“Citizens must internalise the value of freedom of speech rather than test its limits”. Comment.
Kartavya Desk Staff
Topic: Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.
Topic: Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.
Q3. “Citizens must internalise the value of freedom of speech rather than test its limits”. Comment. (10 M)
Difficulty Level: Medium
Reference: TH
Why the question: The Supreme Court said citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression and observe self-regulation as it mulled guidelines to regulate offensive posts on social media. Key Demand of the question: The question asks you to evaluate the need for citizens to internalise the spirit of freedom of speech and the consequences of testing its constitutional and ethical boundaries. Structure of the Answer: Introduction: Define freedom of speech as a constitutional right with civic responsibility, and briefly link it to social harmony in a digital society. Body: Why citizens must internalise the value of free speech: Point on promoting fraternity, avoiding legal misuse, preserving democratic space, and maintaining digital civility. Risks of testing its limits: Point on triggering Article 19(2) restrictions, legal harassment, censorship backlash, and social polarisation. Conclusion: Suggest that self-restraint, not state restraint, is key to safeguarding free speech in a plural democracy.
Why the question: The Supreme Court said citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression and observe self-regulation as it mulled guidelines to regulate offensive posts on social media.
Key Demand of the question: The question asks you to evaluate the need for citizens to internalise the spirit of freedom of speech and the consequences of testing its constitutional and ethical boundaries.
Structure of the Answer:
Introduction: Define freedom of speech as a constitutional right with civic responsibility, and briefly link it to social harmony in a digital society.
• Why citizens must internalise the value of free speech: Point on promoting fraternity, avoiding legal misuse, preserving democratic space, and maintaining digital civility.
• Risks of testing its limits: Point on triggering Article 19(2) restrictions, legal harassment, censorship backlash, and social polarisation.
Conclusion: Suggest that self-restraint, not state restraint, is key to safeguarding free speech in a plural democracy.