Freedom of Speech, Expression,Press,Hate speech, IT Act, Responsibility

Note: UPSC put question on this area in last two mains 2013 & 2014

1.      Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution. (UPSC Mains – GS 3 - CSE 2013)

2.      What do understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. (UPSC Mains – GS 2 - CSE 2014)

Freedom of Press with responsibility

16 Jan 2015 (All India Radio – News Analysis)

Participants: N K Singh, Media Analyst and K V Prasath, Associate Editor, Tribune

Transcription:

Constitution of India Art.19 (1) (a) – Every citizen - Freedom of speech & Expression – Press derive power from it – with reasonable restriction – Over period of Last decade advent of TV and new media i.e. Social media – spreading news in fast clip – veracity of the news is concern. 

How do you see this in the context of self-regulation of Media?

Broadcasting Association striving hard to give semblance of purposefulness in entire delivery mechanism; 8 restrictions in Article 19(2) and in follow up 38 laws, restrict media;

Why do we have freedom of expression in a democracy? Freedom of expression will become sterile exercise unless it hurts somebody? Society grows with the broader larger power- with volume of information – element of tolerance – society should be more tolerant to the criticism – our society should come to that level; It should be fought on the Ideological basis rather than guns;

Freedom of Press Now expanded in to Freedom of Media – 3 different streams - Print, Social Media (17 Cr internet enabled mobiles) – Elementary question – India had free press in free expression ever since framing of constitution whereas US had it only by amendment- aberration in 1975-77 but even that had been corrected – Tolerance level – Idea you may agree or you may reject – E.g. In case of interference in parliamentary debates - right to expression cannot be taken away;

Self-regulation in certain sector not given tangible result – supervisory – watchdog body - press council of India – Grievance Redressal. New media is Neutral – everybody has equal access –where the conflict begins?

Regulatory body must be appointed by the govt. – in jury up to specific purpose – should not interfere in the free flow of Idea; Indian Society is different from the other countries which are based on Individualism;  Here Peer pressure works well in India – Self-regulation is beneficial; concern is - checks & balance in the free flow of expression- Parliament has the power of privilege, Judiciary has the power of contempt, Bureaucracy has power of disrespect of state, Individual has power of defamation;

Two type of aberration – against Individual and criticism of institution should be on Ideological basis;

As discussed Media vis-à-vis Parliament and Media vis-à-vis Judiciary, of course Media vis-à-vis Executive;

Media demand – codifying Parliamentary privileges - Parliamentary privilege committee – rejected the Idea last time; Parliamentarian and Media members’ fraternity can be more cordial;

Judgment can be criticized but cannot attribute to the

Demarcating the line between Free Press and Responsibility? Aggressor vs. aggrieved?

Our Democracy is adversarial – in this role of media is negative – pin point the wrong done by state craft – unfortunately who will determine which is right or wrong;

Restriction vs. Quality of News?  Is it people oriented – health public information – bringing more political class – Intolerance should be weeded out which arise from the identity group – problem encountered currently;

___________________________________________________________________________+

Right to Expression & Information Technology Act

12 Jan 2015 (All India Radio – Current Affairs)

Participants: George Mathew, Institute of Social Science and Pavan Durgal, Information Technology Law Expert & SC Advocate, and  Surabi Agarwal, Business Standard

Transcription:

Section 66 of IT Act – regulate speech on Internet - SC demand detailed guidelines; Do we need these guidelines?

Mathew: IPC and IT Act provides enough safeguard against defamation; Section 66 is unnecessary;

In the perspective of Cyber-law & Cyber issues – SC stated Right to speak is not Right to offend – what are your views?

Durgal: Sec.66A added by amendment in 2003 – seeks to cover huge ambit of area; it is beyond imagination; (in normal criminal jurisprudence - Intention & Action) – if malware, spyware programme – offence committed with the person’s computer deemed to be committed by the person himself;

What are the biggest challenges in Sec.66 of IT Act?

Durgal: It conflict with the FR of Indian Constitution - Article 19 of the constitution – freedom of 

speech & expression, subjected to the reasonable restrictions – sovereignty, security, friendly relationship with the foreign nation, public order, decency, morality – under this free speech can be restricted;

Law (Sec.66A of IT Act) – while criminalizing an act, it failed to define grossly offensive message or malicious in character - leaving it with the complainant; Kind of regulation is much required to prevent the ambiguity & misuse of the Act; it is similar to that of misuse of Dowry cases; Jurisprudential issues need to be settled;

How it affect the Social fabric – with 300 million people across internet?

