The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
Noose tightens on freedom of speech on the Internet
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/malaymail-online-gabey-goh-march-26-2015-noose-tightens-on-freedom-of-speech-on-the-internet
<b>A worrying trend has emerged in the last few years, where intermediaries around the world are being used as chokepoints to restrict freedom of expression online, and to hold users accountable for content. </b>
<div id="stcpDiv" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The blog post by Gabey Goh was originally published by <a class="external-link" href="https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/the-noose-tightens-on-freedom-of-speech-on-the-internet">Digital News Asia</a> and mirrored in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.themalaymailonline.com/tech-gadgets/article/noose-tightens-on-freedom-of-speech-on-the-internet">Malaymail Online</a> on March 26, 2015. Jyoti Panday gave her inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p>“All communication across the Internet is facilitated by intermediaries: Service providers, social networks, search engines, and more,” said Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) senior global policy analyst Jeremy Malcolm.</p>
<p>“These services are all routinely asked to take down content, and their policies for responding are often muddled, heavy-handed, or inconsistent.</p>
<p>“That results in censorship and the limiting of people’s rights,” he told <i>Digital News Asia</i> (<i>DNA</i>) on the sidelines of RightsCon, an Internet and human rights conference hosted in Manila from March 24-25.</p>
<p>This year, the government of France is moving to implement regulation that makes Internet operators “accomplices” of hate-speech offences if they host extremist messages.</p>
<p>In February, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) urged ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to ensure that domain name registries and registrars “investigate copyright abuse complaints and respond appropriately.”</p>
<p>Closer to home, the Malaysian Government passed a controversial amendment to the Evidence Act 1950 – Section 114A – back in 2012.</p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p>Under Section 114A, an Internet user is deemed the publisher of any online content unless proven otherwise. The new legislation also makes individuals and those who administer, operate or provide spaces for online community forums, blogging and hosting services, liable for content published through their services.</p>
<p>Due to the potential negative impact on freedom of expression, a roadmap called the Manila Principles on Internet Liability was launched during RightsCon.</p>
<p>The EFF, Centre for Internet Society India, Article 19, and other global partners unveiled the principles, whose framework outlines clear, fair requirements for content removal requests and details how to minimise the damage a takedown can do.</p>
<p>For example, if content is restricted because it’s unlawful in one country or region, then the scope of the restriction should be geographically limited as well.</p>
<p>The principles also urge adoption of laws shielding intermediaries from liability for third-party content, which encourages the creation of platforms that allow for online discussion and debate about controversial issues.</p>
<p>“Our goal is to protect everyone’s freedom of expression with a framework of safeguards and best practices for responding to requests for content removal,” said Malcolm.</p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p>Jyoti Panday from the Centre for Internet and Society India noted that people ask for expression to be removed from the Internet for various reasons, good and bad, claiming the authority of myriad local and national laws.</p>
<p>“It’s easy for important, lawful content to get caught in the crossfire. We hope these principles empower everyone – from governments and intermediaries, to the public – to fight back when online expression is censored,” she said.</p>
<p>The Manila Principles can be summarised in six key points:</p>
<ul>
<li>Intermediaries should be shielded by law from liability for third-party content</li>
<li>Content must not be required to be restricted without an order by a judicial authority</li>
<li>Requests for restrictions of content must be clear, be unambiguous, and follow due process</li>
<li>Laws and content restriction orders and practices must comply with the tests of necessity and proportionality</li>
<li>Laws and content restriction policies and practices must respect due process</li>
<li>Transparency and accountability must be built in to laws and content restriction policies and practices</li>
</ul>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p>“Right now, different countries have differing levels of protection when it comes to intermediary liability, and we’re saying that there should be expansive protection across all content,” said Malcolm.</p>
<p>“In addition, there is no logic in distinguishing between intellectual property (IP) and other forms of content as in the case in the United States for example, where under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, intermediaries are not liable for third party content but that doesn’t apply to IP,” he added.</p>
<p>The Manila Principles have two main targets: Governments and intermediaries themselves. The coalition, led by EFF, will be approaching governments to present the document and discuss the recommendations on how best to establish an intermediary liability regime.</p>
<p>This includes immunising intermediaries from liability and requiring a court order before any content can be taken down.</p>
<p>With intermediaries, the list includes companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, to discuss establishing transparency, responsibility and accountability in any actions taken.</p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p>“We recognise that a lot of the time, intermediaries are not waiting for a court order before taking down content, and we’re telling them to avoid removing content unless there is a sufficiently good reason and users have been notified and presented that reason,” said Malcolm.</p>
<p>The overall aim with the Manila Principles is to influence policy changes for the better.</p>
<p>Malcolm pointed out that by coincidence, some encouraging developments have taken place in India. On the same day the principles were released, the Indian Supreme Court struck down the notorious Section 66A of the country’s Information Technology Act.</p>
<p>Since 2009, the law had allowed both criminal charges against users and the removal of content by intermediaries based on vague allegations that the content was “grossly offensive or has menacing character,” or that false information was posted “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will.”</p>
<p>Calling it a “landmark decision,” Malcolm noted that the case shows why the establishment and promotion of the Manila Principles are important.</p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p>“Not only is the potential overreach of this provision obvious on its face, but it was, in practice, misused to quell legitimate discussion online, including in the case of the plaintiffs in that case – two young women, one of whom made an innocuous Facebook post mildly critical of government officials, and the other who ‘liked’ it,” he said.</p>
<p>The court however, upheld section 69A of the Act, which allows the Government to block online content; and Section 79(3), which makes intermediaries such as YouTube or Facebook liable for not complying with government orders for censorship of content. — Digital News Asia</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/malaymail-online-gabey-goh-march-26-2015-noose-tightens-on-freedom-of-speech-on-the-internet'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/malaymail-online-gabey-goh-march-26-2015-noose-tightens-on-freedom-of-speech-on-the-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-27T01:01:18ZNews ItemNo more 66A!
