Open Access Research Article
SOCIAL MEDIA IS A TOOL OF HATE SPEECH IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Published Paper
Article Details
SOCIAL MEDIA IS A TOOL OF HATE SPEECH IN INDIA: A CRITICAL
ANALYSIS
AUTHORED BY - PREETI AWANA & KM JYOTI
STUDENT AT HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITY
ABSTARACT
When we talk about the Internet, we
cannot deny that it become an important part of our daily life. In the world of
digital platform, people around the country totally depends upon Internet
whether it is relative talks, communications, shopping or other business needs
but with pros there are some cons on Internet where ‘Online Hate Speech’ has
become the major problem around the world especially in India. The political
parties are misusing social media platform to attract the people and spreading
the hate speech through social media platform like Instagram, Twitter,
Facebook, You tube against the targeted groups on the grounds of religious,
religion, race, caste and place of birth which incite the violence among
different groups. The reason behind this misinformation on Internet platform is
lack of effective legislation and proper definition of hate speech. India has
different kind of legislation related to hate speech like; Indian Penal Code
1860, Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and Information Technology Act 2000 but
these old laws are ineffective and not followed by executive body and people
properly. The Supreme Court and Law commission of India has repeatedly
emphasized upon the need for a new law regulating the online hate speech in
India. This paper will highlight the need of new law for online hate speech in
India and try to define how old laws are ineffective in this new digital era.
Keywords: Online hate speech, Constitution, Human Rights, targeted
groups, Inflammatory Content, balance between hate speech and free speech.
1.
INRODUCTION
“There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech. Free speech
encourages debate whereas hate speech incites violence.”
Newton Lee
Human life and technology cannot be
separated from each other in this digital World. The dependency of society on
technology is totally cyclical and co-dependence on each other. As we know that
people day by day totally dependent on technology whether education, business,
political or other source of benefits. So, people should be careful to use
online digital platform. India is a democratic Country and different people
have different cultures, religion, language and place of birth so problems like
discriminated behaviour towards minority groups are common but now these
problems have been taken wide face on Internet Platform which creates the
situation of genocide among different groups. The issue of hate speech firstly
brought in the year of 2014 in General election where the president of ‘Bhartya
Janta Party’ leader Amit shah gave provocative speech against the targeted
group in the city of ‘Muzaffarnagar’ (Uttar Pradesh) but later it was refused
by Supreme Court on the basis of lack of evidence of hate speech against
minority groups, He addressed that “If Modi wins then Mullah Murayama’s
government will fall”.[1]
The issue of political propaganda and incited speech was common but now in the
digital platform time it has been extended at large platform through social
media on the basis of religion, race, caste, place of birth, sexual gender
inequalities. The Internet allows the speaker to influence a greater number of
public in a short span of time. On 17 December 2017, there was genocide speech
delivered by Yati Narsinghanand which was live on many social media group this
speech was against Muslim Community on the ground of race, caste, religion,
religious and place of birth which was hurtful of their religious feelings and
violence. Recently, in July Month 2022, The Supreme Court of India suspended
the Nupur Sharma from Bhartya Janta Party for derogatory comments on Prophet
Mohammad and held that she loose her tongue and she only responsible for
spreading the igniting emotions across the Country and therefore she should
apologize to the Nation.[2]
Many reports have been dubbed in the
year of 2018, this was the year of Online Hate speech in India where Facebook
revealed that about 3 million hateful posts were registered on online platform
and Facebook gave order to remove such online hateful content.[3]
Under the Law Commission of India Report 2017, it has discussed that the
definition of hate speech is not defined properly in any legislation.[4] In
today’s World, the word hate speech includes insult, disrespect,
discrimination, inflammatory which incites and encourages the use of violence
or culminates in violent retaliation. As a result, Society’s overall balance
and order are disrupted. Hate speech moreover sometimes terrible of hate crime
which brings the direct disruption on targeted groups body and psychological
injury to hate crime victims.
When we talk about the other county,
the online hate speech is also common, under the Southern Poverty Law Centre
(SPLC), there is 69 percent of hate groups rise in the year of 2012.[5]
According to ‘Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s 2019 Digital Terror and Hate Report,
there are 15,000 fake news on website were related to incite the hatred among
targeted group on the ground of color, race, caste and place of birth.[6]
These above figures reveal the
seriousness of the situation which highlights the inadequacy of the existing
laws to address the issue. In India, the gravity of online hate speech was
discussed under the Law Commission Report 267th, 2017 but it is
still on the table of parliament. Under this paper, the writer has tried to
discuss the problem, causes and need to amend the existing law on hate speech and
has tried to discuss some feasible solution to curb the problem of online hate
speech in India and also discussed some outside countries legal framework and
initiative which is helpful to curtail the online hateful speech in India.
2.
Meaning Of Hate Speech:
When we talk about the definition of
hate speech, the hate speech is the form of speech which includes the words or
speech which can be in the form ‘libel[7]’
(mode of publication and print) or ‘slander[8]’
(speech through audio and video) where the main purpose is to hurt the certain
group of people which is belonging to minority group, individual or community
etc. The word hate speech is not defined formally in any Indian Legislations.
According to Black law dictionary, hate speech means any hatred expression or words for
certain group which is related to race, caste, religion, place of birth and any
words or speech that can provoke that certain group. The main objective of hate
speech is provoking certain group which can result violence and any harmful
genocide.[9]
"Hate speech" is defined as
"an expression that is abusive, insulting in nature, intimidates,
harasses, or incites violence, discrimination, hatred, or rage against groups
identified by characteristics such as race, place of birth, caste or community,
region, residence, language, sexual orientation, or personal convictions,"
according to a report by the Law
Commission of India (2017).[10]
In the United States, hate speech is
not defined but protected under first Amendment[11].
Under Snyder versus Phelps[12]
case, the Supreme Court of United States has said that protection in first
amendment of united States Constitution should be extend their area and it is
require to protect by government on the issue of public matters vigorous debate
when it is disrespectful, offensive nature, hateful nature and causes to feel
anger, grief or fear in any targeted individual’s mind.
3.
Dataset of Hate speech on Social
Media Platform:
According to Supreme Court of India,
there has been 580 cases of hate speech in 2021-2022 vases has been registered
in Uttar Pradesh where 160 out these has been registered on the basis of Suo
Moto based[13]. During
the hearing of the case of hate speech on the basis of religious the Bench also
held that TV channels and their host are playing the pivotal role to peddle the
particular “agendas” which basically base upon violation and division to
particular religion and instincts in the society to gain the TRP wars.[14]
In 2019, the cyber terrorist attack was spread
through Internet where two Muslims were killed by mob and approximately 49
worshippers and dozens were wounded in Christchurch, New Zealand.[15]The anonymous post on Facebook and
Twitter creates the hatred between people of different caste and religions.
Intolerable content and hateful material on social media are increasing day by
day in India which is mostly related to political propaganda and anti-Muslims.
In India, we have seen many examples related to online hatred materials where
Kashmir related violence is one of the top most examples of online hate speech
where some terrorist attackers gave online training to attack on critical
infrastructure against enemy Countries (Bilal Ahmed Kaloo case).[16] The online attack is not only
injurious online but it is harmful offline also. The result of such speech
creates nuisance and create the problem of cyber-war as well as physical
conflict. In India, till today there is no such strict rule or initiatives but
Countries across the world have taken the initiatives to curtail the online
hate speech and fake news like Germany and France[17].
When we talk about the initiative to
curtail online hate speech then Germany and France has taken some rigid
policies to curtail online hate speech and fake news which affects the people
dignity and raise the issue of incitement, religion discrimination, bias of
colour and language.[18] In
Germany NETDG or the Network Enforcement Act ensure the strict provisions which
helps to prohibit the hate speech on online platform and ensure that if any
illegal activities on social media like provoking messages which is against the
security of nation, violate the friendly relation of foreigner countries or any
other act like pro-Nazi ideology which can
create the threats to the dignity of targeted groups and any hateful
message on the ground of religion and caste against minority group then it will
be will be punishable and these rule will be followed strictly[19].
According to survey, Germany is also famous for political propaganda online
similar to India[20].
In India, Recently the fake news was
uploaded on social media site which was related to child traffickers (year
2018) through Whatsapp messages[21].
Recently, during the election of Delhi legislative assembly, the official crowd
in rally shouted the slogan “Desh ke Gaddaro Ko Goli Maaro Saalo Ko (shoot the
traitors)” and posted it on twitter by Bhartya Janta Party leader Anurag Thakur[22]. Even in
Jamia Millia Islamia University young protesters use hateful slogan through
online source and translated these words into their language therefore once
again the provoking speech highlighted.[23]
The word ‘Hate speech’ is not defined
in any law in India but because of using the fundamental right given under
freedom of speech under article 19(1) (a)[24]
in Indian Constitution, this is the reason where people are using incited
speech and ignoring the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)[25]. Fake
news and online hatred speech are basically related to a person’s caste,
religions, gender and caste which should be considered as most sensitive issue
not for India but whole nation. Furthermore, the legal framework and rules
which is given in Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Information
Technology Act are insufficient and irrelevant. Large amount of users spend
their whole time on social media sites and applications, therefore cyber-crimes
are increasing on social media day by day where hate speech has taken terrible
form and also affecting security, integrity and Sovereignty of the nation
The recent judgment passed by the Supreme
Court in ‘Shreya Singhal versus Union of
India (2015)’[26]which is
reactive approach and under this judgment the Supreme Court gave the direction
that what content will be deemed as hate content and if any hate content comes
under given guidelines that the person should be liable punishment provided by
prescribed law and government will also follow the direction. The present
legislative approach ignores the modern hate content. India is the democratic
Country and Constitution gave some fundamental rights to people which are
related to security, privacy and speech. The supreme Court and government
should amend the some legal provisions with restrictions but people fundamental
rights and amended law for online hate content should be balanced and advanced
level.
4.
Elements of Hate Speech:
(a) Language or content: Any
content or language which are used to humiliate or dissuades the self -esteem
on the basis of their caste, regions, religious, colour, race, creed, culture,
place of birth and their sexual based comment can be part of hate speech.
(b) Intention: The main
important thing is intention behind any crime, under hate speech the content
will be recognize on the basis of intention.
(c) Impact or harm which may
lead to violence and genocide in country: Focus on targeted group only and
impact on whole society is also important content of online hate speech: The
hate speech content should be related to point out targeted community or group.
(d) After the hate speech
statement in public, if there is any conspiracy will happen then it would be
comes under the content of hate speech.[27]
5.
Causes of the Hate Speech:
(a)
Sense of supremacy:
The sense of supremacy means the
particular caste or religion in the state or religion is superior from all
other groups and they have all the authority or status to control on minority
groups, this is all about the perception of supremacy. India is populated
democratic County so matter related to spreading hate speech against targeted
groups like Anti-Muslims are common and this is also happening on online
platform also, the reason behind social media companies are aware about such
hate speech but they are focusing on their profit only, such online content and
hateful speech increases the attraction of users and they will spend more time
on such platforms. There are many incidents happened due to sense of supremacy
ideology registered in our history, the best example is ‘Nazi Ideology[28]’
in Germany by ‘Adolf Hitler[29]’.
(b) Stubborn behaviour towards a particular belief:
The stubborn behaviour means
particular caste or religion is superior and others are dominant to them. The
social platform filled with many post and news related to belief on particular
ideology and there is no prohibition to such ideology by social media companies
because if they block or stop to follow their ideology it will hurt their
sentiments and religious emotions.
(c) Bad stereotypes thoughts for lower communities:
The manipulative stereotype thoughts
on social media leading people to think to follow one ideology and not follows
others ideology.
The free speech and expression which
is guaranteed in the Constitution of India under Article 19(1) (a)[31] might be
one of the main reason to spread the hate speech where citizens thinks that
they have right to give opinion on anything whether it is hurtled the
sentiments of particular community or not. Although Article 19(2)[32] of the
Indian Constitution provide some reasonable restriction on free speech which is
mainly related to control on hateful content, defaming content, against the
integrity, security, sovereignty of the India, but citizens ignore such
reasonable restriction and spread hateful content through the Internet portal.
6.
Why do we need to ban Online Hate
Speech?
(a)
Emotional damage and self-
hatred:
The first reason to curtail hate
speech is psychological harm to targeted group personal life. The daily
available content on Internet can be hurtful to self-esteem of victim because
when someone continue says that you are wrong and humiliate daily then targeted
people eventually begin to doubt their own-worth.[33]According
to Selma research programme, the
young people are more active on social sites and very much active on such
arguments which provoked the hate speech via caste, community, colour,
religion, regions, place of birth and sexual discrimination.[34] The
online hate speech weakens individual’s happiness. The hate speech sometimes
takes traumatic experience among Young people.[35]According
to Selma research programme, the
victims of online hate speech sometimes lower the self- esteem, sleeping
disorders, increased anxiety and feeling of fear and insecurity, they may feel
alone or isolated or feel insulted and feel like whole world’s is against
targeted victim.
(b)
Encourages Raciest and
Sexist Beliefs:
The online hate speech
cannot be easily defined and interpret because the language can be direct or
indirect form, the main purpose of hate speech is to attack only the targeted
individual or community based on their race, religion, ethics origin, sexual
orientation, disability and it can be based on gender discrimination[36]. In addition, the
negative effect of such raciest and sexist insults may lead to violence and
genocide not only particular state but the whole world can suffer, one of the
best example of racial hate speech is ‘Jewish Holocaust took place between 1933
and 1945[37]’.
In India, there are many example
related to online speech which sometimes create the situation of violence or
genocide for example ‘Sudarshan TV News Channel’ pass off the hate speech
propaganda as news and work as spreading the hate speech through incited
communal hatred speech against Muslims Community under the episode “UPSC Jihad[38]”, Supreme
Court took action chief editor of ‘Sudarshan TV News Channel’ and order that
channel not to broadcast any hatful content which is incite the violence among
the different community.[39]
Online Hate speech not only humiliate
the targeted group but due to proliferation of technological world, the crime
against women on social media is also common, it may constitutes any hateful
comment on her social media account which can hurt and humiliate her dignity.
In democratic country like India, the condition of women is not so good, she is
still facing the conservative thoughts and still facing men dominating world.
