The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 4.
हेट स्पीच
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/93994791f-93894d92a94091a
<b>रोहित शर्मा द्वारा संपादित</b>
<p> </p>
<p dir="ltr"> समाजीकरण और मनोरंजन से गृह-कार्य तक, आज के युग में इंटरनेट युवाओं के लिए जीवन का एक अनिवार्य हिस्सा बन चुका है। यह लोगों को एक दूसरे से जोड़ने और उनसे सीखने के लिए बड़े अवसर प्रदान करता है। परंतु, इसकेबावजूद इंटरनेट में समाज में कई नकारात्मक प्रभाव बनाने की क्षमता है ।इंटरनेट घृणित व हिंसक प्रचार करने के लिए चरमपंथियों को शक्तिशाली उपकरण भी प्रदान करता है, जो वैश्विक स्तर पर कट्टरपंथी समुदायों के सृजन एवं कट्टरपंथीकरण को बढ़ावा देता है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">हेट स्पीच अभिव्यक्ति तथा व्यक्तिगत, समूह और अल्पसंख्यकों के अधिकारों की आज़ादी के साथ एक जटिल गठबंधन में निहित है। इसके साथ साथ हेट स्पीच गरिमा, स्वतंत्रता और समानता की अवधारणाओं का भी समावेश है । इसकी परिभाषा अक्सर विवादास्पद रही है। राष्ट्रीय और अंतरराष्ट्रीय कानून में, घृणास्पद भाषण उन अभिव्यक्तियों को संदर्भित करता है जो उत्तेजना से नुकसान पहुंचाने के (विशेष रूप से, भेदभाव, शत्रुता या हिंसा) हिमायती रहे है। इस बदलाव का प्रयोजन एक निश्चित सामाजिक या जनसांख्यिकीय समूह के साथ पहचाना जा रहा है। वह भाषण इसमें शामिल हो सकते हैं, जो हिंसक कृत्यों की वकालत करते हैं, धमकाते हैं, या प्रोत्साहित करते हैं। कुछ समूहों के लिए, हालांकि, इसकी संकल्पना उन अभिव्यक्तियों तक भी फैली हुई है जो पक्षपात और असहिष्णुता के माहौल को बढ़ावा देती है और भेदभाव, शत्रुता और हिंसक हमलों को बढ़ावा दे सकता है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">आम तौर पर, हेट स्पीच की परिभाषा विस्तृत है, कभी-कभी उन शब्दों को शामिल करके इसकी परिभाषा का विस्तार किया जाता है, जो अधिकतर उच्च पदों पर बैठे व्यक्तियों के लिए अपमान-जनक सिद्ध होते हैं। , घृणास्पद भाषण की संकल्पना के साथ छेड़छाड़ की संभावना विशेष रूप से महत्वपूर्ण समय पर, जैसे कि चुनाव के दौरान होती है। यहाँ तक की आरोप यह भी लगता है कि हेट स्पीच का उपयोग राजनैतिक विरोधी व सत्ता में बैठे लोगों द्वारा एक दूसरे के प्रति असीमित अंसतोष व आलोचना को जन्म देने के लिए भी किया जाता है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच का प्रसार एक नूतन और तेज़ी से विकसित घटना है और इसकी महत्वता,</p>
<p dir="ltr">प्रभाव और परिणामों को समझने के लिए सामूहिक प्रयासों की आवश्यकता है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार में सोशल मीडिया की भूमिका:</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">गौरतलब है पिछले कुछ समय में हेट स्पीच के प्रचार प्रसार में [WU1] सोशल मीडिया मुख्यतः एक नए औज़ार के रूप में उभरा हैI यह भयप्रद औजार प्रमुखता से धर्म के आधार पर नफरत फैलाने का काम कर रहा है। इसका उपयोग उपद्रवी तत्वों द्वारा प्रचार-प्रसार के घिनौनें तरकीबों से समाज की एकता और शांति में विघ्न उत्पन्न करने के लिए होता है।समाज की शांति को भंग कुछ इस प्रकार किया जाता है, जिससे इसके स्रोत व उपयोगकर्ता की जानकारी सुनिश्चित करना नामुमकिन सा साबित होता है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">इंटरनेट पर वार्तालाप, विशेषतःसोशल मीडिया पर, अक्सर उन बातचीत की प्रतिबिंब होती है जो बातें ऑफ़-लाइन होती है। हालांकि, ऑनलाइन बातचीत का एक लाभ यह होता है की यह आपके आस-पास मौजूद लोगों के एक छोटे समूह तक सीमित नहीं होती। भूगोल और समय की बाधाएं ऑनलाइन बातचीत में मौजूद नहीं हैं, क्योंकि कोई भी व्यक्ति, किसी भी समय ऑनलाइन बातचीत में शामिल हो सकता है और इस चर्चा में अपने विचारों का योगदान कर सकता है ।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">वर्ल्ड बैंक रिपोर्ट 2016 के अनुसार ,भारत में हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार में सोशल मीडिया का बहुत ही अहम योगदान है, जिसका कारण भारत की दुनिया की इंटरनेट सेवा की उपयोगिता में 30% हिस्सेदारी है। ) द नेक्स्ट वेब रिपोर्ट 2017 के अनुसार विश्व की अग्रणी सोशल नेटवर्किंग वेबसाइट, फेसबुक का उपभोक्ता आधार भारत में 24 करोड़ के आंकड़े को पार कर चुका है। )।</p>
<p dir="ltr">इसके अतिरिक्त यरल रिपोर्ट 2016 के अनुसार, 13.6 करोड़ भारतीय सोशल मीडिया प्लैटफ़ार्म पर अपनी सक्रियता दर्ज करवा रहे हैI</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">अगर सोशल मीडिया प्लेटफार्म की बात की जाए, तो व्हाट्सअप के महत्व को कम आंकना मुनासिब नहीं होगा I इसका मतलब यह है की वर्त्तमान में युवाओं की कार्यशैली में व्हाट्सएप के उपयोगिता को अन-देखा नहीं कर सकते हैं, जो मैशबल संस्था, 2017 के अनुसार भारत में 20 करोड़ से अधिक उपयोगकर्ताओं तक पहुंच गया है। इसका मतलब है कि भारत में 20 करोड़ उपभोक्ता व्हाट्सएप में दैनिक आधार पर संदेशों का आदान-प्रदान कर रहे हैं। इस प्रकार, संचार के सबसे लोकप्रिय चैनलों के रूप में से एक, सोशल मीडिया हेट स्पीच से लड़ने के साथ साथ बढावा देने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभा रहा है। वास्तव में, यह एक शक्तिशाली उपकरण है जो टेलीविजन के रूप में अपने ऑडियो-विजुअल के फायदों के साथ निहित है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">वर्ष 2015 में पिउ रिसर्च सेंटर की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार भारत सामाजिक शत्रुता सूचकांक में चौथे स्थान पर आता है(10 में से 8.7 सूचकांक मूल्य)I इस मूल्यांकन के अनुसार भारत से ख़राब मात्र 3 देश क्रमशः सीरिया, नाइजीरिया और इराक़ हैं । यह भारत में धर्म उन्मुख मुद्दों पर चिन्तनीय स्थिति को दर्शाता है । ।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">हालांकि यह प्रवृत्ति भारत तक सीमित नहीं है। यह धार्मिक कट्टरपंथवाद विश्व के कई अन्य देशों में भी दिखाई देता है। पाकिस्तान और बांग्लादेश जैसे दक्षिण एशियाई देशों ने भी, न सिर्फ राज्य बल्कि कट्टरवादी समूहों द्वारा अभिव्यक्ति की आज़ादी को अन-देखा किया है, जो देश, धर्म या समुदायों की रक्षा करने का दावा करते हैं।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">भारत में पत्रकारों को उनकी रिपोर्टिंग पर अक्सर मौत की धमकी मिलना व उनके खिलाफ एक नफरत भरा अभियान चला कर उन्हें प्रताड़ित करने की क्रियाएँ आम है, जिसका सीधा साधा प्रतिफल भारत को प्रेस स्वतंत्रता सूचकांक2018 में 180 देशों में 138 वा स्थान मिलना है । लोकतंत्र का चौथा स्तम्भ प्रेस की स्वतंत्रता की बात करता है, जो प्रदर्शित करता है कि प्रेस की स्वतंत्रता के साथ कोई समझौता नहीं होना चाहिए I अगर प्रेस पर सरकारों का नियंत्रण होगा तो वह जनता तक वही समाचार और ख़बरें पहुंचाएगी जो सरकार के हितों की वकालत करते हैं या सरकार को मसीहा के रूप में प्रदर्शित करते हैं। प्रेस से छेड़खानी अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से जनता के अधिकारों का उल्लंघन है क्यूंकि स्वतंत्र पत्रकारिता का काम है जनता तक बिना किसी डर या दबाव के सही व सटीक समाचार पहुंचाना जो एक लोकतांत्रिक देश के मूल्यों को दर्शाता है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">हाल ही में हेट स्पीच का तुलनात्मक रूप से उदाहरण लिया जाए तो प्रसिद्ध फ्रीलैनसर पत्रकार राणा अय्युब को 2002 के गुजरात-दंगे पर लिखी किताब ‘गुजरात फाइल्स’ को प्रकाशित करने के बाद से हेट स्पीच का सामना करना पड़ा जिसमें उनके खिलाफ एक स्पष्ट रूप से संघटित सोशल मीडिया अभियान द्वारा उन्हें टारगेट किया गयाI इस अभियान के तहत उनके खिलाफ आरोप लगाया की वह चाइल्ड रेपिस्ट को समर्थन करती हैI</p>