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a
<b>In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A. Today was a great day for freedom of speech on the Internet! When Section 66A was in operation, if you made a statement that led to offence, you could be prosecuted. We are an offence-friendly nation, judging by media reports in the last year. It was a year of book-bans, website blocking and takedown requests. Facebook’s Transparency Report showed that next to the US, India made the most requests for information about user accounts. A complaint under Section 66A would be a ground for such requests.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A hung like a sword in the middle: Shaheen Dhada was arrested in Maharashtra for observing that Bal Thackeray’s funeral shut down the city, Devu Chodankar in Goa and Syed Waqar in Karnataka were arrested for making posts about Narendra Modi, and a Puducherry man was arrested for criticizing P. Chidambaram’s son. The law was vague and so widely worded that it was prone to misuse, and was in fact being misused.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Today, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its judgment on a <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact">set of petitions</a> heard together last year and earlier this year. Stating that the law is vague, the bench comprising Chelameshwar and Nariman, JJ. held that while restrictions on free speech are constitutional insofar as they are in line with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 66A, they held, does not meet this test: The central protection of free speech is the freedom to make statements that “offend, shock or disturb”, and Section 66A is an unconstitutional curtailment of these freedoms. To cross the threshold of constitutional limitation, the impugned speech must be of such a nature that it incites violence or is an exhortation to violence. Section 66A, by being extremely vague and broad, does not meet this threshold. These are, of course, drawn from news reports of the judgment; the judgment is not available yet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reports also say that Section 79(3)(b) has been read down. Previously, any private individual or entity, and the government and its departments could request intermediaries to take down a website, without a court order. If the intermediaries did not comply, they would lose immunity under Section 79. The Supreme Court judgment states that both in Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines and in Section 79(3)(b), the "actual knowledge of the court order or government notification" is necessary before website takedowns can be effected. In effect, this mean that intermediaries <i>need not</i> act upon private notices under Section 79, while they can act upon them if they choose. This stops intermediaries from standing judge over what constitutes an unlawful act. If they choose not to take down content after receiving a private notice, they will not lose immunity under Section 79.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69A, the website blocking procedure, has been left intact by the Court, despite infirmities such as a lack of judicial review and non-transparent operation. More updates when the judgment is made available.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionHomepageIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedChilling EffectSection 66AArticle 19(1)(a)Blocking2015-03-26T02:01:31ZBlog EntryNetizens Rejoice Over SC Ruling to Keep the Net Free
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-march-25-2015-parina-dhilla-netizens-rejoice-over-sc-ruling-to-keep-the-net-free
<b>The Supreme Court ruling to strike down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act has been welcomed by the city’s netizens.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Parina Dhilla was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/Netizens-Rejoice-Over-SC-Ruling-to-Keep-the-Net-Free/2015/03/25/article2728971.ece">published in the New Indian Express</a> on March 25, 2015. T. Vishnu Vardhan gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sharanya Gopinathan, a recent graduate, was overjoyed at the decision. The youngster, who is now pursuing her masters in London, recalls the time her post on Facebook about Prime Minister Narendra Modi was reported for being offensive.<br /><br />“It was just a sentence about how I felt about Mr Modi. Nothing obscene but it still got reported,” she says. She believes the Internet to be “the last guard of freedom”, where free speech has real meaning because there is no government and corporate control.<br /><br />Forums propagating freedom on the World Wide Web too have applauded the verdict.<br /><br />T Vishnu Vardhan, programme director of Access to Knowledge at the Centre for Internet and Society, says the draconian aspect of the IT Act has finally been removed.<br /><br />The other laws coming under the IT Act’s ambit too need to be reviewed and changed, he said.<br /><br />Lawyers told Express that many times, they have advised clients to take down posts that could be construed as offensive under Section 66A.<br /><br />Lawrence Liang, a lawyer with the Alternative Law Forum, says, “Recently, we were approached by a woman saying she was being harassed by a mob after she tweeted about the beef ban in Maharashtra. We asked her to delete the tweet and lie low.”<br /><br />“But now, I won’t advise people to take down their posts from the internet. It is a good ruling and gives people their freedom of speech and expression on the Internet,” Lawrence says.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Change on the Horizon</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With bans raining down in the country, many believe the apex court’s decision will bring about change.<br /><br />Yogita Dakshina, a freelance content writer who regularly posts about the hardships faced by the LGBT community, says she has always posted fearlessly but some of her family members were always scared that she would court trouble due to the provisions of Section 66A.<br /><br />Prabahan Chakravorty, a PhD student, is of the view that this will be a big lift for those in the creative field. “The rights to freedom and expression need to be given to all citizens, especially writers and artists. Some people may consider a few posts offensive, but then, the world is offensive and people need to deal with that.”<br /><br />On the responsibility that falls upon netizens with this verdict, Ankura Nayak, a student of Mount Carmel College, says, “People are responsible and they know what to post. There were a few people who posted irresponsible content even before this ruling. But these are few in number compared to responsible netizens.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-march-25-2015-parina-dhilla-netizens-rejoice-over-sc-ruling-to-keep-the-net-free'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-march-25-2015-parina-dhilla-netizens-rejoice-over-sc-ruling-to-keep-the-net-free</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-03-25T15:16:03ZNews ItemNet neutrality: Net activism packs a punch
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-sandhya-soman-april-19-2015-net-neutrality-net-activism-packs-a-punch
<b>For the first time in the history of internet campaigns in India, a protest movement has successfully changed the course of a debate without having to take to the streets. The net neutrality movement is being fought almost totally in the virtual world. Hashtag activism isn't new in India. In recent times, several big campaigns have been bolstered by the internet which helped mobilize mass support and kept people constantly updated on events. Pink Chaddi, Jan Lokpal and the Nirbhaya movements were some examples of successful on-the-ground campaigns that were galvanized by social media. But they still needed public action — dharnas, candlelight vigils and actual pink undies — to make a difference.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Sandhya Soman was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Net-neutrality-Net-activism-packs-a-punch/articleshow/46973783.cms">published in the Times of India</a> on April 19, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the ongoing battle for internet freedom has proved that clicktivism isn't just about passive engagement with a cause. While it's all too easy to 'like' a cause, leading to what David Carr describes as "favoriting fatigue" in an article in the New York Times, some clicks can count in the real world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It all started when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) posted a vaguely worded and complicated discussion paper on net neutrality and called for public responses to it. "Clearly, many people understood that some of the proposals put forward by Trai in its paper threatened the internet as they knew it," says Anja Kovacs, who directs the Internet Democracy Project and has closely followed online activism in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Soon, an unlikely collective of techies, lawyers, journalists and even stand-up comics had banded together. Some of them — such as tech entrepreneur Kiran Jonnalagadda and journalist Nikhil Pahwa — had been writing and tweeting about the issue for a while but the Trai paper galvanized them. "I dropped everything and asked for help. Kiran, (lawyers) Apar Gupta amd Raman Chima, Sandeep Pillai, standup group All India Bakchod and several Reddit India users (some of whom remain anonymous), started getting involved," says Pahwa, who is the founder of Medianama. The only common factor was their love for internet and an acute worry what this policy consultation might do to destroy its open and equal nature.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Though scattered across India, once they came together online, this 'apolitical collective' was able to rope in engineers, developers, open source activists, entrepreneurs, policy experts, lawyers and journalists as volunteers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The best way to counter propaganda and opposition was to get people involved. An abridged version of the voluminous Trai paper was posted online, and a FAQ section created on a public Google Doc. "Many came forward to answer the questions and that exercise helped create an understanding of the situation," explains Pahwa. By the time, Jonnalagadda and a few other developers set up the savetheinternet.in website by April 1, there was enough information and data points. Lawyers Gupta and Chima had also decoded the legalese and prepared cogent answers to Trai's 20 questions. This was turned into a ready-to-use email template for users to hit 'send'.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And send they did. The flood of emails to the Trai inbox number is already 803,723 and counting. The results of the social media backlash are evident — with e-commerce retailer Flipkart pulling out of Airtel Zero and several websites backing out of Facebook and Reliance's internet.org. "I was hoping to get around 15,000 responses to counter, say, 15 from the telecom lobby. Now, people make fun of me because I said that," laughs Pahwa. In this case, what also struck a chord was the idea of a bunch of young guys using tech to take on mismanagement by the older generation and corporate greed, says entrepreneur Mahesh Murthy. "We were telling them we like things on the internet as they are now."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But it is hard to sustain online outrage without an action plan, relentless groundwork and some comic warfare. So, when the contentious paper came out on March 27, the website was followed by AIB's punchy video that decoded the concept and took irreverent potshots at those who wanted to limit access while urging people to write to Trai. A lot of the lessons for the campaign came from the US where a John Oliver video turned the tide in the net neutrality debate. "We had seen that several people don't take internet petitions seriously. Also, we wanted to follow the proper legal course in this issue and not hold dharnas," says Jonnalagadda.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is also important for campaigns to result in doable action. As Kovacs points out, savetheinternet.in and netneutrality. in gave users practical tools to respond before the April 24 deadline. The team also kept clarifying doubts and complex concepts on social media and also had an AMA (ask me anything) chat on Scrollback on Saturday while the 'other side' stuck to big words and jargon.