Nothing. Justifies. Violence. Period.

As pretty much a freedom of expression absolutist, I believe in the right to offend and blaspheme, as well as in the right to take offence. There is one single red line for both: Nothing. Justifies. Violence. Period. My rule of thumb is, “Your freedom of expression stops where my nose starts”. It is not “Your freedom of expression stops where my emotional meltdown begins”.

People should be free to be irreverent or offensive—whether that is in the form of jokes about religious figures, or merciless satire about public figures, or sexist jokes. They can expect fiery blowback. Equally, free speech/expression has no immunity from other free speech/expression. It can expect to be challenged, countered, heckled, called out, or ignored. Your vigorous opinion on my lousy free speech is also free speech. A plurality of ideas makes for a vibrant, creative, and ultimately healthier democracy. In a free society, private citizens and entities are free to set their own red lines, even if it’s on a public platform (be it a Twitter account or a television channel); but the State must safeguard universal freedom of expression, and the universal right to life and liberty. A contest of ideas, no matter how vile, under this umbrella, can eventually shift conversations and behaviours towards the most persuasive (from where I stand, hopefully, the most liberal). Call each other names all you like, but Nothing. Justifies. Violence. Period.

In the real world, every constitutional democracy sets ‘reasonable restrictions’ on freedom of expression. In India, incitement to violence is a red line; but so, sadly, is offending religious sentiments—an exception that has no place in a free society—and criminal defamation, an offence which civilised societies should decriminalise.

Arguments about freedom of expression tend to get stuck in disagreements about the ideas themselves. But the question of whether an act of speech/expression is right or wrong, acceptable or not, is a completely different debate. We can, and should, have that debate until the last person falls dead of exhaustion from shouting. But in the meantime, Nothing. Justifies. Violence. Period.

In the real world, not everyone can manage their emotions; when they encounter ideas they don’t like, they attack people and break things. Among these emotional toddlers, you will find the devout of every stripe, pseudo-nationalists, patriarchs, the far left, the not-even-that-far right, and all kinds of ideologues as well as political opportunists. Peaceful protest is a fundamental right, but a society that caves in to these violent bullying babies is a less free society. The core problem of free speech is not free speech: It is effective law enforcement. This is the only meaningful protection for the legal standard for freedom of expression, and it is the State’s obligation to provide it, so that freedoms are not garrotted by social veto and vigilantism. Real countries have to decide whether to stand by liberal constitutions or allow themselves to be blackmailed by the threat of violence. Vigorous peaceful protest against perceived offence is fine—necessary, even. Physical retaliation is not.

France has refused to restrict its freedom of expression standards, in a way that Indian free speech advocates can only envy. India, with its majoritarian double standards, and liberal confusion about ‘respect’ versus freedom of expression, has a long way to go. There is no difference between the Islamist who beheads so-called blasphemers, the Hindutva sympathiser who lynches Muslims or Dalits, the self-appointed custodian of ‘cultural values’ who destroys art or property, the rapist-murderer, or the murderous political ideologue. You can tie yourself up in knots with competing well-meaning impulses, but if you’re looking for clarity, I can offer you this:

When it comes to freedom of expression, Nothing. Justifies. Violence. Period.