Freedom of Speech: Nothing is Absolute

The right to think, seek, speak and express is what makes human, humane. It is through free speech, people can come together, form opinions, strengthen themselves and help uplift or enlighten or democratize the society in a robust manner. And this right is well-grained in us from the time immoral, expressed right from evolution to the depth of geopolitical instincts.

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties”. — John Milton

Freedom of Speech provides us, whether as an individual or a community, the freedom to articulate opinions and ideas, propagate them without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal sanction. It is a deeply embedded instinct, which is well recognised globally and is a human right under Article19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UDHR, explicitly, describes and maintain this right in major three parts: Holding opinions, Receiving information and Imparting it.

It further extends its presence, by being in all the major conventions, forums and global stages of geopolitical interference.

Indian Context

In India, this right is not extended separately as our constitutional committee decided to not distinguish between the individual and the press on the basis of liberties or restrictions. They are collectively held under Article 19(1)(a) as ‘Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression’.

However, every power that comes with responsibilities, this right comes under reasonable restrictions that are provided for in Article(19)(b).

With regards to Indian content, the Article 19(1)(b), provides that the freedom is not absolute and enables the legislation and judiciary to impose certain restrictions, as and when the liberty or security of the state is compromised.

These restrictions may vary from:

1. Relations with foreign states
2. Nation Security, Sovereignty and Integrity of the Nation
3. Public Order, Decency and Morality
4. Incitement of an offence due to speech, including defamation, communal violence
5. Contempt of the court

These restrictions, do not codify or hard imposed but vary in accordance with the legislation, judiciary and enablement by the Press Council of India Act, 1978.

Administration and Nature of Political will on freedom:

These terms, depicting how vague they can be in pretty much situations, vary along with the political influence, order of hierarchy and will to impose restrictions.

India’s first Prime Minister J.L. Nehru, with regards to freedom of expressions, went to the extremes when his own son-in-law was operating National Herald and printing expressions against him. He defended himself, on all the grounds, but did not impose any restrictions on the expressions flowing around. However, several years later, when Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister, she used the press as a govt machinery to impose propaganda, even stating on AIR, that Indian Media is going to be regulated as a govt body, and no changes are to be made thereof, in her presence or influence.

Thus, the same freedom, when administered by different legislators, provided for different contexts and influenced freedom.

CONCLUSION

The words, ‘in the interest of public order’, include not only the utterance but even the ones, that have the tendency to lead to disorder, which brings in the will, character and position of the administration, legislation and judiciary to play the nexus role.

India ranks 138th worldwide in press freedom index for 2025, Just saying

The phrase “Freedom of Speech: Nothing is Absolute” reflects a crucial truth in democratic societies — freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not unlimited. Here’s a comprehensive breakdown:

---

🗣️ What Is Freedom of Speech?

Freedom of speech is the right to express opinions without censorship or restraint by the government. It is enshrined in many democratic constitutions:

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution
• First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

---

⚖️ Why It’s Not Absolute

Although it’s a cornerstone of democracy, no country grants unlimited freedom of speech. This is because speech can cause harm — to individuals, society, or national security.

🌐 Universal Principle:

“Your right to speak ends where another’s rights begin.”

---

🚫 Reasonable Restrictions

In India (Article 19(2)), freedom of speech can be limited on grounds of:

• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Security of the state
• Friendly relations with foreign states
• Public order
• Decency or morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation
• Incitement to an offense

In the USA, restrictions include:

• Obscenity
• Child pornography
• Hate speech (to some extent)
• Incitement to violence
• False statements of fact (defamation, fraud)

---

🔥 Examples Where Speech Isn’t Protected

Scenario	Why It’s Restricted
Hate speech targeting a community	Can lead to violence or discrimination
Spreading false rumors during a pandemic	Threatens public health and safety
Publishing state secrets	Can compromise national security
Provoking riots or unrest	Affects public order
Defaming someone with false statements	Violates their right to reputation

---

🧠 Balancing Act: Free Speech vs. Responsibility

A mature democracy must strike a balance:

• Allow open dissent and criticism of authority
• Prevent misuse of speech to spread hate, fear, or lies
• Ensure protections for minorities and vulnerable groups

📜 “Freedom of speech is not the freedom to harm.”

---

🧭 Final Thought

Freedom of speech is essential, but it comes with ethical and legal boundaries.
Its true value lies not in being absolute, but in being responsible.

---

Would you like this as a poster, essay, debate points, or infographic?

Freedom of Speech: Nothing is Absolute

UNIT 1 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND …