The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 45.
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 ItemRuling in India shields Web posts
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/boston-globe-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-ruling-in-india-shields-web-posts
<b>The Supreme Court in India struck down a section of its country’s information technology act Tuesday that had made it illegal for anyone 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; ">This is the modified version of the article originally published by <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> and mirrored in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2015/03/24/india-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-facebook-arrests/ssYxzhVXjSEkYgS8W4qwDN/story.html">Boston Globe</a>. Sunil Abraham is quoted. <i>Picture by Manjunath Kiran, AFP.</i></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 for anyone 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 Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said that the section was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam, but it did not turn out that way.</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 an 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 that 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 banned or censored out of consideration for religious and minority groups.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2014, a conservative Hindu group persuaded Penguin India to withdraw a book on 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 documentary film on a 2012 gang rape case, ‘‘India’s Daughter.’’</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Along with India, other nations have sharply increased monitoring and crackdowns on perceived insulting Web posts in recent years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Across the Gulf Arab states, dozens of activists have been arrested for social media posts considered insulting to the country’s rulers or tarnishing the national image.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/boston-globe-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-ruling-in-india-shields-web-posts'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/boston-globe-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-ruling-in-india-shields-web-posts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-27T00:38:34ZNews ItemFear, Uncertainty and Doubt
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-march-26-2015-sunil-abraham-fear-uncertainty-doubt
<b>Much confusion has resulted from the Section 66A verdict. Some people are convinced that online speech is now without any reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. This is completely false. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are many other provisions within the IT Act that still regulate speech online, for example the section on obscenity (Sec. 67) and also the data protection provision (Sec. 43A). Additionally there are provisions within the Indian Penal Code and other Acts that regulate speech both online and offline. For example, defamation remains a criminal offence under the IPC (Sec. 499), and disclosing information about children in a manner that lowers their reputation or infringes their privacy is also prohibited under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Sec. 23).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Others are afraid that the striking down of Section 66A results in a regulatory vacuum where it will be possible for bad actors to wreak havoc online because the following has been left unaddressed by the IT Act.</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Criminal Intimidation: The phrase "criminal intimidation" was included in Sec. 66A(b), but the requirement was that intimidation should be carried out using "information which he knows to be false". Sec. 506 of the IPC which punishes criminal intimidation does not have this requirement and is therefore a better legal route for affected individuals, even though the maximum punishment is a year shorter than the three years possible under the IT Act.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Cyber-stalking: A new section for stalking - Sec. 345 D - was added into the IPC in 2013 which also recognised cyber stalking. The definition within Sec.345D is more precise compared to the nebulous phrasing in Sec. 66A, which read - "monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking". </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Phishing: Sec. 66A (c) dealt with punishment to people who "deceive or mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages". Sec.66D, which will be the operative section after this verdict, deals with "cheating by impersonation" and forms a more effective safeguard against phishing.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cyber-bulling of children is arguably left unaddressed. Most importantly, spam, the original intention behind 66A, now cannot be tackled using any existing provision of the law. However, the poorly drafted section made it impossible for law enforcement to crack down on spammers. A 2005 attempt by the ITU to produce model law for spam based on a comparative analysis of national laws resulted in several important best practices that were ignored during the 2008 Amendment of the Act. For example, the definition of spam must cover the following characteristics - mass, unsolicited and commercial. All of which was missing in 66A.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Good quality law must be drafted by an open, participatory process where all relevant stakeholders are consulted and responded to before bills are introduced in parliament.</p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">A scanned copy of the article was published in the Deccan Chronicle on March 26, 2015. <br /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/FearUncertaintyanddoubt.png/@@images/9871b918-5bc2-4957-8e23-5f9ae0eaa3d6.png" alt="Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" class="image-inline" title="Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-march-26-2015-sunil-abraham-fear-uncertainty-doubt'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-march-26-2015-sunil-abraham-fear-uncertainty-doubt</a>
</p>
No publishersunilIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-04-17T01:44:39ZBlog EntryIndia’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 ItemI dare you, I double dare you: Social media celebrates Sec 66A verdict
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-25-2015-vishakha-saxena-i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you
