
India still does not have the culture of socially sanctioning speech. Loss of employment because of wrong views is nearly unheard of. And the threat of job loss is far greater than laws simply because the enforcement of laws can not be done on a mass basis.
In US today firing over wrong speech is norm rather than the exception. In private sector. This creates a greater sense of insecurity than any law ever can since most jobs are in private sector. This fear in the general populace is being reflected in survey after survey.
Americans, citizens and residents, are terrified of expressing themselves in fear of suffering adverse professional consequences. This is a very serious deterrent against freedom. There are few orgs defending free speech, but only few, so they can go only so far.
And, a free speech advocacy organization can do very little to protect against professional sanctions in private sector because there is no law protecting speech in private sector. Thus, First Amendment is in effect annulled or at least severely limited.
Summarily therefore citizens and residents of India enjoy greater freedom of expression which is until the woke cancel culture mob assumes control of the Corporate sector.
The social latitude for freedom of expression in India owes in part to the Hindu civilizational culture of free expression and debates. Different schools of thought could develop in Indic civilizational primarily because of the ancient tradition of free speech & debates.
Scholarship and debate was how Shankaracharya rejuvenated Hinduism for example. Debate between scholars had a hoary tradition in centers of learning like Navadwip continuing until the British times.
Despite the long standing Indic cultural norms, a question then is why did India not enact a law like First Amendment in 1947, which US did when it became independent from English control.
The answer I believe is that the modern Indian state is the continuation of British colonial state rather than Indic values. The last act of her formation was through negotiations and deal makings rather than through a militarized revolution, the latter happened for US.
Since 1947 India continued with almost all the laws that the British used to exert control on its subjects, the Indic civilizational legacy was largely ignored in the laws. Only the white rulers were replaced by brown ones.
FoE is the most basic of the civil liberties, but why would a colonial state care about any civil liberty of its subjects. The British didn’t, so there was no First Amendment in British laws for India. Their Indian continuations didn’t either for they were products of colonials.
US was formed through a revolution which helped break shackles of colonial state. Thus the liberty of citizens, as defined then, were of paramount consideration. Hence the various amendments which protect citizens against the government.
But of course the limitations that would come later through social culture combined with private sector control could not be foreseen. Hence protections from big business were limited in US constitution.This is exactly the loophole through which First Amendment is being nullified
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
