Frederick Noronha wrote: But do the Bollywoods of the world deserve applause when they go about repeatedly and unrepentently painting The Other in crude stereotypes? If we treat them with Free Speech arguments, then why not also respect the "right" people have to indulge in blatant communal speech, racist talk or gender-based bigotry? -------------------------------------------------
I think this debate is one of the most important debates, we will have in a free society. What is free speech and what is an infringement on one's right to respect? There are always two valid points of view. For me personally, when in doubt err on the side of free speech. But to take Frederick's argument further, where do we stop? If you can censor Bollywood, do we also censor the print media, the literary novelist, the internet blogger? There are tens of books that refer to Indian Christians as Chutney Marys, ayahs, drunk bakers. Do we ban them all? Top on that list would be Sir Richard Burton's classic, Goa and the Blue Mountains, followed closely by V S Naipaul. Secondly, does artistic interpretation create stereotypes or reflect it? Where do stereotypes arise from? Surely not from the pages of a writer. They arise in the whirlpool of human interaction. So do we ban society from creating stereotypes? I agree that stereotypes dehumanise people, but censorship and legislation is not always the correct way to counter them, but rather through re-education and assimilation. Thirdly, the writer has always used common stereotype to enhance characterization. Do you want to take that privilege away from the writer? To give an example of free speech, the word "nig*er" is banned on US screens but it is not banned when used by a character in a movie. The more important question is why must the writer not have the freedom to form characters exactly as he sees them? Where do we stop? What if the Bhatkars of Goa protest tomorrow that they are fed-up of tiatrists characterizing them as arrogant and mercenary? What if the "bhaile" of Goa stand in a queue outside tiatr halls demanding a ban on the tiatr, Aum Goenkar, tum konn? Fourthly, each society will rightfully decide the extent of free speech it is comfortable with. In the US, the word "fu&&" is banned on TV, in the UK (though generally bleeped) is not banned. In my experience, free speech has done far less harm in this world than repressed speech. The most handicapped societies are those that emerge from a tradition of repression. When we chip away at free speech, we undermine the very fundamentals of democracy. And I am surprised Frederick of all people should not get this. Best, Selma
