The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 11 to 12.
No more 66A!
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a
<b>In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A. Today was a great day for freedom of speech on the Internet! When Section 66A was in operation, if you made a statement that led to offence, you could be prosecuted. We are an offence-friendly nation, judging by media reports in the last year. It was a year of book-bans, website blocking and takedown requests. Facebook’s Transparency Report showed that next to the US, India made the most requests for information about user accounts. A complaint under Section 66A would be a ground for such requests.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A hung like a sword in the middle: Shaheen Dhada was arrested in Maharashtra for observing that Bal Thackeray’s funeral shut down the city, Devu Chodankar in Goa and Syed Waqar in Karnataka were arrested for making posts about Narendra Modi, and a Puducherry man was arrested for criticizing P. Chidambaram’s son. The law was vague and so widely worded that it was prone to misuse, and was in fact being misused.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Today, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its judgment on a <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact">set of petitions</a> heard together last year and earlier this year. Stating that the law is vague, the bench comprising Chelameshwar and Nariman, JJ. held that while restrictions on free speech are constitutional insofar as they are in line with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 66A, they held, does not meet this test: The central protection of free speech is the freedom to make statements that “offend, shock or disturb”, and Section 66A is an unconstitutional curtailment of these freedoms. To cross the threshold of constitutional limitation, the impugned speech must be of such a nature that it incites violence or is an exhortation to violence. Section 66A, by being extremely vague and broad, does not meet this threshold. These are, of course, drawn from news reports of the judgment; the judgment is not available yet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reports also say that Section 79(3)(b) has been read down. Previously, any private individual or entity, and the government and its departments could request intermediaries to take down a website, without a court order. If the intermediaries did not comply, they would lose immunity under Section 79. The Supreme Court judgment states that both in Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines and in Section 79(3)(b), the "actual knowledge of the court order or government notification" is necessary before website takedowns can be effected. In effect, this mean that intermediaries <i>need not</i> act upon private notices under Section 79, while they can act upon them if they choose. This stops intermediaries from standing judge over what constitutes an unlawful act. If they choose not to take down content after receiving a private notice, they will not lose immunity under Section 79.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69A, the website blocking procedure, has been left intact by the Court, despite infirmities such as a lack of judicial review and non-transparent operation. More updates when the judgment is made available.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-more-66a</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionHomepageIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedChilling EffectSection 66AArticle 19(1)(a)Blocking2015-03-26T02:01:31ZBlog EntryFOEX Live: June 16-23, 2014
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-16-23-2014
<b>A weekly selection of news on online freedom of expression and digital technology from across India (and some parts of the world). </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A quick and non-exhaustive perusal of this week’s content shows that many people are worried about the state of India’s free speech following police action on account of posts derogatory to or critical of the Prime Minister. Lawyers, journalists, former civil servants and other experts have joined in expressing this worry.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While a crackdown on freedom of expression would indeed be catastrophic and possibly unconstitutional, fears are so far based on police action in only 4 recent cases: Syed Waqar in Karnataka, Devu Chodankar in Goa and two cases in Kerala where college students and principals were arrested for derogatory references to Modi. Violence in Pune, such as the murder of a young Muslim man on his way home from prayer, or the creation of a Social Peace Force of citizens to police offensive Facebook content, are all related, but perhaps ought to be more carefully and deeply explored.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Kerala:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the Assembly, State Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala <a href="http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140618/jsp/nation/story_18524231.jsp#.U6kh1Y2SxDs">said that the State government did not approve</a> of the registration of cases against students on grounds of anti-Modi publications. The Minister denunciation of political opponents through cartoons and write-ups was common practice in Kerala, and “<i>booking the authors for this was not the state government’s policy</i>”.<span> </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Maharashtra:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nearly 20,000 people have <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/technology/internet/peace-force-takes-aim-at-facebook-1.1705842#.U6khAI2SxDs">joined</a> the Social Peace Force, a Facebook group that aims to police offensive content on the social networking site. The group owner’s stated aim is to target religious posts that may provoke riots, not political ones. Subjective determinations of what qualifies as ‘offensive content’ remain a troubling issue.</p>