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, like every movement, this one too has attracted criticism. The proneutrality band has been branded as socialist and utopian and there were intense arguments amongst supporters. "Disagreements and arguments are not unique to the activism online," says Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier in the debate, Prakash had said he'd received strong pushback from friends and allies when he spoke about the possible benefits of non-competitive zero rating, an example would be allowing companies to offer free access to their sites and apps via an arrangement with a telecom company — if effective competition exists. Airtel Zero and Reliance's Internet.org claim to do the same though most supporters remain critical. Says Prakash: "There might've been differences. But the fact that a lot of people are thinking about effects of 'free', and comparing it to predatory pricing shows that #savetheinternet is one of the better examples of engaged activism."<br /> <br /> Online campaigns have previously also successfully mobilized people to get involved in issues they do not know much about, says author Nilanajana Roy, who is an influential voice on Twitter. The J&K flood relief efforts last year started on Twitter but got volunteers moving on the ground, she says. "People don't always realize what they care strongly about so, despite the risk of compassion fatigue or armchair volunteerism, it's worth having some online activism," says Roy.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile, those behind the savetheinternet campaign are struggling with their new-found identity as "activists". "I think of myself as a venture capitalist and marketing consultant, not a khadi kurta-jholawala from JNU," says Mahesh Murthy, among those who strongly support the movement.<br /> <br /> And at the end of the day, most of these activists would like to go back to their cubicles, free to browse or start a business. But not before they've tried to keep the internet open.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-sandhya-soman-april-19-2015-net-neutrality-net-activism-packs-a-punch'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-sandhya-soman-april-19-2015-net-neutrality-net-activism-packs-a-punch</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-05-09T09:02:03ZNews ItemNanny state rules porn bad for you
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-4-2015-anahita-mukherji-nanny-state-rules-porn-bad-for-you
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Anahita Mukherji was published in the Times of India on August 4, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT" style="float: left; ">Half a century ago, India banned the DH Lawrence classic, Lady Chatterley's Lover. The ban, though lambasted for its Victorian view of modesty and obscenity, was fair and square; the matter was debated in the Supreme Court, which upheld the ban. Over 50 years later, a diverse spectrum of civil society has slammed a much more insidious and far less transparent ban on internet pornography.<br /><br />For starters, the 857 sites that vanished from India's internet sphere haven't been officially banned, they just don't show up when you type the url. The order blocking them isn't public. For a list of the 857 sites, one must rely on leaked documents put out on Twitter by Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society. "The ban on Lady Chatterley's Lover was public. As for the blocked websites, the government has gone out of its way to hide the list of sites pulled down. A secret order banning material violates all principles of transparency in a democracy," says Prakash.<br /> <br /> The document, with 'Restricted' written on it, is a letter from the department of telecom asking ISPs to disable 857 sites as they bear content related to "morality" and "decency," violating Article 19 (2).<br /> <br /> Strangely, the order's been issued under Sec 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act dealing with intermediaries having to remove material used to commit unlawful acts. "Watching porn isn't illegal in India. Disseminating 'obscene' content can be illegal, but for that, the government must file a case against the sites, and they must be allowed a representation," says Prakash.<br /> <br /> "Sec 79 (3)(b) of the IT act isn't the section under which governments can block sites. It should use Sec 69 that has a review process," says Nikhil Pahwa, a champion of internet freedom.<br /> <br /> The government drew up its list of 857 sites even as SC is in the process of hearing a petition to ban porn and is yet to pass an order. It includes playboy.com that, says Prakash, is a legitimate adult site. Pahwa points to the ban's "bizarrely moralistic undertones".<br /> <br /> "As society evolves, government and regulatory regime are stuck in medieval ages," he says, adding a ban on websites will be rendered ineffective, pushing users to VPNs, a black hole for government monitoring mechanisms.<br /> <br /> "A government that hasn't succeeded with Make in India is trying to prevent Make out in India," says venture capitalist Mahesh Murthy, who earlier backed net neutrality.<br /> <br /> "The government is blocking websites to keep Rightwing lunatic fringes happy after its unsuccessful bid to pass the land bill," says Murthy.<br /> <br /> "It isn't merely looking at blocking porn, but is trying to bring back Sec 66A (IT Act), ruled unconstitutional by the SC," he adds. "It's part of the bid to restrict individual freedom, create an artificial separation between Indian culture and anything erotic, driven by a diktat from Hindutva forces. It's ironic as Modi came to power as someone looking to activate individual agency. Now he's wary about where that leads to," says Subir Sinha, professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (London). Murthy and Sinha believe the issue stems from a refusal to accept Indian culture in totality. "Victorian morality is considered Hindu, Khajuraho isn't," says Murthy.<br /> <br /> "The government seems to be acting in a more high-handed manner than previous ones. The press and public opinion should wake up to this," says sociologist Andre Beteille.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-4-2015-anahita-mukherji-nanny-state-rules-porn-bad-for-you'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-4-2015-anahita-mukherji-nanny-state-rules-porn-bad-for-you</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceDigital MediaChilling Effect2015-08-05T01:39:28ZNews ItemLive Chat: Win for Free Speech
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech
<b>Join us for a live chat at 5.30 pm on SC striking down the Section 66A of the IT Act which had permitted the arrest of people for posting "offensive content" on the internet. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/live-chat-hope-for-free-speech/article7028037.ece">live chat transcript</a> was published in the Hindu on March 24, 2015. Geetha Hariharan participated in the live chat.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In a victory for proponents of free speech, the Supreme Court today struck down Section 66 A of the IT Act, which had permitted the arrest of people for posting “offensive content” on the internet. However, the Court upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block websites based on a set of rules.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What are your views on this ruling? Join us for a live chat today at 5.30 pm with:</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of "Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the constitution" forthcoming in OUP.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang, Lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">and G Ananth Krishnan, Coordinating Editor with The Hindu</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Hi all, welcome to the live chat on the Supreme Court's much-celebrated decision to strike down Section 66 A of the IT Act. There are caveats of course: For instance, the Court has upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block websites based on a set of rules.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:30</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Welcome to Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of "Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the constitution" forthcoming in OUP.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:31</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:31</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Lawrence Liang, Lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">and</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">G Ananth Krishnan, Coordinating Editor with The Hindu</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:33</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From shraddha</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">This is landmark judgement,though.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:34</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Mystiquethinker</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I would like to ask you one thing was that necessary to abolish Sec66 A completely.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: Yes, in my opinion it was. The terms of S. 66A - such as "grossly offensive" - went beyond what is constitutionally permitted by Article 19(2). It was impossible to "sever" these terms from the rest of the section. In such cases, the Court has no alternative but to strike down the section in its entirety.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:34</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Rohan</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I'm particularly interested in the relevance of Sec 66 A in West Bengal. Over the last few years the TMC government has massively curbed freedom of speech. Do you think this will deter the ruling party?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:35</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Gautam, Geetha and Lawrence would you like to respond?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:35</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: typing</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:37</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From kc</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">so does this mean its okay for anyone to say anything over the internet? Does the internet need separate rules? Anything that cant be said over a microphone or using any media shouldn't be said over the internet either.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: No, the standard penal laws - against defamation, hate speech (S. 153A), religious incitement (S. 295A) continue to apply. Yes, the argument that the internet needs separate rules when it comes to the *content* of speech was precisely what was rejected by the Court.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:38</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Jai</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I would like to ask what when people cross the boundary of decency when they post comments on social network?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:38</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: So the court goes into this question of whether 66A needed to go in its entirely or could it be saved. The ASG suggested that it could be read down by the courts, and offered a range of ways it coudl have been done. But the court responded to say that the restrictions in 19(2) are clear, and if the impugned law does not fall within it, then to ask for a reading that incorporates other principles only in order to save it would be to do violence to the language of Sec. 66A</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In para 49 they say</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What the learned Additional Solicitor General is asking us to do is not to read down Section 66A – he is asking for a wholesale substitution of the provision which is obviously not possible.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:38</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @Mystiquethinker: Section 66A makes it a criminal offense to make any post on the Internet, that might “grossly offend” or be “menacing”. If you happen to post false information (like a spoof), with the purpose of annoying, inconveniencing, criminally intimidating or causing hatred, you can be criminalized for that, too. However, the terms "annoyance, inconvenience, hatred, ill-will", etc. are vague. Section 66A does not define them. Applying the law to misuse it becomes extremely easy then - and this has happened.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:38</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Supreme Court has struck a delicate balance</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:39</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From neerulal</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">It's a great step on part of judiciary. Infact it's the judicial activism that washed much of the waste created by legislature. Hope it was as experienced and sensible as judiciary..</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:39</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From shraddha</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">according to me it's imp to important to amend it completely... coz it directly infringes the article19(a) right to freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:40</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Danish Sheikh</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">why do you think the Court is so sparse in its analysis of the website blocking rules as opposed to 66A?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:40</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Jai - The boundaries of decency will be determined by our existing penal laws - Sections 295A, 153A and the rest.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:40</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: @gananth would you like to respond to the last one?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:41</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: on 69A</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Despite striking down Section 66A, Article 19(2) provides sufficient grounds for the government to protect public peace. It is comprehensive and is applicable to all media. Therefore, in a way, Section 66A was not required at all.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:42</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: Danish, you are right. One wishes that the court had paid as much attention to the Blocking orders as they did 66A. I feel they have gone on a technical reading of the procedures established to conclude that it is at least not as arbitrary as 66A, but fail to acknowledge that the ways the orders have been operationalised completely lack transparency and are hence arbitrary</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:42</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Eric</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I would say yes. The best and most practical control of social media comes from the maturity of its users. We can make a useful presumption that useless content will simply not be shared substantially. Instead of making laws, we need to make mature citizens and users of social media.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:42</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From saurav</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">what are the others instruments available with govt. to curb cyber crimes ???</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:42</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest - True, but you still need a *law* that would authorise the police and other agencies to implement the restrictions under Article 19(2) in specific situations. That is why we have speech regulating provisions in the Indian Penal Code.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:43</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From shashi</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I think sec 66A should be amended and specific definition of "offence" must be brought in, because there needs to reasonable restrictions under article 19(2). But having such vague clauses shows how it can be misused by people in power.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:44</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @saurav: As Gautam said, the IPC's provisions such as Sections 153A and 295A are available to the government as limitations on speech. In addition, there are other offences in the IT Act (Sections 66B to 67B).</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:44</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Mystiquethinker</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In my point of view there should be few limitation . You cannot say anything to anybody. I am afraid what will be its result in future.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:45</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Shashi The Supreme Court has held before - in S. Rangarajan's case - that causing offence doe not fall within Article 19(2). In fact, quoting the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court said that the freedom of speech is nothing without the freedom to "offend, shock or disturb." That's actually why 19(2) is so specifically worded, and restricts itself to "public order", "decency or morality", "incitement to an offence", "defamation" etc.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:45</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: @Mystiquethinker To add to the previous point, the court also did consider whether they could apply the doctrine of severability but concluded that because "The present is a case where, as has been held above, Section 66A does not fall within any of the subject matters contained in Article 19(2) and the possibility of its being applied for purposes outside those subject matters is clear. We therefore hold that no part of Section 66A is severable and the provision as a whole must be declared unconstitutional."</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:47</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Ashish</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">is it means??Now morphed girls photo posting ,revealing individual secret to harm him/her physcologicaly is allowed publicly.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: Not at all. There are still other laws including obscenity laws and privacy laws under the IT act that deal with this</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:47</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: What happens to all the cases already booked? Is the verdict retrospective?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:48</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Ashish No. There is the Indecent Representation of Women Act, which prohibits that. There are also laws against blackmail and criminal intimidation under the IPC.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:48</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Cherry</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A remarkable judgement to free their speeches n voices</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: absolutely, an important first step towards a free jurisprudence of the 21st century</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Sarpanch</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">66A declared unconstitutional - good. But, a religious hate-filled reaction will it still attract 295 IPC.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: yes and 153A of the IPC amongst others</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Geek</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">If this is all about facebook, remove it and everyhing is fine!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: sorry, but thats no longer an option after this judgment :)</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:49</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ TheHindu: to the best of my knowledge, no. A judgment is not ordinarily retrospective. Subject to correction.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:49</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Neel</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Doesn't the line of reasoning adopted by the SC throw open the possibility of other restrictive laws being questioned too?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Eric</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">There is plenty of scope for an independent regulator including representatives of social media and internet users to regulate the restrictions under Art 19(2). Giving the police or any other governmental agency the power to prosecute potential offenders involves the unnecessary risk of political bias which underlies the SC's judgment. Clearly, severing the provision would have been messy. Moreover, the judgment is an unapologetic thrust in the direction of protecting fundamental rights.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From shashi</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@Gautam one must not forget how social media can be used to incite violence against a perticular community and force exodus (as happened in Bangalore few years back). So, there has to be reasonable restrictions. Else the government would look helpless in such incidents</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:50</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Cherry</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">i agree with the comment of mystiquethinker</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:50</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Panky</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Excellent decision from Court!!!!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:51</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Gautam, a question for you from Shashi</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:51</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Neel Yes, it does. For instance, crucial to the Supreme Court's reasoning is a distinction between incitement and advocacy, and a need for proximity between speech and the 19(2) restrictions. Now if you look at the cases where the Supreme Court upheld 295A (1957) and sedition (1962), it did so on the specific understanding that there was no need for proximity - a mere "tendency" was enough. But in this case, the Supreme Court specifically says that the tendency must be to *imminent public disorder*. Now that severely undermines the foundation of 295A and especially sedition, because it's really hard to argue that spreading disaffection against the government has an imminent relationship with public disorder. So yes - I think it might just be time to try and have some of those old judgments reviewed!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:51</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Shanmukh</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@ Eric. Social censorship works in a society where everybody is educated and mature. India isn't quite there yet. But this 66A was abused and it's good that it is going away.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: We perhaos need to be careful about the argument of whether India is ready. That was the same logic that colonial authorities use to introduce a number of speech regulating laws. Worth having a look at Lala Lajpat Rai's reply to the Indian Cinematograph Committee</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:52</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Shashi Yes, I agree. But 66A went far beyond those reasonable restrictions. The Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, and we have a long series of cases interpreting what that means. I think that would speak to your concern.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:53</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Shanmukh: See also the arguments that Raja Rammohun Roy made as fas back as 1823 about the freedom of the press, when the colonial authorities were using the same argument about Indians not being ready.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:53</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The government has Section 69A to prevent mass exodus type situations. Am I right?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: Yes, and that is an important concern but you must note that even during the NE exodus, the government exceeded its brief and even blocked websites that were trying to quell rumous</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Sam</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Yesterday's column from readers editor had some suggestions on stopping rumors being spread via SM. I think, those kind of methods will go a long way in stopping falsehoods being spread than banning content and sections like 66A</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:54</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Eric</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@Lawrence Liang. Precisely. One has to be cautious of underestimating or belittling the input from regular users of the subject. Giving more deliberative platforms can only encourage participation and education of its users.