In India, misogyny attitudes towards women are common and it has also become
the trend on virtual platform which can be in the form of sexist comment, body
shaming, giving sexualised threat of death, threat of rape, or any other form
of violence.
Recently in India, the [41]UN special
reporter, Dr. Fernando De Varennes stated on his twitter account that ‘Sulli’
and ‘Bulli Bai’ app should be deleted soon on social media and take strict action
against online offender, these apps has mainly targeted the ‘Muslim’ women on
online platform for auction without their permission and some of the ‘Muslim’
celebrity’s photo has posted on online social media app like; Twitter,
Instagram, these contents have uploaded by offender without the consent of
victims and without their knowledge then one of the journalist recognize the
crime and complaint online against such fake app after the online complaint
such issue came into news and it has found
that offender targeted only minority ‘Muslim’ women for auction and
earned money through such fake online app[42].
(d)
Online Hate Speech can be
become mass violence which can damage both public and private property:
The online
hate speech sometimes takes mass violence and genocide which may result the
damage of public property and private property also. In India, the protest on
the issue of Citizenship Amendment Act has taken the mass genocide among police
officials and protestors, where these protestors has damaged the public police
car and bikes and police station also. So, the Supreme Court should have
supreme power to penalize the offender who destroys the public property
intentionally.[43]
(e)
It can even depreciate
bilateral relations and lead to battles and conflicts between Countries:
The hate speech can lead the
situation of war between the nation through fake online news and fake users can
spread the fake news over the whole cyber-space. The reason behind these users
cannot be locate easily and they can be member of any country. The recent
example of online fake news is related to “The civil war in Libya which was
broadcasting by media from the beginning of April and the media was showing the
fake news to attract the attention the people on social media sites, it was
found on social sites that 30,000 people flee from their homes and thousand
were killed and injured, such type of hate speech and fake news incites the
bonfires of violence among people and create fear in their mind”.[44]In the
context of India, the bigoted speech in ‘Haridwar Dharam Sansad’ which was
delivered by ‘Yati Narsinghanand’, where he delivered the genocide hate speech
against ‘Muslim’ community and made video to uploaded on all social sites so that
other can see the speech. This news was the genocide speech against ‘Muslim’
community[45].
7. International law
on Online hates speech:
(a) Under Article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Right, 1966(ICCPR)[46], includes the free speech rights but
with reasonable restriction of free speech which address the discriminatory,
offensive and incite to targeted group on the grounds of race, caste, religion,
creed and language and other biased behaviour with them.
(b) Under Article 4 and 6 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of all forms of racial discriminations, 1966[47], Under International Convention
prohibition, the Article 4 and Article 6 provide the minority groups effective
remedies and protection against actions which is against dangerous to humanity
and creates violence and genocide in the nation.
(c) European Union and United Kingdom:
European Court of Human Rights
(ECTCHR), contributed thoroughly to curb the hate speech under Article 10[48] under
European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)[49],
which constitutes the right of free speech and expression with reasonable
restriction given in clause 2 of Article 10[50]
on certain speech which is discriminatory or in incitement nature. Article 17 of the convention[51]
includes the prohibition on rights which is abused against the state,
individual and person.
In Handyside case[52],
the European Court held that restriction on Article 10(2) of the European
Convention of Human Rights must be carefully inspected on every offensive hate
speech which is not illegitimate.
(e)
United States: First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution[53] prohibits the exercise the illegal
use of hate speech.
(e) Canada: Section 319 of the Criminal Code of
Canada, 1985[54] forbids the sanctions
for public nuisance which is especially based on agitation of hate speech among
the minority groups. According to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, this
Charter guaranteed the freedom of thoughts, belief and Personal opinion on
government measures and expression
Subjected to reasonable
restrictions and limited by prescribed law. The Court of “Keegstra[55]” referred the test for hate speech
according to “R. versus Oakes[56]”
which was defined the limitation that the speech should be proportionate manner
in three forms:
?
The restriction or limitation on hate speech content should be
defined with object which was deliberated during the offensive hate speech
crime.
?
The right of freedom must have substantial question and impair
with good faith.
?
There should be effects on offensive speech which was delivered or
spoken in offline or online platform.
The constitution of India provides the guarantee of freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19
(1) (a) to citizens which includes all citizens have right to express his
feelings and emotions without any hindering because it is most important think
for people share his/her opinion, creates friendly environment, help to
increase communication skill between citizens, most basic elements for healthy
and open-minded democracy[57]. The
freedom of speech and expression provides the freedom to participate in the
social and political happenings of their country and also help to give idea for
increasing economy, wealth of the citizens.[58]
But we have seen many examples in recent days that freedom of speech and
expression are misusing by political parties, press and individuals without any
reasonable restriction and responsibility.
Article 19(2)
of the Constitution of India provide guarantee of freedom of speech and
expression to all citizens of India but this Article is also subjected to
certain restrictions like sovereignty, integrity, unity, friendly relations
with foreign states, public orders, politeness or morality or in relation to
contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to offence.[59]
(a)
Legislations in Indian
Penal Code, 1860:
Presently, in India there are
following legal provisions on hate speech in India which includes the features
of hate speech but not defined particularly. These are as follows:
Section 124A of Indian
Penal Code, 1860:[60]
Section 124A talks about Sedition
which means any certain acts which creates the disaffection, hatred or
incitement against the government called ‘Sedition’ under section 124A of the
Indian Penal Code[61]. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Versus State of Andhra
Pradesh (1997)[62],
under this section the accused was acquitted under section 124A, 153A, 505(2)
in Indian Penal Code, section 3(3), 4(3), and 5 of the TADA act and section 25
of the Arms act but the real question has raised in Apex Court that the accused
is liable under section 124A and section 25 of the Arms Act.
According to section 124A of the
Indian Penal Code, any words spoken or written, signs or visible representation
which brings the hatred or contempt to hatred, attempt to excite or contempt to
excite ‘disaffection’ towards
government which was established by law then that person would be liable to
punish life imprisonment or it can extend the three years imprisonment under
the Indian Penal Code.
Section 153A of Indian
Penal Code, 1860:[63]
Section 153A includes any offence
which is related to promote any enmity between different groups or targeted
groups on the grounds of region, religious, race, residence, place of birth and
language and doing any act which is damaging to maintenance the harmony of the
Nation. There are different elements where the accused is liable under this
section:
Commits an act which disturb the
public tranquillity: Any act which is harmful to the maintenance of the harmony
to the targeted group on the basis of religious, region, caste, colour, place
of birth, racial, language and community which may disturb or likely to disturb
the peace of the public (Bilal Ahmed
Kaloo Versus State of Andhra Pradesh[64]).
Organize any movement, exercise or
participation which is intended to create violence between different groups:
Any act which includes the organisation, any exercise or any movement where
main intention to spread the violence among targeted groups on the grounds of
religion, region, caste & colour, residence and place of birth or this
violence can be result genocide among different groups. The main object to
organise the community is to create violence between targeted groups which
creates fear alarm and disturb feelings but it should be intended,
knowledgeable and incited to targeted groups. Mere discussion, advocacy is not
sufficient to proof under this offence but such discussion or advocacy should
be incited in future time (Shreya
Singhal Case[65]). The
person is liable for imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine
or both.