<b>Users across social media platforms on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court's scrapping of the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, hailing it as a measure that will strengthen freedom of expression online.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Vishakha Saxena published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you-social-media-celebrates-sec-66a-verdict/article1-1330012.aspx">Hindustan Times</a> on March 25, 2015 quotes Pranesh Prakash.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This is the first SC judgment since the 60s to plainly strike down a law for free expression violation! #66A," tweeted Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bengaluru.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash, who tweeted "I AM ECSTATIC!!" minutes after the judgement, was one of the most vocal critics of Section 66A - which made offensive comments online punishable with jail terms - and played a key role in creating awareness about freedom of expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apar Gupta, a representative of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (one of the parties that petitioned the Supreme Court against section 66A), also took to Twitter to jubilantly declare victory.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"My TL is a little crazy right now…This decision means a lot to me. Thank you. I am smiling." he posted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Supreme Court advocate Karuna Nundy, who too represents PUCL, expressed her happiness on Facebook.</p>
<p>The top court struck down the provision, described as draconian by many internet rights activists, describing it as "unconstitutional" and a "restriction on free speech".</p>
<p>Section 66A, incorporated through an amendment of the IT Act in 2009, prohibited the sending of information of a "grossly offensive" or "menacing" nature through communication devices. It was used by several states to arrest people over posts on social media that officials claimed were "seditious" or "communally sensitive".</p>
<p>Discussions on social media against the provision had gained pace hours ahead of the court's ruling. Twitter, in fact, was abuzz as thousands used the hashtag #No66A to voice their opinions.</p>
<p>Reddit, known for being unabashed with opinion and language, wasn’t far behind. The first post announcing the verdict was upvoted 96% and garnered 460 points within four hours.</p>
<p>"Supreme Court zindabad! Now can we abuse Azam Khan without any fear?" commented user Apunebolatumerilaila.</p>
<p>Another user, Indian_galileo, wrote, "FINALLY, SOME SENSE HAS PREVAILED PRAISE THE OVERLORDS AT SC THANK YOU SC THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-25-2015-vishakha-saxena-i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-25-2015-vishakha-saxena-i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T16:33:55ZNews ItemIndia's section 66A scrapped: Win for free speech
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-march-24-2015-indias-section-66-a-scrapped
<b>India's Supreme Court court has struck down a law that made posting "offensive" comments on the internet a crime punishable by a jail term of up to three years. But, for the free speech campaigners, there is more work to do, writes technology writer Prasanto K Roy.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Prasanto K. Roy was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32029374">published by BBC</a> on March 24, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A, inserted in 2009 into India's Information Technology [IT] Act of 2000, was sweeping and draconian, and was repeatedly abused across the country, say free speech campaigners.<br /><br />It was challenged in 2012 by a law student, Shreya Singhal, then 21.<br /><br />She filed a public-interest litigation in the Supreme Court, shortly after the arrest of two girls in Mumbai for a Facebook post criticising the shutdown of the city after a political leader's death.<br /><br />One of the two girls had merely "liked" the post.<br /><br />Earlier in the same year, a businessman in south India was arrested for tweeting that a politician had amassed much wealth.<br /><br />A professor at Jadavpur University in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) was arrested for forwarding a cartoon about West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Both were charged under Section 66A, among others.<br /><br />In May 2013, the Supreme Court made arrests under Section 66A tougher - it said an arrest would require the permission of senior law-enforcement officials.</p>
<h3>'A victory'</h3>
<p>The judgement on Tuesday was read out by Justice RF Nariman, who said Section 66A was unconstitutional and directly affected the public's right to know.</p>
<p>"We have no hesitation in striking it down in its entirety," he said.</p>
<p>The order notes that Section 66A violates an article of the Indian constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This judgement is a victory for anyone and everyone who uses the internet.<br /><br />"I am ecstatic. It's a complete victory for us, because the Supreme Court struck it down and held it unconstitutional," Ms Singhal told BBC Hindi moments after the court scrapped the law.<br /><br />Section 66A provided for up to three years in jail for anyone who sent an electronic message that was considered "grossly offensive" or caused "annoyance or inconvenience".<br /><br />Justice Nariman said such terms were vague, and created a sweeping law that was open to abuse.<br /><br />The apex court judgement notes that 66A was based substantially on section 66 of the UK Post Office Act of 1953, which made sending offensive or annoying messages by telephone or telegram an offence punishable by up to a month in jail.<br /><br />That law, last updated in 2003, still retains the terms "annoyance" and "inconvenience".<br /><br />Section 66A's creation, and much of its implementation, happened on the watch of the Congress party-led political regime that lost to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's BJP government in last year's general election.<br /><br />Arun Jaitley of the BJP - the current finance minister and former opposition leader - had criticised the law in the upper house of parliament, after it was reported that the government had blocked nearly 300 websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Once in power, however, the BJP swung around to defending 66A in the Supreme Court, the government represented by additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta.<br /><br />Arrests under Section 66A continued into 2015 - last week, a 19-year-old student in Uttar Pradesh was arrested for a Facebook post on a political leader, and spent two days in jail.</p>
