If a speech directly incites violence, why does it not get complete protection under Fundamental Rights?

Correct answer: Because liberty cannot harm others’ safety

Direct answer: C. Freedom of expression protects discussion, disagreement and criticism, but it does not create a general licence to directly encourage violence. A speech that is intended to provoke immediate harm can threaten the safety and rights of other people, so lawful restrictions may apply. C is correct because it balances the speaker’s freedom with the community’s protection from violence. A is wrong because speech is not always a crime; peaceful opinions and criticism are normally protected. B is wrong because democracy depends on meaningful freedoms, including expression. D is wrong because Fundamental Rights are not limited to children. The important distinction is between peaceful criticism and direct incitement to violence. Memory cue: criticism may be protected; a direct call to violence can cross the lawful limit.