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:54</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A case will be governed by the law applicable on the date the offence was committed, unless otherwise stated. Therefore, I think the ruling will be prospective only</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:55</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Neel</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What is the weight that precedent has in our legal system? For instance what will it take for a judge to say the previous judgements on sedition are too restrictive?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: We are totally a precedent based system, but preedents can be enabling and restrictive, so the way it develops is through slow processes of comparing and distinguishing</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:55</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Neel</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What is the weight that precedent has in our legal system? For instance what will it take for a judge to say the previous judgements on sedition are too restrictive?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:55</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest Yes, I think that's correct.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:55</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Shiva</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What does the judgement imply for posting adult/sexually explicit/pornographic content online?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: It does not affect that: We have obscenity laws under the IPC as well as special obscenity provisions within the IT act that deal with it</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:56</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Utkarsh</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">SC proves how powerful our democracy is. It is good that citizens are free to post anything they want now, but shouldn't we try to teach the people their responsibilty with this freedom?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:56</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Geetha your thoughts on that?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:56</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Vikas</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Rather debating we should demand action on such people who in real sense do the offending act via speech and social media, arresting some body who has just shared some views is not right.....</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:56</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @Neel It's a hard question. I don't think a Supreme Court bench will be able to directly overrule the sedition case. That was decided by a five-judge bench, and so you;d need a seven-judge bench to actually overturn it. I think what we can try and argue is that in the 50 years since the Court upheld sedition, the foundations of that decision have been so greatly undermined by succeeding cases, that at least in 2015, sedition is unconstitutional. It's a hard argument to pull off, but I think it's worth a shot.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:57</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The population has moral responsibility to not spread rumours over SM & the citizens need to be mature enough to not take everything too personally. You have the choice of ignoring what you deem offensive. If any of the above fail, it is because the society has failed, not the legal system.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From zenmist</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">what if i get cyber bullied ! Do I have any recourse now ?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:59</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From kkamal</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">implementation still a matter of concern</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: Certainly, and esp for the intermediary guidelines. Often when a court reads down a provision, rather than striking it down, there is a gap between the law and enforcement</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Zeminist yes - for instance, under criminal intimidation provisions in the IPC.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:00</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Can we not issue guidelines for social sites like facebook twitter and others to filters such content from being posted(I think it'll show some pop-up in general.?)</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:00</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @Utkarsh: Perhaps. However, the freedoms enshrined in out Constitution say our freedom of speech and expression can be restricted by the government only under specific circumstances: see http://indiankanoon.org/doc.... The _government's_ restrictions on speech must abide by these - whether they teach citizens what is (morally) right to speak or not is different from what we have a right to say. As Gautam has mentioned before, Article 19(1)(a) gives us the right to "offend, shock or disturb".</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:00</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest - the problem with filters are that they are *invariably* over-inclusive.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:01</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Vibhu</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">This decision once again upheld citizen's belief in the constitution and the Supreme Court. But this power also comes with an added responsibility to the citizens to be sensitive towards the emotions of communities and other sections of the country.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @Vibhu Absolutely. This is why it's important to make a distinction between two important ideas - the fact that it is your *right* to do or speak in a certain manner doesn't always mean that you *ought* to speak in that manner.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:02</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Negi Gaurav</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Striking down 66A is good for democratic values and citizenry expression. It will enhance the power of common mass and will affect political procedure. Free speech is fundamental right of Indian citizen , However judicious use of right is necessary to check hate crime.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:03</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">We appreciate the verdict... It was much needed but there still is a question still unanswered, why do we need judicial activism to strike all those laws that are pushing us back by several decades. If such laws are always have to be decided by Supreme court, what do we have legislature for?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:03</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Pankaj</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A welcome judgement by SC today. Section 66(A) was indeed an uncontitutional provision which accounted for few arrests considering the arbitrary and vague terminologies. But, certainly regulation of speech over internet should be regulated in a more robust and comprehensive manner</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:04</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest To be fair to our parliaments, legislatures all over the world restrict speech, and it falls to the Court to correct them. Legislatures are composed of human beings like us, and often, because of the position they are in, they tend to overestimate the dangers of free speech, and underestimate its importance. But that's why we have a constitutional court. :)</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: If taken to its logical extreme, does the SC verdict mean that anything goes on the internet?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:07</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Serendipity</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@The Hindu: Free Speech is not absolute. There are always restrictions. It depends on how the law is drafted.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Vibhu</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@Hindu. No not anything goes on the internet. All elements like pornography, abuse, etc which are illegal in general sense also applies to the internet.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:08</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @TheHindu No. The SC expressly says that speech which bears a proximate relationship to any of the 19(2) categories may legitimately be restricted. Many of the speech-regulating provisions of the IPC do just that. These provisions are agnostic towards the medium - for instance, defamation will be punishable whether it happens offline, or over the internet.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:08</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From charan malhotra</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">our Sc lifted great barricade in the freedom of speech.. but even if any one explicit n posts the images of others n morphing ? then what could be the next step to take an action on those convicts?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @charan: Other provisions are still in operation under the IT Act and IPC that can be used. For example: Section 66D (cheating by personation), 66E , etc. I would urge you to look at Section 67, 67A and 67B of IT Act as well.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From manoharan</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">right to experss includes right to go online in thought</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:11</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @TheHindu: No. Restrictions placed under one or more of the conditions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution are legitimate (online and offline). Also, offences under the IPC (Sections 153A, 295A, 292) continue to apply. As also the offences under the IT Act, which target online speech (Sections 66E, 67, 67A and 67B, for instance).</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:11</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: By the way, as an aside, I'd like to add - this judgment is extremely lucid and accessible, and really eloquent at times. Do read it. 123 pages sounds like a lot, but it's easy reading - shouldn't take more than an hour.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:09</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: @The Hindu Not at all, we still have all of the good old speech restrictive laws including in the IPC, it is important to remember that even in the past 66A cases, they have rarely been filed in islation, and are usually accompanied by 124A, 153A or 295A of the IPC</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:09</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Dhruv</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A Great Decision to uphold Free Speech. We do not want to be Police State like CHINA but our Indian legislators are slowly taking the country far from Democracy and denying civil rights to civilians. Great decision from Supreme Court. This is a lesson for the indian politicians who think they can play with our fundamental rights and impose their narrow mindset on us.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Thank you all so much for joining the chat.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:14</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: The panellists and readers!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:15</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: Thanks!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:15</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: Thank you!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:15</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: And for making this a lively and informative debate. Watch this space for more live chats on emerging issues.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T16:07:06ZNews ItemIT Leaders, Lawyers Welcome SC Ruling on 66A of the IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cio-in-march-25-2015-it-leaders%2C-lawyers-welcome-sc-ruling-on-66a-of-the-it-act