<h3>Next target</h3>
<p>The petitioners and their many supporters, including multiple virtual support groups, are celebrating the order striking down 66A.<br /><br />But there are concerns about another section - 69A - introduced in the same amendment of 2009, which has been retained.<br /><br />Section 69A, which was also challenged in Ms Singhal's and others' petitions, allows the government to block online content that "threatens the security of the state" or fulfils other conditions.<br /><br />Hundreds of websites and web pages have been blocked under 69A, including a government website in 2013.</p>
<p>The apex court's order notes that 69A is a "narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards", and has allowed the section to remain.<br /><br />Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society says: "The Supreme Court judgement is at its best on 66A, but weaker on 69A."</p>
<p>The free speech campaigners say their work is not yet finished.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-march-24-2015-indias-section-66-a-scrapped'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-march-24-2015-indias-section-66-a-scrapped</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T16:19:42ZNews 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 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 ItemWhat the experts said on live chat
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-what-the-experts-said-on-live-chat
<b>Three eminent panellists shared their views and answered questions from readers on the Supreme Court verdict striking down Section 66 A of the IT Act that allowed the arrest of people posting “offensive content” on the Internet, in a live chat hosted by The Hindu. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/what-the-experts-said-on-live-chat/article7029320.ece">Hindu</a> on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan was one of the panelists.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Does this now mean anything goes on the Internet, asked one reader.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“No, the standard penal laws — against defamation, hate speech (S. 153A), religious incitement (S. 295A) — continue to apply,” said Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of forthcoming book “Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the Constitution.” The argument that the Internet needed separate rules when it came to the content of speech was what was rejected by the Court, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What was the rationale for the Court upholding Section 69 A, allowing the blocking of websites, asked another.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“One wishes that the court had paid as much attention to the blocking orders as they did to 66A,” said Lawrence Liang, lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression, was the third expert on the panel.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Click <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/live-chat-hope-for-free-speech/article7028037.ece?homepage=true&theme=true">here</a> to read the full transcript of the chat</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-what-the-experts-said-on-live-chat'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-what-the-experts-said-on-live-chat</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T02:35:49ZNews ItemHistoric day for freedom of speech and expression in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india
<b>In a petition that finds its origin in a simple status message on Facebook, Shreya Singhal vs Union of India marks a historic reinforcement of the freedom of speech and expression in India.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Vidushi Marda was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bangaloremirror.com/columns/views/Historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-India/articleshow/46681364.cms">Bangalore Mirror</a> on March 25, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">Hearing a batch of writ petitions, the bench comprising Justices Rohinton F Nariman and J Chelameswar considered the constitutionality of three provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The provisions under consideration were Section 66A, dealing with punishment of sending offensive messages through communication services, Section 69A which discusses website blocking and Section 79, dealing with intermediary liability.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">The intent behind Section 66A was originally to regulate spam and cyber stalking, but in the last seven years not a single spammer has been imprisoned.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">Instead, innocent academics have been arrested for circulating caricatures. The Court struck down the section in its entirety, declaring it unconstitutional.</span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">It held that the language of the section was "nebulous" and "imprecise" and did not satisfy reasonable restrictions under A. 19(2) of the Constitution of India.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">Section 79 was meant to result in the blossoming of free speech since it stated that intermediaries will not be held liable for content created by their users unless they refused to act on take-down notices. Unfortunately, intermediaries were unable to decide whether content was legal or illegal, and when the Centre for Internet and Society in 2011 sent flawed take-down notices to seven prominent national and international intermediaries, they erred on the side of caution and over-complied, often deleting legitimate content. By insisting on a court order, the Supreme Court has eliminated the chilling effect of this Section.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">Block orders issued by the Indian government to telecom operators and ISPs were shrouded in opacity.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">The process through which such orders were developed and implemented was not within public scrutiny. When a film is banned, it becomes part of public discourse, but website blocking does not enjoy the same level of transparency. The person whose speech has been censored is not notified or given an opportunity to be heard as part of the executive process. Unfortunately, in dealing with Section 69A, the Court chose to leave it intact, stating that it is a "narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards."</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">On balance, this is a truly a landmark judgment as it is the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court has struck down any law in its entirety for a violation of free speech.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishervidushiIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T02:19:17ZBlog EntryInternet 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 EntryIndia’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 High Court: No Takedown Requests On Social Sites Without Court, Gov't Order
