Nithyakalyani Narayanan
Twitter released a statement on March 20th, stating that they will establish a legal entity in Turkey so as to continue operating there since the country had passed a problematic internet law last year. The company decided to comply with it but has clearly stated that they want to ensure that their service is available to people everywhere. The country put advertising bans on Pinterest and Periscope as well, so as to force the companies to maintain legal privacy. Social media companies with more than a million users who do not comply with an official representative will be fined and later slapped with advertising bans and further be given bandwidth reductions. The local representatives of the platforms will be responsible for taking down the content that is violating the privacy of an individual wight 48 hours or must provide grounds for rejection. If not removed, the company will be held liable for the damages and will be blocked within 24 hours. [1]
In India, social media censorship is extremely controversial. Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Information Technology Minister, stated in Parliament that social media platforms would have to follow the Constitution of India. The statement was released when Twitter refused to take down certain handles which criticized the Government regarding the sensitive farmer’s protest. While he agrees to the fact that people are much more empowered with the arrival of such platforms, he strictly warns them that strict action will be taken if the platforms are used to spread fake news and riots. While Twitter has taken down multiple accounts, they did not abide by when the Central Government demanded to take down the accounts of activists and celebrities. Cyberlaw expert Pawan Duggal stated that invoking Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act was unusual which allows the Central Government to block access to intermediaries and Twitter did not want to be complicit in censorship.
The Government has been questioned for the poor comprehension of the technical practicality of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which websites to block. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 aka the “Intermediary Rules” primarily change the way the internet will be experienced in India. These Rules have replaced the 2011 Rules. The Act will absolve the intermediaries from being responsible for the content created by a third-party and could signal stronger government-monitoring. An aspect of censorship is gagging order which is a legal order by the Court or Government restricting information or comment being made in public or passed onto any unauthorized person. They may be used to safeguard the secrets of an organization or even someone’s identity. The benefit of gagging orders is questionable. Though the police must sort out the criminals if they re-offend or may re-offend, it is not the public business.
Certain laws that are governing the press:
- Sedition law[2]
Section 124 (A) of the Indian Penal Code deals with the law of sedition. It forbids any written or spoken words, signs, visible representations, that may make the government “hate or despise, or excite or try to energize disillusionment”. The law prohibits limitations on the freedom of speech for national security purposes unless they have been specifically construed and are appropriate and proportionate so as to deal with a valid threat.
- Defamation[3]
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code deals with defamation. It states that anyone who makes a defamatory statement, spoken or intended to be read or any such signs, towards a person to injure them or having cause to believe that intimation would harm the image of that person, is said to defame that person. Although the right to speech is a basic right granted by the Indian Constitution, it is limited. The defamation offense can be regarded as a clutch over the basic right.
- Section 66 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000[4]
Section 66 (A) of the IT act criminalizes a wide range of speech that has been frequently used to detain and censor material for those who criticize the authorities. This section criminalizes the act of sending offensive, false or dangerous messages or those messages that are meant to deceive and mislead a person through any communication device and will be imprisoned up to three years with a fine.
- Section 69 (A) of Information Technology Act, 2000[5]
Section 69 (A) of the IT Act sanctions the blocking of content on the web, regarding sovereignty and security of India and prevention of inciting hatred to commit offenses.
- Criminal Intimidation[6]
Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever threatens a person with any injury to himself, reputation, property, or someone of his interest, the person has committed criminal intimidation. But the section is not restricted to harassment in the judicial domain. It vaguely criminalizes speech. Not only does the law restrict speech that threatens to harm people or property but also the law criminalizes speech that affects reputation damage. The description provided in the Code itself illustrates the scope of the limitation on speech, implying that a threat to defame the reputation of a deceased person can entail criminal coercion. Section 506 of the Code deals with the punishment of it, i.e, a fine or up to 2 years of imprisonment.
- The Defense of “Public Silence”[7]
Section 505 (1) of the Indian Penal Code states that people who publicize or circulate any statement or rumor that causes or is likely to cause panic to people or any part of the society are said to have committed a crime against the State. The punishment for this is up to 3 years. Criminalizing speech can not be justified as essential in a democratic society. On the path to protect law and order, it may affect those who differ with a speaker, to cause social unrest. Section 505 (1) (b) fails to satisfy the condition that every restriction should be created with accurate specificity to allow an individual to know what speech will violate the law.
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971[8]
The act criminalizes those speeches that stereotype or disrupts the due time of any court hearings, or if they interfere with or hinder the course of justice. This term leaves a huge spectrum for judges to provide their judgments as to whether speech has an “inclination” to bias, intervene, or disturb, which generates confusion about the nature of the legislation.
[1]https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/twitter-to-establish-legal-entity-in-turkey-comply-with-law-71616293570531.html#:~:text=Human%20rights%20and%20media%20freedom,social%20media%20law%20last%20year.
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1641007/
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1041742/
[4] https://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/background-section-66a-it-act-2000#:~:text=false%20and%20meant%20for%20the,three%20years%20and%20with%20fine.
[5]https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/all-about-section-69a-of-it-act-under-which-twitter-had-withheld-several-posts-accounts/597367/#:~:text=Section%2069A%20of%20the%20IT,commission%20of%20any%20cognisable%20offence
[6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/878688/#:~:text=%E2%80%94Whoever%20threatens%20another%20with%20any,any%20act%20which%20that%20person
[7] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/926966/#:~:text=%E2%80%94Whoever%20makes%2C%20publishes%20or%20circulates,whatsoever%2C%20feelings%20of%20enmity%2C%20hatred
[8] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1396751/
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles on this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by the website owner.