In my opinion, in a Real democracy where Freedom of Expression is every citizen’s right – Contempt of Court is contrarian and an an oxymoron.

A. In my opinion, in a Real democracy where Freedom of Expression is every citizen’s right – Contempt of Court is contrarian and an an oxymoron. I suggest the “CONTEMPT OF COURT” should be removed from democratic countries.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in a democracy. It is a principle that allows individuals to express themselves without any fear of censorship or retaliation. However, there are limits to this right, and one of these limits is contempt of court. Contempt of court is defined as any action that interferes with the administration of justice or shows disrespect towards the court. It is considered a crime in many countries, and individuals who are found guilty of contempt can face fines or imprisonment.

Contempt of court is a contrarian concept in a democracy where freedom of expression is considered a fundamental right. It restricts an individual’s right to express their opinions, especially when it comes to criticizing the judiciary. In many countries, contempt of court laws have been used to suppress dissenting voices and punish those who criticize the government or the judiciary.

The United Kingdom is one country that has a long history of using contempt of court laws to suppress dissent. In the 17th century, the Star Chamber, a court that was abolished in 1641, was notorious for using contempt of court laws to suppress political dissent. The UK’s contempt of court laws have evolved since then, but they are still criticized for their potential to restrict free speech.

In India, contempt of court is a criminal offense, and individuals who are found guilty can be punished with imprisonment for up to six months. In recent years, India’s judiciary has been criticized for using contempt of court laws to suppress dissenting voices. In one case, a cartoonist was arrested for depicting the judiciary in a cartoon.

In the United States, contempt of court is also considered a crime. However, the First Amendment protects the right to free speech, and the courts are often hesitant to use contempt of court laws to punish individuals for expressing their opinions. In the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects even false statements about public officials, as long as they are not made with actual malice.

In my opinion, in a real democracy where freedom of expression is every citizen’s right, contempt of court is an oxymoron. It is a concept that restricts an individual’s right to express their opinions, especially when it comes to criticizing the judiciary. While it is important to maintain the dignity and authority of the judiciary, this should not come at the cost of an individual’s freedom of expression. As such, I suggest that “contempt of court” should be removed from democratic countries.

Removing contempt of court laws would not mean that individuals would be free to insult or defame the judiciary. It would simply mean that they would not face criminal charges for expressing their opinions. The judiciary can still protect its dignity and authority by initiating civil proceedings against individuals who make false or defamatory statements. Civil proceedings are less restrictive than criminal proceedings and would allow individuals to defend themselves and express their opinions without fear of imprisonment.

In conclusion, contempt of court is a contrarian concept in a democracy where freedom of expression is considered a fundamental right. It restricts an individual’s right to express their opinions, especially when it comes to criticizing the judiciary. While it is important to maintain the dignity and authority of the judiciary, this should not come at the cost of an individual’s freedom of expression. Removing contempt of court laws would be a step towards ensuring that individuals can freely express their opinions without fear of censorship or retaliation.

Bibliography:

1. The Guardian. (2020). Contempt of court laws ‘must be updated for social media age’. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/
2. The New York Times. (2021). Is Contempt of Court the Right Tool for Judges to Use? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/
3. Human Rights Watch. (2020). India: Contempt Law Abused to Stifle Free Speech. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/
4. First Amendment Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Contempt of Court. Retrieved from https://www.mtsu.edu/
5. Law Commission of India. (2018). Consultation Paper on Contempt of Court. Retrieved from http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/

There once was a man with a view
On the court, he had a bone to chew
He spoke his mind,
But the court wasn’t kind
Now he’s locked up in a cell, boo-hoo!

And here is a haiku on the theme of “Wealth and Freedom”:

Wealth can set us free,
Or it can be our prison.
It’s all in our hands.