<p dir="ltr">इस के अलावा उनके खिलाफ अस्वीकृत व्यव्हार एवं फूहड़ भाषा का प्रयोग करके उनके साथ बलात्कार करने तक की धमकी दी गयी। राणा अय्युब के अनुसार यह अभियान सीधे सीधे उनके विगतकाल में किये गए स्टिंग ऑपरेशन का प्रभाव है। उन्होंने गुप्त रूप से दर्ज साक्षात्कारों का इस्तेमाल किया था, जो 2002 के गुजरात दंगों को बढ़ाने में नौकरशाहों और राजनेताओं के मेल-जोल के बारे में बताते थेI</p>
<p dir="ltr"> इस श्रृंखला में दूसरा उदाहरण एनडीटीवी के वरिष्ठ पत्रकार रवीश कुमार का है, जो अपने बेबाक विश्लेषण के लिए जाने जाते हैंI वह भी पिछले कुछ दिनों से ऑनलाइन ट्रोलिंग का शिकार हो रहे हैं जिसमें उन्हें एक वीडियो मैसेज द्वारा जान से मारने तक की धमकी तक दी गयी जिसे रवीश बताते है कि “यह सब अच्छी तरह से संगठित प्रयास है जिसे राजनीतिक मंजूरी प्रदान है”। हेट स्पीच का उल्लेख ख़ाली पत्रकारों के खिलाफ ही नहीं अपितु बॉलीवुड कलाकारों के खिलाफ भी है I हाल ही में कई दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण प्रदर्शनों मेंदीपिका पादुकोण, रणवीर सिंह और संजय लीला भंसाली को फिल्म पद्मावती पर अत्यधिक नफरत और धमकी भरे संदेश प्राप्त हुए हैं क्योंकि लोगों के एक समूह ने बिना फिल्म देखे यह आंकलन कर लिया कि यह फिल्म उनकी भावनाओं को चोट पहुंचाती है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">ये घटनाएँ पुष्टि करती हैं कि सोशल मीडिया हेट स्पीच बनाने और फैलाने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाता हैI और इसका इस्तेमाल हिंसा को उकसानें के स्पष्ट एजेंडे के साथ- साथ सांप्रदायिक और धार्मिक हेट स्पीच को बढ़ावा देने के लिए किया गया है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">ऑनलाइन घृणास्पद भाषण की घटनाओं को वास्तव में रोकने के लिए, एक बड़े अभियान की आवश्यकता है जो लोगों को संवेदनशील बनाकर उनमें बोलने की आज़ादी और नफरत भरे भाषणों के बीच अंतर स्पष्ट करने में मददगार साबित हो सके। इस अभियान के प्रति भागीदारी आपकी और मेरी ही नहीं अपितु प्रत्येक व्यक्ति की ज़िम्मेदारी है कि इंटरनेट पर उपलब्ध सामग्री का उत्पादन व उपभोग आँखों पर पट्टी बाँधकर एक मंद-उपभोक्ता की तरह नहीं अपितु समझदारी एवं बुद्धिमत्ता के साथ करना चाहिए।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच से निपटने के लिए प्रभावी कानून की आवश्यकता:</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">ऊपर दिए गए दृष्टांत एवं तर्क इस और इशारा करती हैं कि बोलने और अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता के लिए हेट स्पीच एक जटिल चुनौती है। भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय ने भी इस बात को तब महसूस किया जब उन्होंने विधि आयोग की राय-मशविरा मांगी कि किन क़ानूनों से चुनाव आयोग को हेट स्पीच से प्रभावी ढंग से निपटने के लिए सशक्त किया जाए।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">ऑनलाइन "हेट स्पीच" के लिए एक अलग कानून तैयार करने की दिशा में गृह मंत्रालय ने विधि आयोग को एक कानूनी मसौदा तैयार करने के लिए लिखा है। इसमें निर्धारित प्रावधान, सोशल मीडिया और ऑनलाइन मैसेजिंग अनु-प्रयोगों के माध्यम से भेजे गए संवेदनशील व भड़काऊ संदेशों से निपटने में उपयोगी होंगे जो सामाजिक विकार को नियंत्रित करेगा।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">यह निर्णय तब लिया गया जब पूर्व लोकसभा महासचिव टी के विश्वनाथन की अध्यक्षता में घटित समिति ने ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार को नियंत्रण में रखने के लिए कड़े कानूनों की सिफ़ारिश की। यह पैनल सूचना प्रोद्योगिकी अधिनियम, 2000 की धारा 66ए के सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा वर्ष 2015 में निरस्त होने के बाद गठन किया गया था ।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">मार्च 2017, में विधि आयोग द्वारा सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पूर्व जस्टिस बी एस चौहान की अध्यक्षता में दो नए प्रावधानों को आईपीसी में सम्मालित होने की सिफ़ारिश की गयी जो की प्रवासी भलाई संगठन बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया 2014 में सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा दिए गए आदेश पर कार्य कर रहा था। इसमे कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट रूप से कहा की हेट स्पीच को समानता के अधिकार के शीशे से देखा जाना चाइए, और बताया की हेट स्पीच को केवल एक व्यक्ति के खिलाफ अपमानजनक स्पीच के रूप में नहीं देखा जाना चाहिए बल्कि यह कुछ समूहों के भीतर शामिल व्यक्तियों को भी भेदभाव या हिंसा के लिए उत्तेजित करता है जो उस समूह की प्रतिष्ठा पर सवालिया निशान खड़ा करता है। </p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">आयोग द्वारा सुझाए गए आपराधिक कानून (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2017 के अनुसार आईपीसी में धारा 153 सी और धारा 505 ए को सम्मलित करने और आपराधिक प्रक्रिया संहिता में आवश्यक परिवर्तन करने का प्रस्ताव है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">प्रस्तावित धारा 153 सी (बी) आईपीसी- नफरत को प्रोत्साहित करने पर 'सिफ़ारिश करती है कि अपराध करने पर दो साल की कारावास और ₹ 5,000 जुर्माना या दोनों ही दंडनीय होंगे।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">प्रस्तावित कानून कहता है, "जो भी धर्म, जाति, या समुदाय, लिंग, लिंग पहचान, यौन अभिविन्यास, जन्म स्थान, निवास, भाषा, विकलांगता या जनजाति के आधार पर संचार के किसी भी साधन का उपयोग करता है - (ए) गंभीर चोट या चेतावनी का डर पैदा करने के इरादे से किसी भी व्यक्ति या व्यक्तियों के समूह को धमकाने के लिए; या (बी) वकालत करता है किसी भी व्यक्ति या व्यक्तियों के समूह की ओर घृणा पैदा करने की या जो अपराध करने के लिए उत्तेजना का कारण बनता है।"</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">दूसरा जोड़ा जाने वाला प्रस्तावित प्रावधान धारा 505 आईपीसी कहता है, "जो कोई भी जानबूझकर सार्वजनिक रूप से उन शब्दों का उपयोग करता है, या किसी भी लेखन, चिन्ह, या अन्य दृश्य-मान को प्रदर्शित करता है जो गंभीर रूप से खतरनाक, या अपमान-जनक है; (i) किसी व्यक्ति की सुनवाई या दृष्टि के भीतर, भय या चेतावनी, या; (ii) गैर-कानूनी हिंसा के उपयोग को उत्तेजित करने के इरादे से, उस व्यक्ति या किसी अन्य के खिलाफ, उसके लिए एक वर्ष की कारावास या रु 5000 जुर्माना और दोनों लगाया जा सकता है।“</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार को रोकने के लिए अन्य कुछ कदम:</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">1) जर्मनी का कानून एक विनियनमक मॉडल के रूप में स्वीकार किया जा सकता है:</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">वर्ष 2017 में जर्मनी में नया कानून पारित किया गया जिसके अंतर्गत कंपनियों को 24 घंटो के भीतर हेट स्पीच से संबंधित सभी सामग्री हटाने का दायित्व है। इस कानून के जवाब में इसके मात्र सोशल नेटवर्किंग साइट फ़ेसबुक ने ही 1,200 लोगों की भर्तियाँ की ताकि जर्मन नागरिकों द्वारा इसके दुरुपयोग का प्रभावी ढंग से पता लगाया जा सके और इसे हटाया जा सके। अगर कंपनी अपने कार्य में असफल होती है, तो नियामक संस्था उस कंपनी पर $79 मिलियन(करीब 545 अरब) का जुर्माना लगा सकता है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">2) आर्टिफ़िश्यल इंटेलिजेंस का उपयोग:</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">एन्टीसेमिटिजम साइबर निगरानी प्रणाली एक ऐसा उपकरण है जो सोशल मीडिया पर एन्टीसेमिटिजम (यहूदी विरोधी भावना) की जांच करता है, यह इजरायली डायस्पोरा अफेयर्स मिनिस्टरी द्वारा निर्मित है और यह मार्च 2018 में सम्पन्न हुई ग्लोबल फोरम फॉर कोम्बाटिंग एन्टीसेमिटिजम की बैठक में प्रमोचित किया जा चुका है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">यह उपकरण मूल-पाठ के विश्लेषण के लिए उपयोग किया जाता है जो शब्दों, वाक्यांशों और प्रतीकों के लिए सोशल मीडिया साइटों को खोज कर काम करता है जिन्हें संभावित एंटीसेमेटिक सामग्री के संकेत के रूप में पहचाना गया है। उपकरण फिर सामग्री की समीक्षा करता है और इंटरेक्टिव ग्राफ़ उत्पन्न करता है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">निष्कर्ष:</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">ऑनलाइन दुष्प्रचार समाज की शांति व एकता को खंडित करने के लिए एक नए शत्रु के रूप में जन्मा है, पिछले 10 वर्षो में भारतीयों की इंटरनेट पर सक्रियता व सोशल मीडिया नेटवर्किंग साइट से जुड़ाव इस बात का संकेत है कि भविष्य में संपूर्ण विश्व में इंटरनेट क्रांति भारत से ही प्रज्ज्वलित होगी। यूं तो समाज में दुष्प्रचार व घृणा फैलाने के लिए तमाम तरकीब है, पर ऑनलाइन तकनीक का सहारा लेकर कुछ असामाजिक तत्व अपने कट्टरपंथी सिद्धांतों को न छोड़कर समाज को बांटने का काम करते हैंIयह आम तौर पर चुनावों के दौरान एक धर्म को दूसरे धर्म से लड़वाने का काम करते हैं जिससे चुनावों में वोटों का ध्रुवीकरण हो सके और इनकी मनचाही राजनैतिक पार्टी को इसका फायदा मिल सके। सबसे बड़े खेद की बात ये है कि इस हेट स्पीच में सभी राजनैतिक दल कहीं न कहीं लिप्त है। और अंत में इस पूरे प्रकरण में सबसे बड़ा नुकसान भारत की जनता वहन करती है।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">दुनियाभर में एक दूसरे को संयोजित रखने में इंटरनेट अपनी बड़ी भूमिका अदा कर रहा है, पर समाज में शांति, स्थिरता व एकता को संजोये रखने में यह एक चुनौती भी खड़ी कर रहा है। इसका मुख्य कारण यह है इंटरनेट वह माध्यम है जो चंद पलों में अफ़वाहों के बाज़ार को गर्म कर सकता हैI और यही गर्मी आग का भयावह रूप लेकर समाज को भड़काने के लिए काफी होती है जिसके उपरांत समाज कई गुटों में टूटकर खोखला हो जाता है। यह भयावह स्थिति अधिकांश घटनाओं में मनुष्य के नियंत्रण के बाहर होती है। इसलिए हमे इंटरनेट का उपयोग समाज के उत्थान के लिए करना चाहिए ना कि उसके वित्थान के लिए।</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/93994791f-93894d92a94091a'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/93994791f-93894d92a94091a</a>
</p>
No publisherYash MittalDefamationFreedom of Speech and ExpressionHate Speech2018-09-07T06:25:37ZBlog EntryCriminal defamation remains and so does the debate
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/criminal-defamation-remains-and-so-does-the-debate
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment on the plea to de-criminalise defamation is out and despite its verbosity and rich vocabulary is an embarrassment to our recent judicial milestone of constitutional challenges. In the case of <a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2016-05-13_1463126071.pdf">Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India</a>, a two judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, has upheld the constitutionality of <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1041742/">Section 499</a> and <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1408202/">Section 500</a> of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27007/">Section199</a> of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) that criminalise defamation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment has not satisfactorily answered several pertinent questions. Various significant issues relating to the existing regime of defamation have been touched upon in the judgment but the bench has skipped the part where it is required to analyse and give its own reasoning for upholding or reading down the law. This post points out what should have been looked at.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>A. </b><b>Whether defamation is a public or a private wrong? What is the State’s interest in protecting the reputation of an individual against other private individuals? Is criminal penalty for defamatory statements an appropriate, adequate or disproportionate remedy for loss of reputation?</b></h3>
<p><b><br /></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the core of the debate to decriminalise defamation lies the question, whether defamation is a public or a private wrong. The question was raised in the Subramanian Swamy case and the court held that defamation is a public wrong. Our problem with the court’s decision lies in its failure to provide a sound and comprehensive analysis of the issue. In order to understand whether defamation is a public or a private wrong, it is necessary that we look at <i>what reputation means, what happens when reputation is harmed and whose interests are affected by such harm.