Unpopular free speech

Are we, as a nation, losing our capacity for tolerating free speech, which is contrary to our views or sensitivities? Are we so hemmed in by the burdens of propriety or public office or identity politics or regional compulsions or the pressure to conform or other media pressures that unconventional or radical views are suppressed? Are humour, creativity, free speech, the right to be eccentric and a maverick being compromised?
The boundaries of obscenity have, since time immemorial, been the battlefield of such conflicts.Courts have valiantly extended society's limits of tolerance by inclining towards free speech and artistic expression. But the issue being raised here is not one of legal interpretation but of diminution of space of the simple right to hold and propagate unpopular views without being gagged or demonised.
In each of the following examples, what is least important is the correctness of the views involved or agreement with them. The issue is society's capacity to even begin to understand or appreciate these contrary views, without violent disagreement and punitive action.
The first is our willingness and capacity to even contemplate the possibility of Moninder Pandher's innocence in the Nithari case. Is it possible that any alternative to his conviction was too disgusting and would have subjected all actors to societal ridicule and unimaginable media pressure? The verdict records Pandher's presence in Australia at the relevant time but finds him guilty as an abettor on no more than the principal accused's statement that Pandher must have known since he occasionally lived in the same house. No wonder that no less than the CBI had earlier found Pandher not guilty after detailed investigation.
The true test of a democratic society's maturity arises only when someone who has outraged our sense of decency is nevertheless allowed the benefit of doubt by refusing to let emotion take the place of logic. Hard cases make bad law and collective societal anger and outrage in a hard case will inevitably rebound on innocents in future cases.
Take the examples of the Indira Gandhi murder or the Parliament attack case. At the time of each of those incidents, few, if any, would have had the slightest doubt about the guilt of the accused. Yet both cases saw acquittals and reduction of sentences as they travelled up the judicial ladder. Our initial reactions were thus proved wrong.
Intolerance clouds logic and inhibits free speech. Could anyone holding public office in India dare to say what the US attorney general said a few days ago? In the context of race relations, he called America a "nation of cowards". Though many would have disagreed and felt insulted, a constitutional office holder in that country was not hounded for that formulation.
My next example of Justice Soumitra Sen's case has nothing whatsoever to do with his guilt or his impeachment. I am not expressing any personal, institutional or party opinion. The simple point is that in the last several months of this debate, civil society, the media and the judiciary has not even discussed the existence of a detailed judgment of a division bench (DB) of the Calcutta high court which appears to have exonerated Justice Sen of any wrongdoing in the very same transaction and with respect to the same allegations.
No one has spoken up or asked the question as to how any proceeding against Sen by the apex court, or any other institution, could proceed without that detailed judicial order of the DB being at least challenged judicially and reversed by the apex court. Is this happening because, irrespective of the merits, it is an unpopular view to articulate? Voltaire spoke of how he might completely disagree with a view but was ready to fight to death for the right of a person to air that view. It is, in fact, the essence of true democracy and freedom.
The writer is an MP and national spokesperson of the Congress party.