I admit, the whole language of rights is in a sense restricting and limiting and sometimes we tend to lose nuance when speaking of them.

First of all, no artist is going to spell out ‘Go kill Hindus’ in his paintings (unless he’s a Thackeray!)

For example, if someone directs a movie that revolves around Hindus killing Muslims (or vice-versa), she can argue that, being an artist, she should have freedom to tell a story, *any* story, without having to worry about what the (social and communal) consequences might be.

Would you say she’s just expressing her artistic freedom? What about her *motive*? What if she wanted to induce communal violence by making the movie? Should her motive be one of the consideration before the State decides whether to grant her approval or not?

*

Anyway, my point is – an artist should be free to paint (or write or direct…) whatever she wants as long as she doesn’t infringe on similar (personal and property) rights of others. If I want to paint my friend’s mother in nude and put the picture in my personal art exhibit, I am not infringing on anyone else’s rights. My friend can refuse to come and visit my gallery, he can even try to persuade people (non-violently, of course) to boycott my gallery. But this doesn’t justify the government banning my exhibit – on the basis that my paintings are offensive to someone.

Note that it could be possible that my motive – all along – was to incite my friend to violence. But I think that shouldn’t matter. [Similarly, it could be possible that M F Hussain did all those nude painting of Hindu goddesses because he *wanted* Hindus to react violently and create a communal chaos in India. I mean, who is going to prove he had purely artistic drive? And how? No one can. And I think no one needs to.]

(Yes, I am a libertarian, if you haven’t inferred that already.)