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reputation is not defined in law, however the Supreme Court has <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194914590/">held</a> that reputation is a right to enjoy the good opinion of others and the good name, the credit, honour or character which is derived from such favourable public opinion. The definition reflects several elements that constitute reputation which when harmed have different bearing on the reputation of an individual. Academic Robert C Post in his <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=fss_papers">paper</a>, The Social Foundations on Defamation Law: Reputation and Constitution, says that reputation can be understood as <i>a form of intangible property akin to goodwill </i>or <i>as dignity (the respect including self-respect that arises from observance of rules of the society)</i>. While reputation when seen as property can be estimated in money and thus adequately compensated through a civil action for damages, loss of dignity is not a materially quantifiable loss, and thus, monetary compensation appears irrelevant. The purpose of the defamation law could either be to ensure that reputation is not wrongfully deprived of its proper market value or the respect/acceptance of the society. Explanation 4 to Section 499 of the IPC accommodates both such situations and provides that <i>reputation is harmed</i> <i>if it directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Post adds that an individual’s reputation is a product of his interaction with the society by following the norms of conduct (which he calls rules of civility) created by the society, thus <i>the society has an interest in enforcing its rules </i>of civility<i> through defamation law by policing breaches of these rules</i>. Criminal defamation acknowledges that loss of reputation is a wrong to the societal interests; however these interests have not been deliberated upon by the courts in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Subramanian Swamy case was an occasion where, it was imperative that the court took up this exercise and explained what interest the society had in protecting the reputation of an individual for it to be classified as a public wrong. The court stated, “<i>the law relating to defamation protects the reputation of each individual in the perception of the public at large. It matters to an individual in the eyes of the society. There is a link and connect between individual rights and the society; and this connection gives rise to community interest at large. Therefore, when harm is caused to an individual, the society as a whole is affected and the danger is perceived</i>” With this reasoning it can be inferred that the society has an interest in all private wrongs. Where would that inference land us? This reasoning is ambiguous and inadequate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other hand, criminal penalty for perfectly private wrongs such as copyright infringement and dishonour of cheques urges us to ask if there is a problem with the rigid distinction of public and private wrongs. Should we be asking the question differently?<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment has provided extremely inadequate answers to this question and has left matters ambiguous.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>B. </b><b>Can the right to reputation under Article 21 be enforced against another individual’s freedom of expression and are safeguards already built in law so as not to unreasonably restrict and stifle free expression in this regard?</b></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b><span> </span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Defamation finds a place in the list of constitutionally allowed restrictions on freedom of speech under Article 19 (2). Defamation protects the right to reputation of an individual thus free expression by this reason is subject to the right to reputation of an individual. The court had repeatedly observed that right to reputation is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The question of enforceability of right to reputation under Article 21 against freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) came into question in the instant case; it was contended that a fundamental right is enforceable against the State but cannot be invoked to serve a private interest of an individual. Thus, the right to reputation as manifested in defamation being a wrong committed against a private person by another person is unconnected and falls outside the scope of Article 19 (2). It is pertinent to note that Article 21 (which includes right to reputation) is enforceable not only against the state but also against private individuals. What is relevant here is an understanding of horizontal enforceability of fundamental rights (certain fundamental rights can be enforced against private individuals and non-state actors). This would help explain the dilemma in enforcing the right to reputation of an individual against free speech of another individual. It is vaguely mentioned in the judgment (see <i>para 88</i>) but has not been deliberated upon.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What follows from the discussion of enforceability of right to reputation, is the discussion on how reasonably it restricts speech. The Supreme Court has previously <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/554839/">held</a> that while determining reasonableness, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict. We briefly analyse the critical aspects of the regime of criminal defamation on these parameters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Underlying purpose</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the heart of the defamation law is the need to find the most suitable remedy for loss of reputation of an individual. How does one restore reputation of an individual in the society and whether criminal penalty an appropriate remedy?