Mathew: outstanding feature of India is Freedom of Expression; Self-restrain is much needed; Last two decade we are entering the tremendous Technological Internet evolution – in transition period – creating norms & convention in this period is essential; India can become model for the world through this process;

What are the kind of rules & regulation being adopted by the front runner of the Technological Internet evolutionary Nation?

 Durgal: Different Nations have adopted different strategy; US with the first amendment to their constitution, given the Right to Free Expression; other countries mandate the service providers to do due diligence; it differs on the basis of different socio-logical standard and history of society distinct customized approach to legislation; 

Internet evolution – made individual a Global broadcaster, Global Transmitter, and Global adopter; Social media works beyond the borders, across the globe;

How communication over the internet and in-person changed? Trends in Communication?

Postcard took one week to carry information to another person – Technology have changed the life – 

Sociologically even if 99% it has positivity, 1% is enough to create malice, negative impact and problem;

Riots in Delhi & Musafurnagar use social media to create hostility between the communities? How you see Sec.66A in this context?

Mathew: Instead of Sec.66A, we have enough legitimate protection in our legal system;

Indian Society evolving over centuries – Technology, Science, Reaching the poorest of the poor – tremendous possibility to bring them up – it should not be curtailed;

How you see the Sec.66A in the Perspective National security as the Social media is misused?

Durgal: Sec. 66A is not evil phenomenon – Bangalore – spreading message/philosophy of the banned terrorist outfit; Refer IPC 499 & 500 – law of defamation – doesn’t include electronic format;

Mathew: Law cannot stop the one or two individual aberration – Society is the thrust area, to keep the future generation more civilized – ensure best use of the innovation & technology; 3 years old child is given the access to the mobile without restriction or parent’s vigilance;

Durgal: Cyber violence or online harassment cyber-bullying cases or nuisance, spam can only be handled with such legal provision; Law meant for the public benefit should not be misused;

Two girls in Mumbai, Cartoonist in Kolkata… What is the right approach, should we take it as one in the million &choose to ignore? Or do we need to change the structure of Sec.66A?

Durgal: Keep the essential provisions of the section and drop the ambiguous parts which have potential to misuse; Defining – “grossly offensive message or malicious in character”; illustration should be given for clarity;  

Mathew: with good justice system and better enforcement – should sent message across the country/society; Law cannot be the solution for all the mishaps;

Durgal: Law can only provide guideline, prescribe deterrent consequence for the violation – Law is one component and the major component is Capacity Building; Cyber Law & Cyber Education should be imparted in the School Education;  

“Internet don’t have Delete Button”

______________________________________________________________________________

Also read – Article by Justice A P Shah (2011, The Hindu Op-Ed)
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-most-precious-of-all-freedoms/article2656995.ece

______________________________________________________________________________

Rajya Sabha TV - The Big Picture – Freedom of Expression Vs Expression of Hate

(For continuity, Copy pasted from Vivekanandan sir’s Content)

Summary:

Indian constitution through Article 19(1) guarantees the right of freedom of speechand expression.  It also imposes some restrictions.

No freedom comes in absolute terms.

Freedom of expression should be carried on with some responsibilities by media.

Voice of majority should be the determining factor in democracies.

The law and order problem is caused by the individuals who do not know how to respond in a democratic and peaceful manner to the things they do not like in society.

All of us live in a society where there are rules. These rules prescribe ways of protesting. Anybody who violates these rules pose a threat to law and order.

This is an issue of civilization and democracy. Sometimes they are in consonance with each other. When they are in dissonance society faces many problems. They usually go hand in hand.

Democracy has helped unequals to voice their expression of hate against unequal system.

Looking at the growing number of protests, experts say that India is becoming intolerant society.

Three stakeholders have equal responsibilities in exercising these democratic rights. They are

         The one who makes provocative statement.

         People who oppose it.

         Liberal elements, like media, involved in interpretation.

In our society the law or the cultural milieu of the society provides ample scope for individuals and collectives to ventilate their grievances to show their opposition.

Hate is also expressed using freedom of expression.

Democratic rights of civilization and civilization norms have been expanding.

The kind of society we are creating, where zones of engagement are becoming drawn in a different manner, may not be civilizational. It is a threat to democracy.

The role of media and liberals is very much important in these issues because it is the liberals who come with different interpretations which create conflicting situations.

Hate speeches should be discouraged. They are usually made for some political gains.

____________________________________________________________________________