Should freedom of expression be curtailed? Give your reasons?
- No… Though it does not help us in any sense, but for a safe-step, we shud nto curtail it… & close our doors for ourselves..!!
- I think in any reasonable, real-world application of the idea of freedom of expression, it should be completely unencumbered by any limiting policies.
What I mean by in the real world is that, of course, if a book were powerful enough to, say, invariably draw its readers to suicide or murder, it should not be allowed. But I think the possibility of words themselves being that immediately powerful on the human mind is very distant in our future, if at all possible.
Real-world, functional repercussions are the only ones I could see mattering in terms of censorship. But then you have to contend with what are still real-world impacts, but long term ones. Say, for example, that a child ends up running a militaristic organization against a particular race and the cause was his reading “Main Kampf” as a young one? Unfortunately, I don’t think we have the capacity to censor that, if we are to otherwise live free. I think the possible, slow, seeping-like repercussions of reading on people’s lives must rely on an otherwise effective society to be shaped.
That is to say, a society such as, say, modern France or Ireland is better equipped to deal with the kind of [in my opinion] outrageous notions in books like “Mein Kampf,” because they temper them with the conditioning of far less violent societies than modern America. I am not arguing for the superiority of those countries, simply using them as an illustration of how the slower mind-shaping style of books is best dealt with by the mind-shaping of other aspects of society, and not ever by the elimination of any free speech itself.
Note: if it is true that Nasrin flagrantly insulted Muslims for no reason, I agree that removing it was by far the best move on her part, unless those insults had a true and substantial artistic purpose. Generally, blatant insults don’t. Regardless, I disagree that someone should not have the right to insult a group… they should have the legal right to, even if it is useless. The idea of making a law against something is a different issue from whether or not that thing is wise or useful.
- No one has a right to insult and abuse others. Nasreen hurt the concious of Muslims and deleting those pages is a good remedy. She should not have written such things.
This is not freedomof expression. Freedom of expression is not broad enough to included abuses.
- In a civil society no member has unlimited freedom. There are certain codes of conduct in such a society and members must follow them for the well-being of the society. Having said this, I also want to stress that no person or a group has any right to prevent another from doing whatever he/she wants within the agreed codes. As we do not walk naked on a busy street, no artist or writer has the freedom of exhibiting his/her product if it violates the code.
All the present day noise regarding Taslima Nasreen, M.F Hussein or the