Watching child porn in public is not free speech, says SC

New Delhi, Feb 27: Watching child pornography cannot be allowed in the name of liberty or freedom of expression, the Supreme Court said on Friday, even as the Centre informed that an exercise to block such contents on the Internet has been undertaken.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh asked Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand to take suggestions from the National Commission for Women and others in helping the government prepare a scheme to ban child pornography.

The court said there was a distinction between art and obscenity and pornography cannot be allowed in the name of freedom of speech and expression as this is not an absolute right.

SC Women Lawyers Association, represented by senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, urged the court to ensure prohibition of watching child pornography at public places, saying it has become a moral cancer as reports of school bus drivers and helpers forcing children to watch such materials and molesting them have come to light.

Concurring with her plea, the bench said, “Children need to be protected from this kind of moral assaults as it has the potentiality to bring them physical disasters.”

The bench further said: “Children cannot be made prey to these kind of painful situations, and a nation, by no means, can afford to carry any kind of experiment with its children in the name of liberty and freedom of expression. When we say nation, we mean each member of the collective.”

The court asked the Centre to file an affidavit suggesting ways and means to curb child pornography.

The law officer said that it was difficult to ban all websites containing pornographic materials on internet.

Advocate Vijay Panjwani, appearing for petitioner Kamlesh Vaswani, submitted that watching pornography or being compelled for it can never come within the definition of freedom of speech and expression as mentioned under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Rather, it may attract penal provision, he added.

During the hearing, the court also said at times people may find something as objectionable while others may call it art. It put the matter for further consideration on March 28.