Section 153B of Indian
Penal Code, 1860:[66]
Under section 153B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 penalises any imputations, assertions prejudicial which is
threat to national integration. It includes any words whether it is spoken or
written or by visual representation or otherwise.
Section 295A of Indian
Penal Code, 1860:[67]
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious
intention of outraging the religious feelings to the targeted person of the
citizen of India, this intention can be by words or spoken or by visible
representation on the grounds of religious, race, caste, colour, place of birth
or targeted community to hurt their religious feelings then that person shall
be liable to imprisonment or it can be extend for three years or with fine or
both. This offence is non-bail-able, non-compoundable, Triable by any
magistrate and comes under the category of cognizable offence.
Section 298 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860:[68]
The person is held liable for one
year imprisonment, fine or both when he commits any act which is deliberately
to wound the religious feelings of the targeted person, this can be by uttering
any words, makes any gesture which is related to targeted person place or any
objects in the vision of that person. This offence is non-cognizable,
bail-able, Triable by any magistrate of the Court and compoundable.
Section 505 (1) and (2)
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Statement conducing to public mischief):[69]
(1) Whoever makes or
publishes or circulates any statement, the main intention is to cause or likely
to causes any public officer including soldiers (sailor or airman), the Army,
Navy and Air force of the citizen of the India. Where such officer fail or
mutiny to fail his duty or create the fear in the mind of people of India or
any act which is against the integrity or security of the nation. The offender
shall be liable for imprisonment which may extend to three years or fine or
both. This offence is non-cognizable, non-bail-able, non-compoundable or
Triable by any magistrate.
(2) Whoever makes or publish
or circulate any statement or spread rumours or any alarming news which creates
the fear or disharmony to any targeted groups on the grounds of the religious,
race, colour, caste or language or other things which creates the disharmony
between different groups and also creates the situation of ill-will condition
in the nation. The offender is liable for imprisonment which can be extending
for three years or fine or both.
(b)
Legal provisions under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 95 in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973:[70]
Under this
section the state government and Magistrate have power to declare certain
publications forfeited and can issue the search warrant
Section 107 in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973:[71]
This section includes the security
for keeping the peace in other cases. When local executive Magistrate of any
state receives any complaints or information which is related to breach of
peace or create disturbance of public tranquillity or any wrongful act which
may result to create breach of peace in the state then an Executive Magistrate
may provide the show cause or give order to maintain peace in his local state.
Section 144 in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:[72]
Section 144 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, gives power to District Magistrate, A sub-divisional Magistrate, or
any other executive especially selected from state government to issue order in
urgent cases in case of nuisance or any apprehended danger to peace of the
nation.
(c) The Representation of the People Act, 1951:
Section 8 in the Representation of
the People Act (1951), under this section the contesting candidate will be
disqualified from election if he is convicted for the illegitimate use of his
freedom of speech and expression right.[73]
Section 123 (3A) and Section 125 in
the Representation of the People Act, this section prohibits the promotion of
enmity on grounds of religion, caste, race, language or community in connection
with election corruption or any electoral practice.[74]
(d)
The Protection of Civil
Rights Act, 1955:
Section 7 of the Protection of Civil
Rights Act, 1955 includes the punishment for incitement, encouragement of
untouchability through words, spoken or any visible representation on the
grounds of religious, region, race, caste, place of birth and community to any targeted
groups in India.[75]
(e)
The Religious
Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988:
Section 3(g) in Religious
Institutions Act, 1988 includes any religious practice by religious
institutions on the grounds of race, religious, caste, place of birth, promotes
disharmony, feelings of the enmity, any speech which creates hatred, ill-will
between different religious, racial, language or regional groups. The person is
held liable for punishment who commits such act given on above theory.[76]
(f)
The Cable Television Network Regulations
Act, 1995:
Section 5 and 6 of the Cable
Television Regulations Act forbids any offence which include any transmission
or re-transmission of a programme or advertisement through cable network which
may result any violence, incitement to targeted groups on the basis of
religion, race, caste, colour, place of birth, community, language and others
which denotes the targeted group category then owner and news speaker will be
held liable for punishment under Cable Television Network Regulations Act[77].
(g)
The Cinematograph Act, 1952:
Section 4, 5B and 7 gives power to
the Board of Film Certification to prohibit and regulate any content which is
related to disturb the peace of the public on the grounds of community, race,
caste, religion, region, language and place of birth which incite the
disturbance among different groups.[78]
(h) The Information Technology Act, 2000:
Section 66A includes the punishment
for those who send the offensive message through communication service it can
be by computer resource, communication device which is related to offensive
means or menacing character of victim. It includes any information false
message, creates annoyance, annoyance, danger, insult, injury or any criminal
intimidation which incites hatred, ill-will or violence among different
community under this section the convicted person will be liable to punish
imprisonment for a term 3 years and with fine.[79]
Section 69A includes power of Central
government or any other officials to issue directions for blocking public
access of any information through computer resource. It includes any content
which has published or posted on computer resource which creates hatred,
ill-will, violence and hurts the feeling of targeted group then Central
government or head of communication services can give order to block or seize
their account temporary or permanently.[80]
8.
Non-State Regulation on Hate Speech:
COVID -19 Pandemic Disinformation: We
have seen that during COVID-19 Pandemic time, the trend of disinformation has increased
rapidly and this rapid growth called as “infodemic”.[81]For
example: A documentary titled “pandemic” where the scientist gave view that
SARS-COV2 virus was manufactured and planted to earn profit from vaccine. After
the upload of this documentary, the fake news was spread all over the world in
few minutes and about 8 million views have extended in eight days.[82]
In India many example has seen on
social media sites like political propaganda, hate speech against minorities
especially ‘Muslims’ Communities, In 2019-2020, as per Facebook’s data there
were huge spikes of inflammatory disinformation and hate speech has notices in
three languages like; Hindi, English and Bengali regard CAA protest and first
lockdown during pandemic.[83].
Recently, many countries took initiative to curb the online hate speech and
disinformation around the world, for example Germany, Singapore, and France has
taken initiative to imposed fine on that person who will use the online
platform to provoke violence through any legal activities[84].
The United Kingdom (UK) has debated on online harms under White Paper newspaper
and proposed two new legal initiatives: The Digital Service Act (DSA) and
Digital Markets Act (DMA) to counter the online hate speech and harm on it.
9.
Regulations on fake news:
In India, the regulation on online
fake news is not regulated properly and inadequate to curb the online fake news
and harmful speech[85]. Though
many provisions given in Indian penal code,1860 like sedition, defamation,
public mischief, promotion and contempt to promote religious hatred, bullying
and others are given but these provisions are very ambiguous to define online
regulations. The information Technology Act provided the offences under
cybercrime (Chapter XI of the Act)[86],
section 79[87] which
includes the intermediaries and section 66A[88]
was included the fake news which is harmful for state or any public officer but
later it was struck down by “Shreya Singhal case[89]”.
