The second red herring has to do with the invocation of “art” to ground an argument for free expression. This invocation shares with its opponents a belief that somehow the world of expression will always be devoid of offence. So paintings need to be protected because they are “art” and therefore not offensive. The dispute with those demanding the bans centres on the definition of ‘offensive’. But this is a complete non sequitur. The value of free speech is precisely that once in a while it will let through things that someone finds offensive. Some of these things may have redeeming value, some will be an expression of genuine dissent, but some will be worthless. Why is there is no space for the following kind of argument? Many people do find these representations offensive. Whether these productions have redeeming value or are just gratuitous is a judgment that should be left to individuals. But the fact that people find them offensive is neither here nor there. We do art criticism a great disservice by sanitising everything under the label of art, by quickly assimilating everything to sublime pinnacles of achievement like Khajurao. This makes freedom of expression more precarious because the argument then turns on the value of these things. But you need freedom precisely because people disagree over their value. People ought to have the right to call this stuff offensive if they wish, so long as they are not trampling on others’ rights. The demands for banning have escalated in part because the defence of freedom of expression is automatically conflated with a defence of the value of these productions. The latter is more debatable, the former is not.

... contd.