<b>The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment in scrapping section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which prescribed 'punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.' and had been branded as grossly 'unconstitutional' by various lawyers and legal advisors.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog past was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cio.in/news/it-leaders,-lawyers-welcome-sc-ruling-on-66a-of-the-it-act">published by Cio.in</a> on March 25, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here's what 66A of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 stated: Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, or (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As per the study conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, intermediaries over-comply and tend to take down even legitimate information when they receive a takedown notice. There were also several arrests made as a result. The most recent among which was when a class XI student from Bareilly was arrested for sharing an “objectionable” post on Facebook against senior Samajwadi party leader and state Urban Development Minister, Azam Khan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling by the Supreme Court has not only been welcomed by Shreya Singhal, the young law student who was among the first to challenge it in the Supreme Court, but also lawyers, legal advisors as well as IT leaders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, a Policy Director with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, and a graduate of the National Law School tweeted: While the case is about 'Internet' censorship, the SC judgment is against ALL censorship. That's important. #66A</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to Pavan Duggal, advocate, Supreme Court of India, Section 66A symbolized the tyranny of ambiguous vague terms over the purity of legitimate free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It represented a tool for suppressing bonafide free speech, which was extensively misused. Sec 66A was a foe more than your friend. In scrapping Sec 66A, Supreme Court has done a great service to the cause of free speech of vibrant digital Indians. Digital free speech in India owes a great deal to the SC ruling," said Duggal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Various Indian IT leaders also expressed their satisfaction towards the apex court's ruling, and called it a balanced judgment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Anjani Kumar, CIO, Safexpress says, the ruling is by and large, a favorable one. “Previously, people who were writing against the establishment were being harassed. However, with this ruling, the apex court has protected the constitutional right of freedom of speech,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There will be freedom of speech and everyone will be able to express their views openly on social media platforms. It will help maintain an equilibrium over a period of time,” said T.G Dhandapani, group CIO, TVS Motors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the general sentiment was fairly positive. Manas Mati, executive director and technology head, Walt Disney said, “I think the Section should not have been scrapped. Every person needs to be responsible and accountable for what they post on social media.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Accountable or not, the judgment clearly indicates that's there won't be any arrests on the subjective interpretation of vague expressions such as “grossly offensive” and “menacing character” etc. under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“However, the ruling is a very balanced one, with the court stating that the government has the right to remove objectionable content, but not arrest the person. The negative can be that some people go overboard on social media and they need to be checked," Kumar said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cio-in-march-25-2015-it-leaders%2C-lawyers-welcome-sc-ruling-on-66a-of-the-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cio-in-march-25-2015-it-leaders%2C-lawyers-welcome-sc-ruling-on-66a-of-the-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T15:58:19ZNews ItemInternet censorship will continue in opaque fashion
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-times-of-india-march-25-2015-sunil-abraham-internet-censorship-will-continue-in-opaque-fashion
<b>A division bench of the Supreme Court has ruled on three sections of the Information Technology Act 2000 - Section 66A, Section 79 and Section 69A. The draconian Section 66A was originally meant to tackle spam and cyber-stalking but was used by the powerful elite to crack down on online dissent and criticism.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Sunil Abraham was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/Internet-censorship-will-continue-in-opaque-fashion/articleshow/46681490.cms">Times of India</a> on March 25, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 79 was meant to give immunity to internet intermediaries for liability emerging from third-party speech, but it had a chilling effect on free speech because intermediaries erred on the side of caution when it came to deciding whether the content was legal or illegal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And Section 69A was the web blocking or internet censorship provision, but the procedure prescribed did not adhere to the principles of natural justice and transparency. For instance, when books are banned by courts, the public is informed of such bans but when websites are banned in India, there's no clear message from the Internet Service Provider.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Supreme Court upheld 69A, so web blocking and internet censorship in India will continue to happen in an opaque fashion which is worrying. But on 66A and 79, the landmark judgment protects the right to free speech and expression. It struck down 66A in entirety, saying the vague and imprecise language made the provision unconstitutional and it interfered with "the right of the people to know - the market place of ideas - which the internet provides to persons of all kinds". However, it only read down Section 79 saying "unlawful acts beyond what is laid down" as reasonable restrictions to the right to free speech in the Constitution "obviously cannot form any part" of the section. In short, the court has eliminated any additional restrictions for speech online even though it admitted that the internet is "intelligibly different" from traditional media and might require additional laws to be passed by the Indian Parliament."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-times-of-india-march-25-2015-sunil-abraham-internet-censorship-will-continue-in-opaque-fashion'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-times-of-india-march-25-2015-sunil-abraham-internet-censorship-will-continue-in-opaque-fashion</a>
</p>
No publishersunilIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T02:07:28ZBlog EntryIndian Supreme Court Overturns Law Barring ‘Offensive Messages’ Online
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wall-street-journal-niharika-mandhana-march-24-2015-indian-supreme-court-overturns-law-barring-hate-speech-online
<b>India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down legislation barring “offensive messages” online, saying it violated constitutional guarantees of free expression.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Niharika Mandhana <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-supreme-court-overturns-law-barring-hate-speech-online-1427174675">published by Wall Street Journal</a> on March 24, 2015 quotes Sunil Abraham.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A two-judge panel voided a part of India’s Information Technology Act that made it a crime to share information through computers or other communications devices that could cause “annoyance, inconvenience” and “enmity, hatred or ill will.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Announcing the ruling in a crowded courtroom in the Indian capital, Justice Rohinton Nariman said the law’s provisions were too vague and didn’t provide “clearly defined lines” for law-enforcement officials. “What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court also ruled that Internet companies, such as Facebook and Google, could be required to remove or block access to online content only if ordered to do so by a court or by a notification from the government. Previously, they were expected to act when they had “actual knowledge” of allegedly illegal materials.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free-speech activists had long argued against the broad language in the law, which was enacted in part as an effort to prevent the incitement of violence among different religious and ethnic groups in the world’s second-most-populous nation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Tuesday they applauded the decision.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This provision was hugely problematic for anyone using the Internet in India and that is gone,” said Sunil Abraham, head of the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society. “The court has removed the additional, unconstitutional limits to free speech.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s Information Technology minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, said in a televised interview after the ruling that the government “supports free social media.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“If the security establishment needs a response in cases of terrorism, extremism, communal violence, the government will take a view after wider consultations,” Mr. Prasad said. “But only with adequate safeguards.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Enforcement of the law has sparked controversy for years. In 2012, a 21-year-old was detained after complaining on Facebook about the effective shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of a right-wing Hindu leader. Another person was also detained for “liking” her comment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That year, political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was also charged under this law for his work lampooning Parliament. Mr. Trivedi said Tuesday that the court’s decision would “put a stop to years of misuse of the law by the government and politicians.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It sends a strong message that Indian law is with free speech,” Mr. Trivedi said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to a recent report by Facebook, the U.S. social media company blocked 5,832 pieces of content in the second half of 2014 on requests from Indian law-enforcement agencies and the government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That was up from 4,960 pieces blocked from January to June last year. Facebook said it restricted access in India to a lot of “anti-religious content” and “hate speech that Indian officials reported could cause unrest and disharmony.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">J. Sai Deepak, a New Delhi-based lawyer involved in the case, said Tuesday’s decision was a significant victory for Internet companies in India. He said the law’s implementation—which earlier was “subject to the vagaries of the political winds of the state,” he said—would now be guided only by the free-speech rules laid down in the Indian constitution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The order, however, rejected an argument by free-speech advocates that information shared on the Internet must be treated the same way as other kinds of speech, such as a live address or printed material. The court said lawmakers could create a separate law to deal with online speech because such content, unlike others, “travels like lightning and can reach millions of persons all over the world.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the current law, the court said, was too vague and included terms which “take into the net a very large amount of protected and innocent speech.” The law “is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the order said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">—Newley Purnell contributed to this article.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wall-street-journal-niharika-mandhana-march-24-2015-indian-supreme-court-overturns-law-barring-hate-speech-online'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wall-street-journal-niharika-mandhana-march-24-2015-indian-supreme-court-overturns-law-barring-hate-speech-online</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-03-25T16:18:29ZNews Item Indian Porn Ban is Partially Lifted But Sites Remain Blocked