The word “disinformation” has defined
in the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) where
the main purpose of this definition to recognize the definition of harmful,
fake news on online platform.[90]
The regulation on social media
platform is very depth concern issue these days as per recent harmful offenses
on Internet. Both social media companies and government has failed to regulate
or control fake news and hate speech or other crime on Internet. The social
media companies are not serious about any online offense, the main objective is
to gain main subscribers and profit. In recent times, the Indian government has
gave the order to block the 22 sites or social media tools which creates hatred
against any minority group this was best initiatives taken by government of
India.[91]
10.International regulations and initiatives on social media
related to Online Hate Speech:
(a)
Australia:
Electoral Integrity Assurance Task
Force: The first and most important initiative by Australia government is to
curtail fake news on online platform especially during the election campaign.
Fake news Code: The Australia has
launched the new fake news code for their citizens where they can check which
news provides fake news or which one provides true information. The Australians
people can judge any disinformation on online platform with the help of fake
news code. The Europe has recently signed the contract with Facebook, Google,
Twitter, Mozilla and several other advertising industry groups.[92]
(b)
France:
Higher Audio-visual Council (CSA):
France has launched the broadcasting principles for TV and radio stations
called higher audio-visual council for social media platforms. The main purpose
of this policy is to assure freedom on broadcasting communication but with
reasonable responsibility. This policy is basically made to curtail the fake
news and online hate speech.[93]
Under France Digital Republic Act, under
this act, the public authority can take the decision on “algorithmic treatment”
and the citizens can seek for explanation if there are any rules made on
digital platform.[94]
(c)
Germany:
The Germany regulations are very
strict regard any illegal content on social media. Germany’s “NetzDG” has whole
power and jurisdiction on online platform and it can order to companies and
industries to delete or modify the illegal content on online platform otherwise
they will face higher penalties to break the rule on online social media.[95]
The Germany has also defined the
defined the definition of “Unlawful content” in very vide manner where the word
‘defamation’ and ‘insult’ is also included in it.[96]
(d)
Singapore:
POFMA ACT: This act is very powerful
as compare to other countries and very controversial too, the main purpose of
this act is to detect the misrepresentation on social media platform[97]. This act
was criticised at mass level by human rights members and advocates due to
susceptibility of government intervention.[98]
This act covers the false and misleading statements on online platform.
Recommendations and suggestions:
(a) Review on definition:
When we talk about the definition of
hate speech then it is hard to say that the exact definition of hate crimes
around the World, it may be direct hurt or it may indirect hurt. So, the
definition of hate speech is in very ambiguous nature. According to Indian
Constitution and other provisions in Indian Penal Code, 1860, the definition of
hate speech is basically focus on incited the religious on the grounds of race,
caste, colour, place of birth, language, religion and religious but the main
problem is hate speech contents are not specifically defined so sometimes it
may create chaos during the jurisdiction on hate speech. The legal provision
given in Information Technology Act, 2000 is very vague and unclear because of
this state sometimes take advantage to misuse for their personal purpose for
example: In “Shreya Singhal versus Union
of India (2015)[99]” the girls
who were arrested for hate speech offence under section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, both were innocent and proved not guilty by Apex Court.
(b) Observation
on Freedom of Speech and Expression:
The freedom of speech and expression
provides the facility to every citizens in India that every individual have
right to speak and give their opinion on the matters of country laws and
policies which should be in good-faith and beneficial for the growth of
economy, integrity, sovereignty and security of the nation but with reasonable
restrict.[100]The
Article 19(2)[101] defines
the reasonable restriction on hate speech which is mainly focus on only ‘public
order’ not on ‘sovereignty and integrity’ of the nation.[102]The
citizens misusing their free speech right without any responsible restriction
on free speech which should be discriminate the minority groups, the reason
behind is vague definition given in reasonable restriction.
(c) Observation
on Laws:
Although India have various legal
provisions related to hate speech but theses old law provisions are not
sufficient to curb the online fake news and hate speech based on religious
biased. Under section 153A[103] and
section 295A[104] of the
Indian Penal Code (1860), the classification of hate speech defines only the
promotion or incitement on hatred speech against targeted community but is has
not defined any content which is related to hurt the public order, it only
defines the hate content of “sovereignty and integrity” of the nation which
creates the confusion at the time of jurisdiction on hate speech. for example:
In “Ramji Lal Modi”[105] case the
accused was convicted under section 295A[106]
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was read with Article 19(2)[107] of the
Constitution, the question has raised in Apex Court that the accused was not
comes under the punishment of violation of disturbing the ‘public order’ Then
Court held in his decision that after the First Amendment in 1951 the language
of Article 19(2)[108] of the
Constitution of India should be read with “public order” in a very wide manner.
(d) Observation on Social Media Platform:
In the technology World, the hate
speech growing rapidly with the social media tools like; Facebook, Twitter, You
tube and Instagram, these are the major tools using to spread ill-speech around
the whole World on the ground of religious, region, race, caste, language and
place of birth so to safeguard from hate speech.[109]
Digital education
and awareness: Democratic Country like India needs to educate the use of
Internet, the main reason behind rapid spike of hate speech is COVID-19
Pandemic where some youngsters were idle and used their data to spread hate
news against religious which was posted by political members. So, Indian
Country should accept some initiative by other countries. For example: Finland
announced a media literacy program at public schools, under this scheme the
teachers will teach the students to search right source and ill-hatred news on
Internet and also teach them to search for dubious sources in 2014.[110]
The end-users are those who are
affected by problematic speech. For example: Suppose any hate speech against
‘Muslim Community’, ‘schedule caste and schedule tribes Community’, ‘Women’,
‘Disable’, and other affected minority community then that minority people will be considered
as “The end-user”.
The hate speech offense was exist
before introduction of Internet, before online hate speech the hateful content
was continue to spread by offline broadcast media but due to increase in cases
of online hate speech, the broadcast media also played an important role to
spread hate speech against targeted group.[113]
For example: In “Sudarshan” news the anchor of the news channel has incited the
targeted community, where he targeted the Muslims Community and broadcast the
episode named “UPSC JIHAD”, under this episode the anchor has incited the
targeted community, the Supreme Court issued the order of “injunction” of
broadcast the discriminated news against “Sudarshan” news and the owner of the
news who was broadcasting such ill-hatred news. Furthermore, the Supreme Court
stated that there is lack of regulation in broadcasting sector and it will
raise the question against Press Trust of India who was failed to handle such
hateful content.[114]
Conclusions:
As per above discussion, it has found
that issues like hate speech are complicated and there is a need to address the
same. The online hate speech must be considered to depth debate on regulation,
proper law, definition and effective mechanism to curb the proliferation of
hate speech. The solution will be useless if no active participation of public,
political leader, famous celebrities’ awareness and concern from Court. One
viable solution to curb or minimise “hate speech” could be by effectively
implementing the regulation at the intermediaries. A specialised online portal
should be created which is specifically deals with online hate speech contents,
the content must be displayed only by registration on website which would
require multiple verifications for ensuring that the Indian citizens is the
user. The online structure should be organised in a way where content of hate
speech and bona-fide speech can be identified. Various campaigns can be
launched by government agencies or NFO’s for the purpose of rising awareness
about what is hate speech and how such speech can be it done physically or
through online mediums can have severe effects for harmony and peace of our
country. There should be quick redressed to such reporting and actions must be
taken immediately. Additionally, online platforms should take action against
anonymous or fake ids on internet as these are often used by actual perpetrator
in committing the hate speech or hate comment on online platform. Fight against
hate speech cannot be solve easily. So, it should be discussed with other
countries that have better solution and initiatives to solve the problem and it
should also discuss on a wider platform. There should be transparency in laws
which are basically related to incitement to targeted groups on the grounds of
race, caste, creed, religious, region and place of birth. There is a need to
revise the old existing law to strengthen the old legislation so; people can
get the relief from such hateful speech which creates fear in their mind and imbalance
the mind which can be result genocide in future. In
India, the main problem to identify the hate speech is better mechanism to
identify any content which is of illicit manner or related to hate speech
against the minor community. So, there is need to provide the better mechanism
which should be manufacture by own country because if it is import of from
other country, there is threat to security, integrity, and sovereignty of the
nation.[115]
References:
BOOKS:
Victoria Asker Woeste, Henry Ford’s
War on Jews and the Legal Battle against hate speech, page no: 18, 2012.