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Extent of restriction </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The extent to which defamation law restricts free speech could be analysed by looking at various aspects such as what kind of speech is considered defamatory, what procedure is followed to bring action against the alleged wrong doer and scope of abuse of the law. Explanation 1 to Section 499 of IPC provides that a statement or imputation is defamatory if it is not made in public good. It is not sufficient to prove that such statement or imputation is in fact true. The idea of public good is at best vague without any means to evaluate it. Further, under Section 199 of CrPC allows multiple complaints to be filed in different jurisdictions for a single offensive publication. Besides, usage of terms like “some person aggrieved” leaves room for parties other than the person in respect of whom defamatory material is published to bring action and the provision also allows the privilege of two sets of procedures for prosecution (in official capacity and in private capacity) to public servants without satisfactory reasoning provided for such discrimination. These provisions have the potential to be used to file frivolous complaints and could be a <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327342/">handy tool for harassment</a> of journalists or activists among others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Proportionality</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Does the publication or imputation of defamatory material warrant payment of fine and imprisonment? Earlier in the post, we brought up the question of relevance of such measures to the act of defamation. Assuming that it is relevant, do we think it is harsh or commensurate to the wrongful act. It is necessary to look at the process of prosecution before we determine the proportionality of the restriction. Criminal law assumes that the accused is innocent until he is proven guilty. Therefore until the judiciary determines that the act of defamation was committed, how does the process help the accused in maintaining status quo. It is also pertinent to look at the threshold for civil defamation. Under the civil wrong of defamation, truth works as a complete defence while under criminal defamation, a statement despite being true could invite penalty if it is not published in public good. Thus a lower threshold for criminal liability would upset the balance of proportionality. These aspects are critical to determine the reasonableness of criminal defamation and it is unfortunate that the judgment that runs into hundreds of pages has not evaluated them.</p>
<h3><b>Conclusion</b><span style="text-decoration: underline;"> </span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The convoluted debate on criminal defamation remains intact post the pronouncement of this judgment. Questions of competing interests of society and individuals or individuals per se, and ambiguous rationale behind imposition of liability, arbitrariness of procedure for prosecution have not been examined. Further, the hardship in compartmentalising free speech, the right to reputation and the right to privacy remains unanswered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/criminal-defamation-remains-and-so-does-the-debate'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/criminal-defamation-remains-and-so-does-the-debate</a>
</p>
No publisherJapreet GrewalCriminal DefamationDefamationFreedom of Speech and ExpressionCensorship2016-05-23T06:05:17ZBlog EntryA Public Discussion on Criminal Defamation in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/a-public-discussion-on-criminal-defamation-in-india
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS); the Network of Women in Media, India; and Media Watch, Bengaluru, are hosting a public discussion on criminal defamation in India. The discussion will start at 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 29 July 2015, at the CIS office in Domlur, Bengaluru. </b>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Flyer.png" alt="Flyer of the event" class="image-inline" title="Flyer of the event" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Pictured above: A poster of the event.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Decriminalising Defamation in India: A Brief Statement of Issues</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Subramanian Swamy’s petition to decriminalise defamation has been joined in the Supreme Court by concurring petitions from Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal. Defamation is criminalised by sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Swamy and his unlikely cohorts want the Supreme Court to declare that these criminal defamation provisions interfere with the right to free speech and strike them down.</p>
<div class="kssattr-macro-text-field-view kssattr-templateId-blogentry_view.pt kssattr-atfieldname-text plain" id="parent-fieldname-text">
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although news coverage of the case has focused on the motivations and arguments of the three politicians, defamation should not be the sole province of celebrities and the powerful. Unfortunately, criminal defamation has emerged as a new system of censorship to silence journalists, writers, and activists. SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation) are being increasingly used by large corporations to frighten and overwhelm critics and opponents. SLAPP suits are not designed to succeed – although they often do, they are intended to intimidate, harass, and outspend journalists and activists into submission.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The law of defamation rests on uncertain foundations. In medieval Europe defamation was dually prosecuted by the Church as a sin equal to sexual immorality, and by secular courts for the threat of violence that accompanied defamatory speech. These distinct concerns yielded a peculiar defence which fused two elements: truth, which shielded the speaker from the sin of lying; and, the public good, which protected the speaker from the charge of disrupting the public peace. This dual formulation – truth and the public good – remains the primary defence to defamation today.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India does not have a strong ‘fair comment’ defence to protect speech that is neither true nor intrinsically socially useful. This bolsters the law’s reflexive censorship of speech that falls outside the bounds of social utility and morality such as parody, caricature, outrageous opinion, sensationalism, and rumour. This failure affects cartoonists and tabloid sensationalism alike.