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wall-street-journal-august-5-2015-sean-mclain-indian-porn-ban-is-partially-lifted-but-sites-remain-blocked
<b>The Indian government made a quick about-face on its order to block hundreds of pornography websites on Tuesday, partially lifting the ban after political backlash against the moral policing.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/08/05/indian-porn-ban-is-partially-lifted-but-sites-remain-blocked/">Wall Street Journal</a> on August 5, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the websites remained blocked because Internet service providers were afraid of legal trouble.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new order from the Department of Telecommunications said that Internet service providers could unblock any of the 857 websites, so long as they don’t contain child pornography. However, the websites remain blocked because service providers say they have no way of knowing whether they contain child porn, and no control over whether they will in the future.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ravi Shankar Prasad, the IT minister, said Tuesday night that the government would trim down the list of banned sites, to focus only on those that contain child porn.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“A new notification will be issued shortly. The ban will be partially withdrawn. Sites that do not promote child porn will be unbanned,” <a href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/porn-ban-to-be-lifted-partially-says-government/1/456229.html">said Mr. Prasad on the TV news channel</a> India Today.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The wording of the new order created confusion, because it appears to put the responsibility for policing the Internet for child pornography on service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“How can we go ahead? What if something comes up tomorrow [on one of these sites], which has child porn, or something else?,” said an executive at an Indian service provider who asked not to be named.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The onus cannot be put on the service providers. What the government is doing is inherently unfair, it is not what the law requires,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based civil liberties advocacy group. It is the government’s job to determine what violates the law, not private companies, Mr. Prakash said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wall-street-journal-august-5-2015-sean-mclain-indian-porn-ban-is-partially-lifted-but-sites-remain-blocked'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wall-street-journal-august-5-2015-sean-mclain-indian-porn-ban-is-partially-lifted-but-sites-remain-blocked</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-09-13T09:00:03ZNews ItemIndian government orders ISPs to block 857 porn websites
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/idg-news-service-august-2-2015-indian-govt-orders-isps-to-block-857-porn-websites
<b>The Indian government has ordered a large number of porn websites to be blocked, creating an uproar among users and civil rights groups in the country.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span>The blog post by John Ribeiro was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2955832/indian-government-orders-isps-to-block-857-porn-websites.html">originally published by IDG News Service and mirrored on PC World website</a> on August 2, 2015.</p>
<p><section class="page">
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department of Telecommunications has issued orders for the blocking of 857 websites serving pornography, said two persons familiar with the matter, who declined to be named.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69 (A) of India’s Information Technology Act allows the government to order blocking of public access to websites and other information through computer resources, though this section appears to be designed to be invoked when a threat is perceived to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The government cannot on its own block private access to pornography under current statutes,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore. “Parliament has not authorized the government to ban porn on its own.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“However, courts have in the past ordered specific websites to be blocked for specific offences such as defamation, though as far as I know not for obscenity,” Prakash added.</p>
<p>Viewing pornography privately is not a crime in the country, though its sale and distribution is an offense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some porn websites were still accessible through certain Internet service providers on Monday, as some ISPs took some time to implement the order. “All the 857 websites will be blocked by all ISPs today,” said a source in the ISP industry, who requested anonymity. “As licensees we have to follow the orders.”</p>
<p>The government could not be immediately reached for comment.</p>
<aside class="desktop tablet smartphone nativo-promo"> </aside>
<p>Reports of the blocks created a furore among Internet users in the country, who criticized the move on <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3fdwhm/are_porn_sites_getting_blocked/">Reddit,</a> Twitter and other social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s Supreme Court struck down in March as unconstitutional an Internet law that provided for the arrest of people sending online messages considered offensive or menacing. But it upheld Section 69 (A) in that same ruling, which it described as a “narrowly drawn provision” limited to a few subjects.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a public interest lawsuit <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cant-stop-an-adult-from-watching-porn-in-his-room-says-sc/article7400690.ece">on the blocking of pornography</a>, the Supreme Court last month declined to issue an interim order that would block porn websites at the request of the private litigant, according to a report.</p>
</section></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/idg-news-service-august-2-2015-indian-govt-orders-isps-to-block-857-porn-websites'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/idg-news-service-august-2-2015-indian-govt-orders-isps-to-block-857-porn-websites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-09-13T08:18:33ZNews ItemIndian Court Strikes Down Section of Law Punishing Offensive Posts
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-nida-najar-and-suhasini-raj-march-25-2015-indian-court-strikes-down-section-of-law-punishing-offensive-posts
<b>The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a section of a law that allowed the authorities to jail people for offensive online posts, in a judgment that was regarded as a landmark ruling on free speech in India.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Nida Najar and Suhasini Raj was published on the website of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-court-strikes-down-section-of-law-punishing-offensive-posts-749401">NDTV</a> on March 25, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The law stipulated that a person could be jailed for up to three years for any communication online that was, among other things, "grossly offensive," "menacing" or "false," and for the purpose of causing "annoyance," "inconvenience" or "injury." The provisions, which led to highly publicized arrests in recent years, had been roundly criticised by legal experts who called them vague and argued that they had been used in some cases to stifle dissent.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Calling the wording so vague that "virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it," the court said "if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet & Society, which is based in Bangalore, called the decision "amazing."<br /> "It is in continuation of a great tradition in India: that of apex courts consistently, over the years, protecting the citizens of India from violations of human rights," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India is considered by some to be one of the world's most freewheeling democracies, but the law reflected the ambivalence with which Indian officials have sometimes treated freedom of expression, occasionally citing the Constitution's allowance of "reasonable restrictions" on free speech in order to ban books, movies and other material about subjects like sex, politics and religion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government recently blocked the screening in India of the BBC documentary "India's Daughter," about the Delhi gang rape in 2012 that made international news.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The law, the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, was passed by parliament shortly after the three-day terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008. It granted the authorities more expansive powers to monitor electronic communications for reasons of national security. That section was not a part of the court case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the past, critics have been particularly worried that the section of the law that was struck down was ripe for misuse at the hands of police officials often beholden to political parties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last week, a young man in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh became one of the latest people to be arrested under the law when the police said he incorrectly attributed a polarizing statement to the lawmaker Azam Khan on Facebook.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Other highly publicized cases include the arrest in 2012 of a professor accused of sharing cartoons mocking the chief minister of West Bengal state on Facebook and the arrest of two young women after one shared a Facebook post criticizing the virtual shutdown of Mumbai following the death of a revered right-wing political leader there. The professor is still contesting his case in court, while the case against the two young women was dropped in 2013, according to the Press Trust of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a separate part of the Supreme Court judgment, the justices made it harder to force websites to take down content, although a legal expert said it remained to be seen how much of an impediment the ruling would be to blocking content.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-nida-najar-and-suhasini-raj-march-25-2015-indian-court-strikes-down-section-of-law-punishing-offensive-posts'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-nida-najar-and-suhasini-raj-march-25-2015-indian-court-strikes-down-section-of-law-punishing-offensive-posts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T15:40:06ZNews ItemIndia’s Supreme Court strikes down law that led to Facebook arrests
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-march-24-2015-indias-sc-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-fb-arrests
