Regressive step?

Ok so there are talks of 'prescreening' content on social networking sites like Facebook and Google with government throwing its weight to put censorship and IT companies refusing to buckle. Shashi tharoor wrote an article 'Virtual reality' (deccon chronicle, 9 Dec,2011) on this controversy. His defense of gov's position is neither consistent nor logically sound.

First as common place among apologists, he empathizes importance of freedom of speech and then starts justifying moves which are indistinguishable from a moderate censorship. He begins by saying that all societies exercise some kind of control on freedom of speech as with US where any racist remarks are de facto bans. But then he ventures from social conventions to government policies arguing that government policies also should curb freedom the way social conventions do. If social traditions can so smoothly be allowed to convert itself into laws then we would never have got rid of untouchability for example, no denying social traditions are a factor for consideration but there are other factors which easily supersede local cultures, and Tharoor wont deny that freedom of expression is such a first principle.

Meaning of freedom of speech does change from place to place but then we can always tell what interpretation is progressive or what is not. Surely Tharoor wont say that freedom in china is just a different kind of freedom and not a regressive one. Western form of freedom of speech is more mature than Indian just as Indian form is more mature than Pakistan or China.

Further he argues if there are regulations on print media, broadcast media then why only internet media is exempted? well even in those media trend is that regulating becomes more and more lax except recent attempts by the same gov to tighten regulations again. Additionally sites like FB and google too are regulated by respective organizations.

Then he gives the example of 'shouting fire in a theater when there is no fire' to empathize again that freedom cant be absolute. Now this shouting-fire metaphor is borrowed from a US SC judgment way back in 1919 which convicted an anti-graft propagandist during world war-I. He uses the analogy wrongly, the judgment also stressed 'clear and present danger' criteria to curb freedom of speech. And in present context where pre-screening is disputed, the danger caused by FB is neither clear(all abstract arguments that it will hurt religious sentiments and all that) nor present(not a remote possibility of FB inciting a riot). If something from US is to be put in context it should be 1969 judgment which acquitted a Ku Klux Klan member upholding freedom of expression despite organization's open provocation to bring down gov through violent means and threats to Jews and niggers(acquittal despite another fact that Ku Klux Klan was a headache for gov sort of semi terrorists)

He is not yet satisfied with metaphors he puts another extremely abstract metaphor, 'match stick near a petrol storage'. Now here is a problem, one can also argue that its not the match stick only that can be blamed but the combustibility of the liquid poses a greater danger. A Gandhian analogy inevitably comes to my mind, he believed that lasting Bramhcharya cant be attained by keeping away from women it can only be achieved by cultivating mental discipline strong enough that sexuality no more troubles you. No doubt there is a dangerous immaturity in a person who will start rioting after reading a Facebook status. So instead of playing guardians of people's sentiments and creating a pampered, hypersensitive society teach them that tolerance is absolutely essential, there should be enough provocations all around that people find nothing provocative at all(case in point is Indian cinema, Delhi belly in black and white era would have sent guardians of morality into a hysteria, but see society has improved we don't feel particularly immoral after watching that movie nor do we go out and rape anyone). Only economic reforms wont do social reforms are equally important though i would hate the idea that government should play any role in such reforms but at least they should remain neutral.

Finally he concludes "I reject censorship. Art, literature and political opinion are to me sacrosanct. But publishing inflammatory material to incite communal feelings is akin to dropping a lighted match at a petrol pump", without giving any clue on how to decide/who will decide what is 'sacrosanct' and what is 'inflammatory'.