<h3><span>Tamil Nadu:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Chennai, 101 people, including filmmakers, writers, civil servants and activists, have <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Chennai/Intelligentsia-ask-CM-to-ensure-screening-of-Lankan-movie/articleshow/37107317.cms">signed a petition</a> requesting Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa to permit safe screening of the Indo-Sri Lankan film “<i>With You, Without You</i>”. The petition comes after theatres cancelled shows of the film following threatening calls from some Tamil groups.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Telangana:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The K. Chandrasekhar Rao government <a href="http://www.newslaundry.com/2014/06/23/channels-on-the-telangana-block/">has blocked</a> two Telugu news channels for airing content that was “<i>derogatory, highly objectionable and in bad taste</i>”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Telagana government’s decision to block news channels has its supporters. Padmaja Shaw <a href="http://www.thehoot.org/web/When-media-threatens-democracy/7593-1-1-14-true.html">considers</a> the mainstream Andhra media contemptuous and disrespectful of “<i>all things Telangana</i>”, while Madabushi Sridhar <a href="http://www.thehoot.org/web/Abusive-media-vs-angry-legislature/7591-1-1-2-true.html">concludes</a> that Telugu channel TV9’s coverage violates the dignity of the legislature.</p>
<h3><span>West Bengal:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Seemingly anti-Modi arrests <a href="http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140617/jsp/nation/story_18520612.jsp#.U6kh142SxDs">have led to worry</a> among citizens about speaking freely on the Internet. Section 66A poses a particular threat.</p>
<h3><span>News & Opinion:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department of Telecom is preparing a draft of the National Telecom Policy, in which it <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-19/news/50710986_1_national-broadband-policy-broadband-penetration-175-million-broadband-connections">plans to treat broadband Internet as a basic right</a>. The Policy, which will include deliberations on affordable broadband access for end users, will be finalised in 100 days.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>While addressing a CII CEO’s Roundtable on Media and Industry, Information and Broadcasting Minister </span><a href="http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/i-and-b-ministry/government-committed-to-communicating-with-people-across-media-platforms-javadekar-140619">Prakash Javadekar promised</a><span> a transparent and stable policy regime, operating on a time-bound basis. He promised that efforts would be streamlined to ensure speedy and transparent clearances.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A perceived increase in police action against anti-Modi publications or statements <a href="http://www.dw.de/indias-anti-modi-netizens-fear-possible-crackdown/a-17725267">has many people worried</a>. But the Prime Minister himself was once a fierce proponent of dissent; in protest against the then-UPA government’s blocking of webpages, Modi changed his display pic to black.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i><a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/06/223-social-media-helpline-mumbai/">Medianama wonders</a></i> whether the Mumbai police’s Cyber Lab and helpline to monitor offensive content on the Internet is actually a good idea.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/vGkg6ig9qJqzm2eL3SxkUK/Time-for-Modi-critics-to-just-shut-up.html">G. Sampath wonders</a> why critics of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi can’t voluntarily refrain from exercising their freedom of speech, and allow India to be an all-agreeable development haven. Readers may find his sarcasm subtle and hard to catch.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Experts in India <a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/does-eu-s-right-to-be-forgotten-put-barrier-on-the-net-114062400073_1.html">mull over</a> whether Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, carries a loophole enabling users to exercise a ‘right to be forgotten’. Some say Section 79 does not prohibit user requests to be forgotten, while others find it unsettling to provide private intermediaries such powers of censorship.</p>
<h3><span>Some parts of the world:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sri Lanka <a href="http://www.canindia.com/2014/06/sri-lanka-bans-meetings-that-can-incite-religious-hatred/">has banned</a> public meetings or rallies intended to promote religious hatred.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Pakistan, Twitter <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/Twitter-Restores-Access-to-Blasphemous-Material-in-Pak/845254">has restored</a> accounts and tweets that were taken down last month on allegations of being blasphemous or ‘unethical’.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Myanmar, an anti-hate speech network <a href="http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/10785-anti-hate-speech-network-proposed.html">has been proposed</a> throughout the country to raise awareness and opposition to hate speech and violence.</p>
<div class="kssattr-macro-text-field-view kssattr-templateId-blogentry_view.pt kssattr-atfieldname-text plain" id="parent-fieldname-text">
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>For feedback, comments and any incidents of online free speech violation you are troubled or intrigued by, please email Geetha at </span><span>geetha[at]cis-india.org or on Twitter at @covertlight.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="relatedItems"></div>
<div class="visualClear"></div>
<div class="documentActions"></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-16-23-2014'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-16-23-2014</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFOEX LiveCensorshipSection 66AArticle 19(1)(a)2014-06-24T10:23:18ZBlog Entry