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Defamation law is also open to procedural misuse to maximise its harrassive effect. Since speech that is published on the Internet or mass-printed and distributed can be read almost anywhere, the venue of criminal defamation proceedings can be chosen to inconvenience and exhaust a speaker into surrender. This motivation explains the peculiarly remote location of several defamation proceedings in India against journalists and magazine editors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The offence of defamation commoditises reputation. While defamation remains a crime, the state must prosecute it as it does other crimes such as murder and rape. This merits the question: should the state expend public resources to defend the individual reputations of its citizens? Such a system notionally guarantees parity because if the state were to retreat from this role leaving private persons to fight for their own reputations, the market would favour the reputations of the rich and powerful at the expense of others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These and other issues demand an informed and rigorous public discussion about the continued criminalisation of defamation in India.</p>
</div>
<hr />
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/decriminalising-defamation-in-india.pdf" class="external-link"><b>Download the concept note prepared by Bhairav Acharya</b></a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/a-public-discussion-on-criminal-defamation-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/a-public-discussion-on-criminal-defamation-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherbhairavDefamationInternet GovernancePrivacy2015-07-27T14:44:15ZEventFree Speech and Civil Defamation
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-civil-defamation
<b>Does defamation become a tool in powerful hands to suppress criticism? Gautam Bhatia examines the strict and unrealistic demands of defamation law, and concludes that defamation suits are a weapon to silence dissent and bad press. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b>Previously on this blog, we have discussed one of the under-analysed aspects of Article 19(2) – contempt of court. In the last post, we discussed the checking – or “watchdog” – function of the press. There is yet another under-analysed part of 19(2) that we now turn to – one which directly implicates the press, in its role as public watchdog. This is the issue of defamation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unlike contempt of court – which was a last-minute insertion by Ambedkar, before the second reading of the draft Constitution in the Assembly – defamation was present in the restrictions clause since the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee’s first draft, in 1947. Originally, it accompanied libel and slander, before the other two were dropped for the simpler “reasonable restrictions… in the interests of… defamation.” Unlike the other restrictions, which provoked substantial controversy, defamation did not provoke extended scrutiny by the Constituent Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In hindsight, that was a lapse. In recent years, defamation lawsuits have emerged as a powerful weapon against the press, used primarily by individuals and corporations in positions of power and authority, and invariably as a means of silencing criticism. For example, Hamish MacDonald’s </span><i>The Polyester Prince</i><span>, a book about the Ambanis, </span><a href="http://www.rediff.com/money/2000/jul/26dalal.htm">was unavailable</a><span> in Indian bookshops, because of threats of defamation lawsuits. In January, Bloomsbury </span><a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-praful-patel-descent-of-air-india-and-the-killing-of-a-critical-book-1951582">withdrew</a><span> </span><i>The Descent of Air India</i><span>, which was highly critical of ex-Aviation Minister Praful Patel, after the latter filed a defamation lawsuit. Around the same time, Sahara initiated a 200 crore lawsuit against Tamal Bandyopadhayay, a journalist with </span><i>The Mint</i><span>, for his forthcoming book, </span><i>Sahara: The Untold Story</i><span>. Sahara even managed to get a stay order from a Calcutta High Court judge, who </span><a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/136055468/">cited</a><span> one paragraph from the book, and ruled that “</span><i>Prima facie, the materials do seem to show the plaintiffs in poor light</i><span>.” The issue has since been settled out of Court. Yet there is no guarantee that Bandyopadhyay would have won on merits, even with the absurd amount claimed as damages, given that a Pune Court awarded damages of </span><i>Rs. 100 crores </i><span>to former Justice P.B. Sawant against the Times Group, for a fifteen-second clip by a TV channel that accidentally showed his photograph next to the name of a judge who was an accused in a scam. What utterly takes the cake, though, is Infosys </span><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/infosys-slaps-defamation-notice-on-three-newspapers/article6098717.ece">serving</a><span> legal notices to three journalistic outlets recently, asking for damages worth Rs. 200 crore for “</span><i>loss of reputation and goodwill due to circulation of defamatory articles</i><span>.”</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Something is very wrong here. The plaintiffs are invariably politicians or massive corporate houses, and the defendants are invariably journalists or newspapers. The subject is always critical reporting. The damages claimed (and occasionally, awarded) are astronomical – enough to cripple or destroy any business – and the actual harm is speculative. A combination of these factors, combined with a broken judicial system in which trials take an eternity to progress, leading to the prospect of a lawsuit hanging perpetually over one’s head, and financial ruin just around the corner, clearly has the potential to create a highly effective chilling effect upon newspapers, when it come to critical speech on matters of public interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>One of the reasons that this happens, of course, is that extant defamation law </span><i>allows</i><span> it to happen. Under