Dr. Farooq Ahmed, Cyber Law in India (Law on
Internet), Chapter-1, and evolution of internet, page number: 4-13.
Universal’s
New Delhi-India (LexisNexis), The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
Universal’s
New Delhi-India (LexisNexis), The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of
2000).
Universal’s
New Delhi-India (LexisNexis), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
JOURNALS & ARTICLES:
Newton lee, Counterterrorism and
Cyber-security: Total Information Awareness Tags: Freedom of speech, speech
(published in good reads).
acebook
Accused of violating its hate speech policy in India, site: www. Npr.org,
update on: November 27, 2020.
Scientific
Reports, “Online hate network spreads malicious COVID-19 content outside the
control of individual social media platforms”, Article number: 11549, 11, and
2021.
United
Nations Human Rights System, global freedom expression, Columbia, education
(Columbia University in the city of New York).
Universal
declaration of human rights (UDHR), United Nations, available at: un.org.
News
Report, Facebook fails to detect hate against Rohingya Muslims, site:
gadgets360. Com, Associated press, updated on: March 22, 2022.
History
of Jewish Holocaust, Nazi Germany and World War II, study IQ, publishes on:
July 23, 2018.
Lee
Raine & Janna Anderson et al, The future of free speech, trolls, Anonymity
and fake online, published in: Pew Researcher Centre, updated on: journal, media and society information.
The
Law Commission of India, 267th Report, Hate speech (updated on:
March 17).
Anirudhha Ghosal, “Amit Shah charge-sheet in election ‘hate speech’ case”, Updated
on September 11 2014, The Hindu: financial express commerce site.
Express
news service, Haridwar’ hate speech case, Supreme Court issues notice on plea
seeking investigation, Express News Service, New Delhi, updated on January 13,
2022.
Hate
map, available at: Southern poverty law centre.com, last updated on 29
November, 2012.
Black
Law Dictionary, The legalities of Hate speech, published in the law dictionary,
Organisation site.
The Hindu, national Journal: Panel to
define offences of speech, expression, and author: VIJAITA SINGH accessed on
May 26, 2021.
Kenneth
ward, “Free speech and the development of liberal virtues: An examination of
the Controversies involving flag-burning and hate speech, 52 U. Miami l.
Rev.733 (1998).
PTI, “Editors Guild accuses NDA
government of attempting to curb press freedom”, India News: The Times of
India, updated on: August 8, 2018, available at: https://m.timesofindia.com/india/editors-guild-accuses-nda-government-of-attempting-to-curb-press-freedom-/amp_articleshow/65324930.
Archit
Lohani, “Countering Disinformation and Hate Speech online: Regulation and User
Behavioural Change”, available at: https://www.orfonline.org/research/countering-disinformation-and-hatespeech-online (Updated on: January 25 2021).
RGNUL
Student Research Review (RSRR), “Broadcasting hate: Media, Law, and Hate Speech
in India”, updated on: April 8, 2021, available at: https://rsrr.in/2021/04/08/broadcasting-hate-media-law-and-hate-speech.
Bhadra Sinha, Insidious attempt to
vilify Muslims- SC stops Sudarshan News from arising ‘UPSC Jihad’ show, The
Print, updated on: September 15, 2020, available at: https://theprint.in/judiciary/insidious-attempt-ti-vilify-muslims-sc-stops-sudarshan-news-from-arising-upsc-jihad-show/503345/?amp.
REPORTS:
Law Commission of India, 267TH
Report 267th, March 2017.
Universal declaration of human rights
(UDHR), United States
The
First Amendment, United States Constitution.
[1]
India Today, Amit Shah exhorts voters to uproot ‘mullah’ Mulayam, rakes up
storm, India Today, Updated on: September 5, 2014.
[2]
The Indian Express, Apurva Vishwanath, Prophet remarks row: Supreme Court says
Nupur Sharma won’t be arrested for now, available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/supreme-court-nupur-sharma-bail-hearing-hate-speech-prophet-mohmmad-8039060),
updated on: July 20, 2022, New Delhi.
[3]
Tech Crunch, Facebook’s new transparency report now includes data on takedown
of bad content including hate speech, Transparency Report, Tech Crunch Commerce
Site, Updated on: May 15, 2018.
[4] The Law Commission of India 2017, Report 267,
Chapter 2: Legal provisions of Hate Speech in India, page number 5.
[5]
Southern Poverty Law Centre, What we do? Available at: Southern Poverty Law
Centre.com last visited on: November 29, 2012.
[6]
Simon Wiesenthal Centre, New York, Simon Wiesenthal Centre releases 2019
digital terrorism and hate report Card, New York, last updated on: March 14,
2019.
[7] Libel: it is the written defamation where
anything published, print or text message is the part of libel.
[8] Slander: it is oral defamation statement
which includes any words, speech, audio, video contents or any electronic
means.
[9] Black Law Dictionary, The legalities of
Hate speech – Black’s Law Dictionary, Published in: law dictionary, available
at: Law dictionary Organisation site.
[10] Hate speech: report 267, Law commission
of India, chapter 2: Legal provisions of hate speech, updated on 23rd
March 2017 (India).
[11] Legal Information Institute, First
Amendment, United States Constitution, United States Law, Legal Information
Institute, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment.
[12] SNYDER V. PHELPS (No. 09-751) 580 F. 3d
206, affirmed.
[13]
The Hindu, The Buck stops with the government to stop hate speech, hate crimes:
Supreme Court, updated on: January 13, 2023.
[14] The Hindu, The Buck stops with the government
to stop hate speech, hate crime: Supreme Court, Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/hate-speeches-complate-menance-we-want-free-and-balanced-press-in-india-sc/article66374675.
Updated on: January 14, 2023
[15] Do something Organisation, New Zealand
Mosques Attack: What happened and what you can do, 49 people were killed in two
anti-Muslim terrorist attacks on Friday, Do something organisation, updated on
March 15, 2019.
[16]Aljazeera, Kashmir files, hailed by Modi,
triggers anti-Muslims hate speech, updated on: March 17, 2022.
[17] Osborne Clarke, Online harms: The news
legal framework for addressing hates speech in France and in Germany, Home
headlines UK tech, Media and Commons, Published on June 2nd, 2020.