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order
<b>Indian police will no longer be able to threaten Internet users and online intermediaries with jail merely on the basis of a complaint that they have posted “offensive” posts online.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Madhur Singh was published in <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/Bloomberg.pdf" class="internal-link">Bloomberg BNA</a> on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan gave her inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India March 24, law enforcement agencies will be able to take action in such cases only after an order has been obtained from a court or the government (Singhal v.Union of India, India Sup. Ct., 3/24/15).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court struck down in its entirety Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which authorized criminal penalties for sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication services. Opponents of the measure said the section defined “offensive” very vaguely and broadly, and that cases of arrest under the section frequently made headlines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom of speech activists and Internet-based businesses welcomed the judgment as a boost for civil liberties, freedom of speech and a conducive business environment for an entire gamut of online businesses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment is good news for intermediaries such as Facebook Inc. and the India-based review site MouthShut.com, both of which have been repeatedly inundated with takedown notices based on complaints against “offensive” posts.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Offensive Posts Were Actionable Under Section 66A</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A, added to the Information Technology Act of 2000 through an amendment in February 2009, prescribed imprisonment of up to three years and a fine for anyone who sends via a computer resource or communication device:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;<br />(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<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 recipient about the origin of such messages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A supporting Section 79(3)(b) stated that “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act,” the intermediary would have to “expeditiously remove or disable access to that material or that resource.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Together, these sections put ordinary Internet users at risk for arrest for simply posting online and obligated intermediaries such as Twitter Inc., Facebook, MouthShut.com and others to take down content simply pursuant to a complaint.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this month, Facebook revealed statistics indicating that India is second on its global list of governments demanding takedowns.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Court Removes Intermediaries' Discretion</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shwetasree Majumder, partner at Fidus Law Chambers, told Bloomberg BNA March 25 that after this decision, any blocking of content can now only take place via a reasoned order after complying with several procedural safeguards, including a hearing to the originator and intermediary either by the designated<br />officer or pursuant to an order passed by a competent court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“So intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. are no longer required to judge as to whether the take down notices received by them contain legitimate requests or not,” she wrote in an e-mail. “As an acknowledgement that a true intermediary should not concern itself with the merits of the content posted by third parties, the court takes away the intermediary's discretion as to what content must remain and what must go.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan, program officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, told Bloomberg BNA that after “reading down” Section 79, the Supreme Court “has relieved the intermediary of its responsibility to judge the lawfulness of content. Now, the intermediary will lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b) (and be liable<br />to prosecution or penalty) only if it does not take content down after receiving ‘actual knowledge of a court order or government notification' requiring takedown of content.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prior to the judgment, an intermediary was required to judge whether a takedown notice concerned unlawful content on its website, which would constitute “actual knowledge” under the section. If the intermediary made an affirmative determination, it was required to take the content down or lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Supreme Court Strikes Down 66A</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Momentum against Section 66A built up over the last three years, particularly after law student Shreya Singhal filed a challenge in the Supreme Court after two Mumbai women were arrested and put in jail for 10 days in 2012 for Facebook posts against a shutdown of Mumbai city following a politician's death.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Jasti Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman heard ten such cases together, and ruled March 24 that Section 66A was unconstitutional as it directly affected the right of the public to know. Holding that Section 66A was “open ended, undefined, and vague” so that “virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net,” the court struck it down in its entirety.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court said that Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries (Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which pertains to an intermediary disabling access to material that is “known” to be violative of Rule 3(2), needed to be read down in the same manner as Section 79(3)(b).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court, however, upheld Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which gives the government the power to block web content if doing so is in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity or security of India.