In the passionate arguments that have recently emerged around the related topics of freedom of expression, the Indian sedition law, etc. in the opinion cloud of cyberspace, I've often heard people voice the argument that speech, after all, is merely speech. Different from action.
The voice that argues so, says that people committing crimes as a result of instigation by an agent provocateur are fully and entirely responsible for those crimes, and those inciting them to commit those crimes carry no responsibility at all. Because all they have done is spoken, not acted. They argue that since actors are free agents unto themselves, they would only act on their own accord, not just on someone else's say so. You can take a horse to the water .. blah blah. So, says this voice, words are innocent, even if disagreeable. Only action is guilty.
Sigh.
The next time there is a terrorist attack (Heaven forbid) and there's an international manhunt for the "master mind" behind it, I would like this voice above to step up and say "Why hold the so-called master mind responsible? After all, that individual only spoke, but didn't *do* anything. There was already enough disaffection among those disenfranchised actors to commit those acts."
By the same token, we should not hold Osama bin Laden responsible for 9/11. Nor Hafiz Saeed for 26/11. Their minions did all the dirty work; all they did was to speak. And freedom of speech is an inalienable fundamental right. Right?
Taking the horse to the water is the cause. The horse drinking (or not) is the effect. If the horse does not drink then it is a failed cause. When the mission involves violence against the state and/or its people, do we want to wait till the horse reaches the water to find out whether it will or wont drink? Ergo, sedition law: if you see someone taking a horse to the water, stop them. This is why India is asking for Hafiz Saeed and other rabble-rousers in Pakistan to be incarcerated. In this case, sedition does not apply, since it is a different country, but the principle is the same -- prevention better than cure.
Let's recognize that we live in a world with horses, and men and women who can and do drink, but can't or don't think. That is, they can't or don't think about what they are being inspired/ motivated/ taught/ commanded/ cajoled/ goaded to do, overwhelmed as they are with anger and hatred.
A society where people by and large do not become horses that misanthropes can ride, certainly can - and certainly should - have unrestricted free speech. Ah! would I love that! But, unfortunately, that's not what we have, here (in this part of the world, at least) and now (in the present time, at least). We have misanthropes, we have horses and we have people who can't think beyond their anger and hatred. We have misanthropes who will always stay in the background and whip-up mob hysteria in their constituencies. We have misanthropes who will sacrifice their horses, but save themselves so that they can 'live to fight another day' i.e. continue to pursue their deadly mission of destruction. So they will only speak, never act.
It is what it is. Deal with it. Arm yourself with the sedition law and use it justly. And if you don't trust your government to do that, then fix THAT problem. Don't remove the law! There's a time and place for it. And it is not here, and not now.