[18] Osborne Clarke, Online harms: The news
legal framework for addressing hates speech in France and in Germany, Home
headlines UK tech, Media and Commons, Published on June 2nd, 2020.
[19] Id.
[20] Lisa-Maria N.Neudrat, Computational
Propaganda in Germany: A Cautionary Tale, University of Oxford.
[21] Parth M.N., Shashank Bengali, Rumours of
child- kidnapping gangs and other Whatsapp hoaxes are getting people killed in
India, Whatsapp, an encrypted messaging service, has become a vehicle for
rumours and fake news in India, its biggest market, available at: www.latimes.com
(updated on: May 30, 2018).
[22] Somesh Jha, Delhi Violence: Anurag Thakur
ducks question on ‘Goli Maaro’ remark, Business standard site, last updated on:
March 06, 2020.
[23] Opindia, Day after violent protests,
provocative slogans appear in Jamia Millia Islamia University campus, accessed
on: December 15, 2019.
[24] INDIA CONST. art.19, cl.1, sub cl. a
[25] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 2
[26]
See Shreya Singhal versus Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.
[27] Mojo Story, Hate speech if said with a
smile: Court’s startling response, Delhi Riots, Justice Supreme Court Judge
Madan Lokur joins Barkha Dutt to discuss the Court’s observations, Daily hunt
news, available at: https://youtu.be/8-15AtR_O5Y.
.
[28]
Jitendra, what is Nazi ideology: Asked by Jitendra, topper learning,
updated on: September 28, 2017.
[29]
Alan Bullock & Barun Bullock, Adolf Hitler (Dictator of Germany),
News report: Britannica, updated on: 2017.
[30] Freedom of speech and expression under
Article 19(1) (a), available at: byjus.com>free-IAS-prep>freedom.
[31] INDIA CONST. art.19, cl.1, sub cl. a
[32] INDIA CONST. art 19, cl.2
[33] Kenneth B. Clark & Dark Ghetto 63-64
(1965), journal of American studies, vol.46, no. 4, November 2012, Published
by: Cambridge University Press , available at: www.jstor.org/stable/23352469.
[34] Selma research programme, Hacking Online
Hate: Building an Evidence Base for Educators, available at: www. Hacking
hate.eu
[35] Sema Partner, The consequences of online
hate speech – teenager’s perspective, available at: Selma researcher, Updated
on: April 8, 2019.
[36] Johnson & N.F et al., Hidden
resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology, Bib code:
2019Natur.573.261J. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1494-7. ISSN: 1476-4687. PMID: 31435010. S2CID 201118236, updated on
August 21 2019.
[37] Koen Smilde, Jewish Holocaust: what is holocaust: the
meaning of holocaust came from Greek and it means ‘burnt offering’ in the
second world war, which was defined sometimes the death of a large group of
people, the world holocaust also known as ‘Shoah’, this hate speech genocide
was happened between 1933 and 1939, Annefrank Organisation news report, available at www. annefrank.org>
go-in-depth.
[38]Amrita Nayak Dutta, The print news: ‘UPSC jihad’ show offensive, could promote
communal attitudes- government in affidavit to Supreme Court, The Print News,
Updated on November 18, 2020, available at
theprint.in/governance/upsc-jihad-show-offensive-could-promote-communal-attitude-govt-in-affidavit-to-sc/547415/?amp).
[39]Jayant Sriram, With the Sudarshan TV case,
can the Supreme Court defines the contours of hate speech? The Hindu in focus podcast, updated on:
September 25, 2020.
[40] Tania Gupta, Misogyny in India: A
virulent form of Hate Speech, The criminal law blog, National Law University
(Jodhpur), updated on: September 30, 2020, available at:
criminalawstudiesnlij.wordpress.com/2020/09/30/misogyny-in-india-a-virulent-form-of-hate-speech.
[41] UN Condemns Apps Like ‘Sulli deals’ as a
form of hate speech in India, As a form of hate speech in India, updated on:
January 12 2022 , available at: www.oulookindia.com/website/story.india-news-sulli-deals-form-of-hate-speech-in-india-must-be-condemned-un-official/409348/amo.
[42] Bulli Bai app: Three arrested for fake
auction of Muslim women in India, BBC News, updated on: January 5, 2022,
available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world/asia-india-59835674.amp.
[43]Prashant Jha, Delhi Riots: Recovery of damage to public property during
CAA/NRC protests, Delhi High Court issues notice, Litigation News, Updated on:
March 21, 2022. Available at: www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/recovery-of-damage-to-public-property-of-damage-to-public-proerty-during-caanrc-protests-delhi-riots-delhi-high-court-issues-notice.
[44]Mountazali, Media: Hate speech leads to
violence, updated on: April 29, 2019, available at: www.dandc.eu/en/article/civil-war-libya-exacerbated-hate-speech-and-propaganda).
[45]The Hindu Newspaper, Haridwar hate speech
FIR filed for promoting enmity, The
Hindu, Updated on: December 24, 2021/ 38022839.
[46]International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner,
available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights (adopted on: December 16).
[47]United Nations General Assembly resolution
2106 (XX), International Convention on the elimination of all from of racial
discrimination, OHCHR, adopted on: 21December 1965,
[48] European Convention of Human Rights
(ECHR), art. 10(1) reads: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This
right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority and television
of frontiers.
[49]What is the European Convention on Human
Rights? Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what/european-conventiuon-human-rights).
[50]
European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), Art. 10 (2) reads: The
exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions
or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
society, in the interest of national security, territorial integrity or public
safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health
or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for
preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
[51] European Convention of Human Rights
(ECHR), Art. 17 reads: Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as
implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or
perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedom.
[52] See Handyside v. United Kingdom,
Application no. 5493/72 (1976).
[53] THE U.S. Constitution (First Amendment)
Act, 1951, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, GOI, available
at: https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-first-amendment-act-1951.
[55] See R. versus Keegstra (1990) 3 SCR 697.
[56] See R. versus Oakes (1986) 1 SCR 103.
[58] Neshapriyan M, Social Media and freedom
of speech and expression, available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-426-social-media-and-freedom-of-speech-and-expression.html.
[59] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 2
[60] Universal, New Delhi, The Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860), and section: 124A sedition, page number: 42-43.
[61] The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
section 124A Sedition, page number: 42, Universal law book, India Code (45 of
1860).
[62] Bilal Ahmed Kaloo V. State of Andra
Pradesh, AIR 1997 7 SCC 431 (India).
[63] The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) as
amended by The Jammu and Kashmir reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019), Section
153A, page number: 51-52, Universal law book, India Code (45 of 1860).
[64]Bilal Ahmed Kaloo V. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC, Available at: Https://Indiankanoon.Org/doc/639296/.
[65] Shreya Singhal V. Union of India, AIR
2015 SC 1523.
[66]The Penal Code (45 of 1860), section 153B,
Universal law book, page number: 52 (New Delhi), India Code (45 of 1860).
[67]The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), section 295A, Universal Law Book, page
no: 105 (New Delhi), India Code (45 of
1860).
[68]The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
section 298, Universal Law Book, page no:
105 (New Delhi), India Code (45 of 1860).