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Impact on Intermediary Liability</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Overall, Majumder said that intermediary liability now stands significantly watered down. One particular case this might impact is the currently pending Super Cassettes India Ltd. v MySpace Inc. case before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is considering the validity of the high threshold of intermediary liability prescribed by a single judge in copyright infringement cases.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hariharan wrote in an e-mail that while intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) or content hosts may “choose” to take down content when they receive a private takedown notice, they don't “need” to do so to remain immune under Section 79(3)(b) or Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This reduces uncertainty in intermediary liability in India. It will also hopefully keep intermediaries from taking down content in an overbroad manner to escape liability,” Hariharan said, adding that the government nevertheless continues to have the ability to criminalize online acts. For instance, Sections 66B<br />to 67B of the IT Act define and criminalize different online conduct. Additionally, sections of the Indian Penal Code that criminalize speech acts (e.g., Sections 295A and 153A for incitement; Section 292 for obscenity) have also been applied to online acts in the past.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet & Mobile Association of India said in a statement on its website March 24 that the judgment will mark a new phase for the growth and evolution of the Internet in India. While Internet users will no longer fear illegal censorship or harassment, it said that “online businesses, ranging from established international companies to small Indian startups, will be able to take advantage of a more conducive business environment.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IAMAI added that the judgment will be especially helpful to smaller companies such as Mouthshut.com that will “now not be harassed by the frivolous and mal-intentioned notices of take down.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-04-03T06:18:52ZNews ItemSupreme Court Strikes Down Section 66A Of IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act
<b>In a major boost to freedom of speech online in India, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, reading down a draconian law that was poorly conceived, tragically worded and caused ordinary citizens to be jailed for so much as a comment on Facebook that annoyed just about anyone. </b>
<p>The article by Indrani Basu and Betwa Sharma <a class="external-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/03/24/section-66-a_n_6928864.html">published in the Huffington Post </a>on March 24, 2015 quotes Sunil Abraham.</p>
<hr />
<p>In its <a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf" target="_hplink">122-page judgment</a>, the court struck down the entire section, refusing to heed the government's plea that it will not be misused.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The apex courts in India have consistently protected the rights of its citizens. And the Supreme Court has once again upheld that great tradition with this decision. There are constitutional exceptions to free speech that exist.</p>
<blockquote class="pullquote">But this judgment will protect against the abuse of this vague and badly drafted law," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The section was passed without discussion in Parliament by the UPA government in 2008, adding an amendment to the original 2002 Act. While Narendra Modi supported the repealing of the Act during his prime ministerial campaign, after the BJP came to power, the government defended the provision, <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sec-66A-draconian-but-is-needed-Govt/articleshow/46125733.cms" target="_hplink">even while admitting it was draconian</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government argued that the provision was necessary to prevent people from posting inflammatory content offending religious or political sentiments, leading to violence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"I''m so happy with the decision. They have completely struck down the whole section. This is a victory for the country," said Shreya Singhal, the 24-year-old law student on whose petition the Supreme Court was hearing the case. "I don't have a political agenda — both the Congress government and the BJP have misused the section earlier. Section 66A was a blanket provision which was very vague. There are many IPC sections that could be used in its place."</p>
<p>"No one should fear putting anything up on the internet. It is very important for us to protect this right today," she said.</p>
<p>But there are sections in the Indian Penal Code that can deal with such situations.</p>
<p>And the broad and vague wording of 66A meant that it effectively became a tool that muzzled all speech online.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2012, Shaheen Dada, a 21-year old Mumbai girl, posted on Facebook comments about Shivsena leader Bal Thackerey. Annoyed <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-20490823" target="_hplink">party members went to the cops and Dada was arrested</a>. Her friend Rinu Srinivasan, who had 'liked' the comment on Facebook, was also arrested.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The same year, <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-mamata/article1-839847.aspx" target="_hplink">Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra</a> was arrested for sharing a cartoon poking fun at West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mumbai cartoonist <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/outrage-over-cartoonist-aseem-trivedis-arrest-on-sedition-charges-for-mocking-the-constitution-498901" target="_hplink">Aseem Trivedi was also arrested</a> under the provision for his cartoons during the Anna Hazare anti-corruption agitation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here is what the section said:</p>
<blockquote class="quoted">66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.<br />Any person who sends, by means of a computer 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 intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,<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 recipient about the origin of such messages,<br />shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.</blockquote>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-03-25T16:43:53ZNews Item