defamation law, as long as a statement is published, is defamatory (that is, tending to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of reasonable people) and refers to the plaintiff, a </span><i>prima facie </i><span>case of defamation is made out. The burden then shifts to the defendant to argue a justification, such as truth, or fair comment, or privileged communication. Notice that defamation, in this form, is a strict liability offence: that is, the publisher cannot save himself even if he has taken due care in researching and writing his story. Even an inadvertent factual error can result in liability. Furthermore, there are many things that straddle a very uncomfortable barrier between “fact” and “opinion” (“opinions” are generally not punishable for defamation): for example, if I call you “corrupt”, have I made a statement of fact, or one of opinion? Much of reporting – especially political reporting – falls within this slipstream.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The legal standard of defamation, therefore, puts almost all the burden upon the publisher, a burden that will often be impossible to discharge – as well as potentially penalising the smallest error. Given the difficulty in fact-checking just about everything, as well as the time pressures under which journalists operate, this is an unrealistic standard. What makes things even worse, however, is that there is no cap on damages, <i>and </i>that the plaintiff need not even demonstrate <i>actual</i> harm in making his claims. Judges have the discretion to award punitive damages, which are meant to serve both as an example and as a deterrent. When Infosys claims 2000 crores, therefore, it need not show that there has been a tangible drop in its sales, or that it has lost an important and lucrative contract – let alone showing that the loss was caused by the defamatory statement. All it needs to do is make abstract claims about loss of goodwill and reputation, which are inherently difficult to verify either way, and it stands a fair chance of winning.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A combination of onerous legal standards and crippling amounts in damages makes the defamation regime a very difficult one for journalists to operate freely in. We have discussed before the crucial role that journalists play in a system of free speech whose underlying foundation is the maintenance of democracy: a free press is essential to maintaining a check upon the actions of government and other powerful players, by subjecting them to scrutiny and critique, and ensuring that the public is aware of important facts that government might be keen to conceal. In chilling journalistic speech, therefore, defamation laws strike at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). When considering what the appropriate standards ought to be, a Court therefore must consider the simple fact that if defamation – as it stands today – is compromising the core of 19(1)(a) itself, then it is certainly not a “reasonable restriction” under 19(2) (some degree of proportionality is an important requirement for 19(2) reasonableness, as the Court has held many times).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is not, however, a situation unique to India. In Singapore, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7632830.stm">for instance</a>, “[<i>political] leaders have won hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages in defamation cases against critics and foreign publications, which they have said are necessary to protect their reputations from unfounded attacks</i>” – the defamation lawsuit, indeed, was reportedly a legal strategy used by Lee Kuan Yew against political opponents.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Particularly in the United States, the European Union and South Africa, however, this problem has been recognised, and acted upon. In the next post, we shall examine some of the legal techniques used in those jurisdictions, to counter the chilling effect that strict defamation laws can have on the press.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We discussed the use of civil defamation laws as weapons to stifle a free and critical press. One of the most notorious of such instances also birthed one of the most famous free speech cases in history: <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html"><i>New York Times v. Sullivan</i></a>. This was at the peak of the civil rights movement in the American South, which was accompanied by widespread violence and repression of protesters and civil rights activists. A full-page advertisement was taken out in the New York Times, titled <i>Heed Their Rising Voices</i>, which detailed some particularly reprehensible acts by the police in Montgomery, Alabama. It also contained some factual errors. For example, the advertisement mentioned that Martin Luther King Jr. had been arrested seven times, whereas he had only been arrested four times. It also stated that the Montgomery police had padlocked students into the university dining hall, in order to starve them into submission. That had not actually happened. On this basis, Sullivan, the Montgomery police commissioner, sued for libel. The Alabama courts awarded 500,000 dollars in damages. Because five other people in a situation similar to Sullivan were also suing, the total amount at stake was three million dollars – enough to potentially boycott the New York Times, and certainly enough to stop it from publishing about the civil rights movement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his book about the <i>Sullivan </i>case, <i>Make No Law</i>, Anthony Lewis notes that the stakes in the case were frighteningly high. The civil rights movement depended, for its success, upon stirring public opinion in the North. The press was just the vehicle to do it, reporting as it did on excessive police brutality against students and peaceful protesters, practices of racism and apartheid, and so on. <i>Sullivan</i> was a legal strategy to silence the press, and its weapon of choice was defamation law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a 9 – 0 decision, the Supreme Court found for the New York Times, and changed the face of free speech law (and, according to Lewis, saved the civil rights movement). Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan made the crucial point that in order to survive, free speech needed “breathing space” – that is, the space to make errors. Under defamation law, as it stood, “<i>the pall of fear and timidity imposed upon those who would give voice to public criticism [is] an atmosphere in which the First Amendment freedoms cannot survive</i>.” And under the burden of proving truth, <i>“would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is, in fact, true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which "steer far wider of the unlawful zone." </i>For these reasons, Justice Brennan laid down an “actual malice” test for defamation – that is, insofar as the statement in question concerned the conduct of a public official, it was actionable for defamation only if the publisher either knew it was false, or published it with “reckless disregard” for its veracity. After <i>New York Times</i>, this standard has expanded, and the press has never lost a defamation case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are some who argue that in its zeal to protect the press against defamation lawsuits by the powerful, the <i>Sullivan </i>court swung the opposite way. In granting the press a near-unqualified immunity to say whatever it wanted, it subordinated the legitimate interests of people to their reputation and their dignity to an intolerable degree, and ushered in a regime of media unaccountability. This is evidently what the South African courts felt. In <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=khulamo+vs+holomisa&oq=khulamo+vs+holomisa&aqs=chrome..69i57.6996j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8"><i>Khulamo v. Holomisa</i></a>, Justice O’Regan accepted that the common law of defamation would have to be altered so as to reflect the new South African Constitution’s guarantees of the freedom of speech. Much like Justice Brennan, she noted that <i>“</i><i>the media are important agents in ensuring that government is open, responsive and accountable to the people as the founding values of our Constitution require</i>”, as well as the chilling effect in requiring journalists to prove the truth of everything they said. Nonetheless, she was not willing to go as far as the American Supreme Court did. Instead, she cited a previous decision by the Supreme Court of Appeals, and incorporated a “resonableness standard” into defamation law. That is, “<i>if a publisher cannot establish the truth, or finds it disproportionately expensive or difficult to do so, the publisher may show that in all the circumstances the publication was reasonable. In determining whether publication was reasonable, a court will have regard to the individual’s interest in protecting his or her reputation in the context of the constitutional commitment to human dignity. It will also have regard to the individual’s interest in privacy. In that regard, there can be no doubt that persons in public office have a diminished right to privacy, though of course their right to dignity persists. It will also have regard to the crucial role played by the press in fostering a transparent and open democracy. The defence of reasonable publication avoids therefore a winner-takes-all result and establishes a proper balance between freedom of expression and the value of human dignity. Moreover, the defence of reasonable publication will encourage editors and journalists to act with due care and respect for the individual interest in human dignity prior to publishing defamatory material, without precluding them from publishing such material when it is reasonable to do so.”</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The South African Constitutional Court thus adopts a middle path between the two opposite zero-sum games that are traditional defamation law, and American first amendment law. A similar effort was made in the United Kingdom – the birthplace of the common law of defamation – with the passage of the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf">2013 Defamation Act.</a> Under English law, the plaintiff must now show that there is likely to be “<i>serious harm</i>” to his reputation, and there is also public interest exception.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While South Africa and the UK try to tackle the problem at the level of standards for defamation, the ECHR has taken another, equally interesting tack: by limiting the quantum of damages. In <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57947#%7B"><i>Tolstoy Milolasky v. United Kingdom</i></a>, it found a 1.5 million pound damage award “disproportionately large”, and held that there was a violation of the ECHR’s free speech guarantee that could not be justified as necessary in a democratic society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, constitutional courts the world over have noticed the adverse impact traditional defamation law has on free speech and a free press. They have devised a multiplicity of ways to deal with this, some more speech-protective than others: from America’s absolutist standards, to South Africa’s “reasonableness” and the UK’s “public interest” exceptions, to the ECHR’s limitation of damages. It is about time that the Indian Courts took this issue seriously: there is no dearth of international guidance.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><i>Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and has just received an LLM from the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/">http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com</a>. Here at CIS, he blogs on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.</i></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-civil-defamation'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-civil-defamation</a>
</p>
No publishergautamCensorshipDefamationFreedom of Speech and ExpressionChilling EffectArticle 19(1)(a)2014-07-08T08:31:18ZBlog Entry