[69] The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
section 505 (1) and Section 505 (2), Universal Law Book, page no: 195(New Delhi), India Code (45 of 1860).
[70]The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
section 95, India Procedure Code (2 of 1974), available at: https://indiankannon.org/doc/875455/.
[71]The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ,
section 107, India Procedure Code (2 of
1974), available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1914745/.
[72]The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
section 144, India Procedure Code (2 of 1974), available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/930621.
[73]The Representation of the People Act,
1951, section 8, Central government act, India Act (1951), available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1662686.
[74]The Representation of the People Act,
1951, section 123, Central government act, India Act (1951), available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62390136 and section 125 in the Representation of
the People Act, 1951, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28226194.
[75]The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955,
section 7, India Act (1955), available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1326407).
[76]The Religious Institutions (Prevention of
misuse) Act, 1988, section 3 (g), India Act (1988), available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77755996.
[77] The Central Government Act, Section 5 in
the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1122855 and Section 6 in the Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158800.
[78] The Cinematograph Act, 1952, section 4,
Central government act, India Act, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1843874. Section 5B in the cinematograph act,
1952, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/441329
and Section 7 in the cinematograph act, 1952 available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1508508.
[79]The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act of 2000),
section 66A,
[80] Section 69A in the Information Technology
Act, 2000 (Act of 2000), section 69A, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10190353.
[81] World Health Organisation, Novel
Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Situation Report-13, World Health Organisation, updated
on: February 2, 2020, available at: 20200202-sitrep-13-ncov-v3.pdf.
[82] Daniel Funke, Fact-checking ‘Pandemic’: A
documentary full of false conspiracy theories about the coronavirus, available
at: PolitiFact.com, Last updated on: May 7, 2020.
[83] Anuj Srivas, Facebook saw spikes in hate
speech in India after CAA protests and during first COVID lockdown, The Wire,
last updated on: November 10, 2021, available at: https://m.thewire.in/article/tech/facebook-saw-spikes-in-the-hate-speech-in-india-after-caa-protests-and-covid-19-lockdown/amp.
[84] Archit Lohani, Countering Disinformation
and Hate Speech Online: Regulation and User Behavioural Change, ORF, https://www.orfonline.org/research/countering-disinformation-and-hate-speech-online/?amp.
[85] Drishthi-IAS, The Problem of Fake News in
India: Issues, Concerns and Regulation, available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/the-problem-of-fake-news-in-india-issues-cocerns-and-regulation, updated on: August 09, 2018.
[86]The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act
21 of 2000), Chapter XI: Offences, available at: https://snappar.com/page/information-technology-act-2000-chapter-XI.
[87] The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act
21 of 2000), section 79.
[88] The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act
21 of 2000), section 66A.
[89] See Shreya Singhal versus Union of India,
AIR 2015 SC 1523.
[90]Anirudh Sunil Kumar, Government defines
‘fake news’ in Parliament; says social media being used of weaponisation of
information, Republic World, available at: https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/governmentdefines-fake-news
-in-parliament-says-social-media-being-used-fro-weaponisation-of-information.html
(Updated on: July 26, 2018).
“Union
Minister Law & Justice, Communications and MeitY Ravi Shankar Prashad have
said: Fake news is the type of disinformation which includes fake information
through broadcast media, print media, social media or social sites which is
harmful for the integrity and security of the nation. He further added that
fake news can be made in any form for example it can be spoken, written or
visible representation which can damage the agency, data reports or create disturb the society at large”.
[91] Express News Service (New Delhi),
Anti-India content: Centre block 22 You Tube Channels, Express News Service, available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/govt-blocks-youtube-channels-anti-india-7853880/lite (updated on: April 6. 2022).
[92] Australian Association of National
Advertisers, A quick guide to the Australian ‘Fake News’ Code, Australian
Association of Advertisement, available
at: https://aana.au/2020/07/02/a-quick-guide-to-the-australian-fake-news-code/ (updated on: July 2, 2020).
[93] Law on the fight against information
manipulation, Anti-manipulating information manipulation law, Fight against
Information manipulation, available at:
https://www.senat.fr/dossier-legislatif/ppl17-623. Html (updated on: December
22, 2018)
[94] Lilian Edwards & Michael Veale,
Enslaving the Algorithm: From a Right to an Explanation to a Right to Better
Decisions, IEEE Security & Privacy, 2018.
[95] Network Enforcement Act
(Netzdurchsetzunggesetz, NetzDG), available at: https://germanlawarchive.iucomp.org/?p=1245).
[96] Article 19, Germany: The Act to Improve
Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks, Article 19, last updated on: August
2017.
[97] Amnesty International, Singapore: Social
media companies forced to corporate with abusive fake news laws, Amnesty
International, available at: https:// www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/singapore-social-media-abusive-fake-news-law/ (last updated on: February 19, 2020).
[98] F Kathleen, Pofma is yet another tool by
the Singapore government to supress criticism and dissent, said Forum -Asia and
Civicus, the Online Citizen, last updated on: April, 12, 2019.
[99] See Shreya Singhal V, Union of India, AIR
2015 SC 1523.
[102] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, REPORT 267,
MARCH 2017, CHAPTER: 6, PAGE NUMBER: 39.
[103] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, section
153A, India Code (45 0f 1860).
[104] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, section
295A, India Code (45 0f 1860).
[105] See Ramji Lal Modi, AIR 2014 SC 2537.
[106] Section 295A, see supra notes 353.
[107] Universal’s New Delhi (India), The
Constitution of India as amended by The Constitution (One Hundred and First
Amendment) Act, 2016, Article 19 clause 2, page number: 12 (Updated on: 2017).
[108] Article 19 (2), see supra notes 356.
[109]R.A.V V. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377
(1992).
[110] Finland, HS: Finland adopts new
initiative to combat institutional racism and hate speech, Helsinki Times,
updated on: October 29, 2021, available at: https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/news0in-brief-/20262-hs-finland-adopts-new-initiative-to-combat-institionalised-racism-and-hate-speech-html.
[111] See supra notes 365.
[112] Archit Lohani, Countering Disinformation
and Hate Speech online: Regulation and User Behavioural Change, available at: https://www.orfonline.org/research/countering-disinformation-and-hatespeech-online
(Updated on: January 25 2021).
[113] RGNUL Student Research Review (RSRR),
Broadcasting hate: Media, Law, and Hate Speech in India, updated on: April 8,
2021, available at: https://rsrr.in/2021/04/08/broadcasting-hate-media-law-and-hate-speech.
[114] Bhadra Sinha, Insidious attempt to vilify
Muslims- SC stops Sudarshan News from arising ‘UPSC Jihad’ show, The Print,
updated on: September 15, 2020, available at: https://theprint.in/judiciary/insidious-attempt-ti-vilify-muslims-sc-stops-sudarshan-news-from-arising-upsc-jihad-show/503345/?amp.
[115] Archit Lohani, Countering Disinformation
and Hate Speech online: Regulation and User Behavioural Change, available at: https://www.orfonline.org/research/countering-disinformation-and-hatespeech-online, Updated on: January 25 2021.
Article Information
SOCIAL MEDIA IS A TOOL OF HATE SPEECH IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Authors: PREETI AWANA, KM JYOTI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/04/13
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.