Spinoza on Freedom of Expression, Life, Universe and Everything

Freedom of expression has an utilitarian effect.

Spinoza also argues for freedom of expression on utilitarian grounds — that it is necessary for the discovery of truth, economic progress and the growth of creativity. Without an open marketplace of ideas, science, philosophy and other disciplines are stifled in their development, to the technological, fiscal and even aesthetic detriment of society. As Spinoza puts it, “this freedom [of expressing one’s ideas] is of the first importance in fostering the sciences and the arts, for it is only those whose judgment is free and unbiased who can attain success in these fields.”

Libertas philosophandi.

For Spinoza, by contrast, there is to be no criminalization of ideas in the well-ordered state. Libertas philosophandi, the freedom of philosophizing, must be upheld for the sake of a healthy, secure and peaceful commonwealth and material and intellectual progress.

But not absolute freedom of speech.

Now Spinoza does not support absolute freedom of speech. He explicitly states that the expression of “seditious” ideas is not to be tolerated by the sovereign. There is to be no protection for speech that advocates the overthrow of the government, disobedience to its laws or harm to fellow citizens. The people are free to argue for the repeal of laws that they find unreasonable and oppressive, but they must do so peacefully and through rational argument; and if their argument fails to persuade the sovereign to change the law, then that must be the end of the matter. What they may not do is “stir up popular hatred against [the sovereign or his representatives].”

So, as all absolutists say, what is "seditious ideas"?

Spinoza, presumably to allay such concerns, does offer a definition of “seditious political beliefs” as those that “immediately have the effect of annulling the covenant whereby everyone has surrendered his right to act just as he thinks fit” (my emphasis). The salient feature of such opinions is “the action that is implicit therein”— that is, they are more or less verbal incitements to act against the government and thus they are directly contrary to the tacit social contract of citizenship.

To be more precise:

As individuals emerged from a state of nature to become citizens through the social contract, “it was only the right to act as he thought fit that each man surrendered, and not his right to reason and judge.”

[Original Article by Steven Nadler in NYT]

What I gather from this is the delicate balance between individual liberties and social good. At a practical level, societies which operate in a state of equilibrium between the individual and collective will obviously prosper. At every stage, when the balance is skewed to one side, social forces act to correct the balance. In a dictatorship or totalitarian system, for example, in due course civil liberties and freedom of expression will evolve to a level that they significantly influence the fall of the system and vice versa.

It also makes the whole debate on freedom of speech pedantic. Whether or not there are laws to protect the individual in expressing or consuming any ideas of his or her choice, like life which starts to grow even in the harshest of environments, ideas will find their way of expression. We would not have had a peak at a typical day in the life of Ivan Denisovich and been so affected by it had it not been the system which triggered that idea and the process in which it became available to the public.

Purvapaksha, debates and the role of ideas

Justice Markandaya Katju pulled in as Chairman of Press Council of India and immediately made some interesting comments about the state of media. He then further clarified providing a philosophical and cultural argument leading to what should be the role of media today in India. There are three interesting points he makes

He first places the state of the nation as a society in transition and highlights the role of ideas in this:

Today India is passing through a transitional period in our history, the transition being from feudal agricultural society to modern industrial society. This is a very painful and agonizing period in history. The old feudal society is being uprooted and torn apart, but the new modern industrial society has not been fully and firmly established. Old values are crumbling, but new modern values have not yet been put in place. Everything is in flux, in turmoil. What was regarded good yesterday, is regarded bad today, and what was regarded bad is regarded good.
[...]
In this transition period the role of ideas, and therefore of the media, becomes extremely important. At a particular historical juncture, ideas become a material force.
[...]
In my opinion the Indian media too should play a progressive role similar to the one played by the European media. This it can do by attacking backward and feudal ideas and practices like casteism, communalism, superstitions, oppression of women, etc. and propagating modern rational and scientific ideas, secularism, and tolerance.

Then he comments on the debates on Indian television and detachment from classical Indian philosophical practice:

While criticizing, however, fairness requires that one should report the words of one’s opponent accurately, without twisting or distorting them. That was the method used by our philosophers. They would first state the views of their opponent, in what was called as the ‘purvapaksha’. This was done with such accuracy and intellectual honesty that if the opponent were present he could not have stated his views better.

He was commenting on how many shrieky newscasters on Indian news channels paraphrase statements into "burning questions that face the nation" making the deeper issues look trivial.
Lastly, he elaborated on the difference between "uneducated" and "a poor intellectual mind".

I did not say that this majority was uneducated or illiterate. This again was a deliberate distortion of what I said. I never used the word ‘uneducated’. I said that the majority is of a poor intellectual level. A person may have passed B.A. or M.A. but yet may be of a poor intellectual level. 

This distortion by media is not a one-off thing. In India, people consider the letters after a person's name as indicator of his eruditeness. But as Justice Katju says clearly, passing exams and getting a degree does not make you wise nor intelligent. There is a larger sensitivity and engagement that is required for a person to achieve any kind of insight in any subject of his or her choice.
Here are some of the people Justice Katju refers to in his clarification. A reading of these eminent thinkers and intellectuals will do a lot of good for one's evolution.
William Shakespeare. Voltaire. Rousseau. Thomas Paine. Junius. Diderot. Helvetius. Holbach. Charles Dickens. Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Nikhil Chakravarty. Munshi Premchand. Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay. Saadat Hassan Manto. Rahim. Madhavacharya. Emile Zola.