(This is an essay from our print quarterly 'Growing Media, Shrinking Spaces'. See more from the issue here.)
Traditional free speech conflicts have taken a vertical direction, with censorship consisting of state actions that place restrictions on the ability of individuals to exercise their freedom of speech and expression. The long struggle in Indian courts over freedom of speech has created a fairly robust jurisprudence that provides safeguards against unreasonable interferences on speech by the state. The crucial question, however, is whether these are adequate to challenge the emerging paradigm of horizontal censorship.
The rise of horizontal censorship – that is, attempts at censorship by non-state actors – has two primary manifestations: the use of intimidation by lumpen forces through acts of vandalism or violence, and the use of law by corporations, religious groups and wealthy individuals to silence critics and activists. Rajeev Dhavan, in his book Published and be Damned, argues that, imperfect as the jurisprudence of free speech in India is, it at least provides one with a platform to challenge unreasonable acts of the state. The real challenge now, is how we tackle threats to free speech that use existing laws in strategic, self-serving ways and which are generally preceded or followed by the use of violence as part of a holistic approach to harassment and intimidation.
The use in India of what American legal experts Penelope Canan and George W Pring call 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation' (SLAPP) is part of a global trend in which deep-pocketed individuals and corporations pursue either criminal punishment or claim massive civil damages as a way of silencing critics. Rather than securing adjudicatory relief, the primary objective of the SLAPP suit is to threaten, intimidate or coerce the other party into silence or, alternately, burden them with prohibitive legal costs in judicial systems that have a reputation of favouring big players over smaller ones. Regardless of the suit's legal merit, the intention of intimidating those who dare to speak in the public interest is often achieved. While the global rise of the SLAPP suit can be traced back to the 1970s – when US companies began naming environmental organisations and advocates as defendants in civil lawsuits – the Indian legal system is especially conducive to their initiation. As in the US, defamation law has become the SLAPP suit's weapon of choice.