<b>India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a provision of a law that made it illegal to spread “offensive messages” on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-facebook-arrests/2015/03/24/9ca54e3c-608f-46d7-a32a-57918fdd9c35_story.html">Washington Post</a> on March 24, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a decision hailed as a victory for free speech, Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman ruled that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was unconstitutional, writing that the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a “chilling” effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the judge wrote. “If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India passed the Information Technology Act in 2000, and an amendment that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indias-new-internet-rules-criticized/2011/07/27/gIQA1zS2mI_story.html">went into effect in 2009</a> gave authorities broad powers to arrest those who post content deemed “grossly offensive” or false. The offense was punishable by up to three years in jail and a fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said that the provision was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam but that it was used much more broadly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The section has resulted in more than 20 high-profile arrests, including that of a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and an artist who drew cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The most well-known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that said Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend who merely “liked” the post also was arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The case of the “Palghar Girls” inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, joined by other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/01/when-and-where-posting-the-wrong-thing-to-facebook-can-get-you-arrested/">When — and where — posting the wrong thing to Facebook can get you arrested</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It’s a big victory,” Singhal said after the ruling. “The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In addition, Singhal and other petitioners had argued that a section of the Information Technology Act that allowed the government to block Web sites containing questionable material also was unconstitutional. The court disagreed, however, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free speech is enshrined in the Indian constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often banned or censored out of consideration for the sentiments of religious and minority groups.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last year, a conservative Hindu group <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/the-ban-man-indias-self-appointed-book-censor-wields-real-clout/2014/06/23/6f71eca2-b73f-4102-96e0-21d5a52e59a7_story.html">persuaded Penguin India to withdraw a book</a> on Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And, more recently, the government halted the planned television debut of a documentary on a 2012 gang rape called “India’s Daughter.”</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indian-government-blocks-film-about-2012-new-delhi-rape-case/2015/03/04/caa166cc-c28a-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html">India blocks film about 2012 New Delhi rape case</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government, whose attorney had argued in court that the legislature was in the best position to understand the needs of the people, also welcomed the decision.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The government is committed to free speech. India is a democratic country, and free flow of ideas should be respected. We do not seek to curtail any rights,” said Ravi Shankar Prasad, the minister of communications and information technology. He cautioned, however, that social media users and platforms should show self-restraint.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In recent years, other nations also have sharply increased monitoring of and crackdowns on Web posts perceived as insulting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Across the Persian Gulf Arab states, dozens of activists have been arrested for social media posts considered insulting to the countries’ rulers or damaging to the national image. In January 2014, an American national was allowed to leave the United Arab Emirates after serving more than eight months in prison for posting a YouTube video spoofing the UAE’s youth culture.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brian Murphy in Washington contributed to this report. Picture: <span class="pb-caption">(Indranil Mukherjee/AFP/Getty Images)</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-march-24-2015-indias-sc-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-fb-arrests'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-march-24-2015-indias-sc-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-fb-arrests</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-27T00:29:08ZNews ItemIndia’s Supreme Court strikes down law that led to arrests over Facebook posts
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts
<b>Judge rules that section of the information technology law was unconstitutional, had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a ‘chilling’ effect on free speech.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/03/24/indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts.html">'The Star.com' </a>on March 25, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Supreme Court in India struck down a section of its country’s information technology act Tuesday that had made it illegal to spread “offensive messages” on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Supreme Court Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman wrote in the ruling that the section of the law, known as 66A, was unconstitutional, saying the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a “chilling” effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the judge wrote. “If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India had first passed its Information Technology Act in 2000, but stricter provisions were added in 2008 and ratified in 2009 that gave police sweeping authority to arrest citizens for their personal posts on social media, a crime punishable for up to three years in jail and a fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said the section was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam, but it <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/02/06/google_india_facebook_remove_offensive_content.html">did not turn out that way</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the end, there were more than 20 high-profile arrests, including a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and another artist who drew a set of cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The most well-known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that argued the city of Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend, who merely “liked” the post, was also arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The case of the “Palghar Girls” inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the government’s law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, along with other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It’s a big victory,” Singhal said after the ruling. “The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singhal and other petitioners had also argued that another section of India’s technology act that allowed the government to block websites containing questionable material were also unconstitutional, but the court disagreed, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free speech in India is enshrined in the country’s constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often <a href="http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/02/16/dark_days_for_the_creative_class_in_india_siddiqui.html">banned or censored</a> out of consideration for religious and minority groups.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2014, a conservative Hindu group persuaded Penguin India to <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/13/hindu_history_book_yanked_from_shelves_under_pressure_from_india_nationalists.html">withdraw a book</a> about Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And more recently, the government of India blocked a planned television debut of a <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/03/06/bbc-doc-examines-2012-fatal-gang-rape-of-student-in-new-delhi.html">documentary film</a> on a 2012 gang rape case, <i>India’s Daughter</i>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T01:49:54ZNews ItemIndia's Supreme Court Axes Online Censorship Law, But Challenges Remain
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-march-25-2014-subhashish-panigrahi-indias-supreme-court-axes-online-censorship-law-but-challenges-remain
<b>The Supreme Court of India took a remarkable step to protect free expression on March 24, 2015, striking down controversial section 66A of the IT Act that criminalized “grossly offensive” content online. In response to a public interest litigation filed by Indian law student Shreya Singhal, the court made this landmark judgement calling the section “vague”, “broad” and “unconstitutional”. Since Tuesday's announcement, the news has trended nationally on Twitter, with more than 50,000 tweets bearing the hashtags #Sec66A and #66A.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog entry by Subhashish Panigrahi was originally published by <a class="external-link" href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/03/25/indias-supreme-court-axes-online-censorship-law-but-challenges-remain/">Global Voices Online</a> on March 25, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A allowed police to arrest any person who sent online communications deemed “grossly offensive” or known to be false. This has enabled the government <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-people-arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx" target="_blank">take down many websites</a> with allegedly objectionable content. Among various cases since the law was updated in 2008, two people were arrested for making comments on Facebook regarding India's prime minister Narendra Modi and one man was arrested for commenting on public service closures following the death of political leader Bal Thakrey.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The now-defunct Section 66A reads as follows:</p>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; ">66-A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.<br /> —Any person who sends, by means of a computer<br /> resource or a communication device,—<br /> (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or<br /> (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal<br /> intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or<br /> (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or<br /> recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet rights advocate and lawyer Pranesh Prakash, who works with the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, has been one of the law's <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act" target="_blank">most outspoken critics</a> in recent years. Immediately following the ruling, he tweeted:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Tweet.png" alt="Tweet" class="image-inline" title="Tweet" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nikhil Pahwa, independent journalist and founder of the MeddiaNama blog, <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-unconstritutional/">offered his take</a> on the ruling:</p>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; ">This is a great decision for freedom of speech in India…66A is far too vague, and lends itself to arbitrary implementation by the police, especially phrases like “grossly offensive”, annoyance, inconvenience, ill will. Remember that even the right to offend is an integral part of free speech.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Journalist and author Sagarika Ghose sarcastically wondered if the government of India would retroactively offer recompense for all of the actions taken against citizens for violating 66A.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/sagarika.png" alt="Sagarika" class="image-inline" title="Sagarika" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some were playful in their response to the decision. Siddharth Sing set out to “test” the efficacy of the ruling with a tweet mocking prominent public figures in Indian politics:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_Siddharth.png" alt="Siddharth" class="image-inline" title="Siddharth" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69, which provides authorities with the power to censor websites that “create communal disturbance, social disorder, or affect India's relationship with other countries” was upheld however. The Court has yet to clarify this decision. CIS India's Pranesh Prakash tweeted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately 69A (website blocking) has been upheld despite many issues, incl lack of transparency. Need to read full judgment to see why.</p>
<p>— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash/status/580239299641135105">March 24, 2015</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tuesday's decision comes after the government of India was <a href="http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2015/01/06/indian-netizens-criticize-online-censorship-of-jihadi-content/" target="_blank">heavily criticized</a> in January 2015 for blocking 32 websites in the country.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-march-25-2014-subhashish-panigrahi-indias-supreme-court-axes-online-censorship-law-but-challenges-remain'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-march-25-2014-subhashish-panigrahi-indias-supreme-court-axes-online-censorship-law-but-challenges-remain</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-27T02:38:20ZBlog Entry