'We Have Ethical Duty Not To Engage In Certain Conduct': Barrister Dr Venkat Iyer Speaks At Event On 'Legal Regulation Of Hate Speech'

Dr. Venkat Iyer, Barrister in Ireland, had the occasion to speak on the topic 'Legal Regulation of Hate Speech: Is It Possible? Is It Desirable?' in an event, organized by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) and Samatha Law Society. The event was held at the High Court auditorium as part of the Continuing Legal Education Programme.Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar gave an insightful introductory remark on the topic, touching upon the conflict between Constitutional law and Criminal law on the subject of restriction on free speech.Dr. Venkat Iyer began his speech by making clear his stance on regulation of 'hate' speech. According to him, it is possible as well as desirable to regulate hate speech up to a certain point. He pointed out that though there exists no concrete definition of the term, there is a need for a better understanding of the same, especially in divided societies.“I recognise that this topic has particular resonance in deeply divided societies, including societies like India. Therefore, there is a need for a better understanding of what we actually mean by hate speech and therefore, to address possible remedies, we should, in particular, avoid knee-jerk reactions. Now, you might find an incident which bothers you which would be one of hate being mongered. That should not make you adopt a knee-jerk reaction and do something that will seriously harm the landscape of free speech.”Dr. Iyer then went on to paint a picture of what can and what may not constitute as 'hate speech'. He took the example of someone wearing the offensive robes of the Klu Klux Klan, glorifying the holocaust, leaving a pig carcass or a cow carcass in front of a mosque or Hindu temple, the burning of the flag, etc. He felt was that the concept is not just limited to words but includes actions, attires or symbols, glorification of certain events, burning of objects, etc.He emphasized that each of us have an ethical duty not to engage in certain type of conduct even if these actions are not prohibited by law. This ethical duty is particular important in the issue of hate speech.“Each one of us has an ethical duty to not to engage in certain conduct. Even if that conduct is allowed by the law or is not prohibited by the law. Ethical aspect is to be emphasised, particularly, in relation to hate speech. There is also another advantage, which is that if you say that it is unethical to cause offense needlessly, then you are also sending a very good signal to society and that signal is all of us need to behave ethically. If we do, then the problem will be diminished in very significant volumes.”Dr. Iyer also pointed out a solution to address the issue of hate speech and encourage ethical behaviour by 'naming and shaming'.“One way of encouraging that trend of behaving ethically is this tactic naming and shaming. There are many countries where there is no law which prohibits somebody from saying something but there is a tremendous amount of shame attached to such conduct. When that happens on a scale throughout society, it will take a long time in countries like India, but when it happens on a long scale or volume, then automatically, may be a generation or two down the line, will restrain itself from causing offence needlessly and gratuitously. Causing offence gratuitously is something totally discouraged.”He then expressed his opinion that there may even be certain occasions that warrant necessity to cause offence to someone else but not “willy nilly” or “gratuitously”. He said that speech should be prohibited only when there is serious and identifiable harm. He highlighted that the touchstone of free speech in a democracy happens not by curbing speech but by permitting others to challenge it.“I am not in favour of marginalising any group or I am not favour of assaulting the dignity of any group in society, willy nilly. But sometimes, I may say go something which some persons might consider to be an affront to their dignity. Whether or not what I say is reasonable or not, I should be allowed to say it but with an important caveat: Others should be allowed to challenge me. That is the way we would advance freedom and democracy. If somebody challenges me, I'll become even more aware of my responsibility to defend what I've said reasonably.”He also touched upon the issue of 'cancel culture', which he opined, was fast becoming a problematic attitude in many parts of the world, though not as much in India.He concluded his speech by highlighting the role and responsibility of the media and the judiciary in advancing and promoting free speech.“If you do not have a free and fair media, you can kiss goodbye to freedom and democracy. Media should be allowed, for example, to report a speech that may be uncomfortable to many people on grounds of hate or whatever. But, of course, media have to be responsible as well. So there are certain occasions where media will have to paraphrase what a particularly provocative...

'We Have Ethical Duty Not To Engage In Certain Conduct': Barrister Dr Venkat Iyer Speaks At Event On 'Legal Regulation Of Hate Speech'

K. Salma Jennath

Tags