How can hate speech be tackled in India? 🇧🇷 NIC OUT (2023)

This item was originally part of Samajho's Corner premium content, but has been unlocked so you can judge the quality of our content.
Join Samajho's Corner nowto get full access to all premium items for 18 months.

Context:An FIR was recently filed against a leader in Uttarakhand for encouraging hostility between different sections of society. In this article, we will understand how free speech differs from hate speech and the reasons behind the increasing prevalence of hate speech in India. We will also discuss how to deal with hate speech cases from an Indian perspective.

Relevance:

• Title:Sections 505(1) and 505(2), Section 19(1)(a), Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
• The net:GS Paper - 2 & Government Policies & Interventions, About Hate Speech, Reasons behind the rise of hate speech in Indian society and steps that can be taken to address such issues.

What is hate speech?

• the afflictedis not defined in theindian legal frameworkNor can it be easily reduced to a standard definition due to the myriad of forms it can take.
• Black's Law Dictionaryhas it as "language that carriesno meaningdifferent from thatExpression of hate towards a group.such as a particular race, particularly in circumstances where the communication is likely to provoke violence."
• Based on this, the Supreme Court inPravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs. Union of India (2014)called hate speech"An attempt to marginalize individuals because of their membership in a group"and one that "seeks to delegitimize the members of the group in the eyes of the majority and diminish their social position and acceptance in society."

How is hate speech defined by different organizations/institutions?

• CorrespondentEuropean Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI),Hate speech encompasses many forms of expression that advocate, incite, encourage, or justify hatred, violence, and discrimination against an individual or group of people for a variety of reasons.
• In report 267 of thelaw commission of indiaHate speech is defined asIncite hatred primarily against a group of peopledefined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and the like.
• CorrespondentUnited NationsHate speech is any form of verbal, written, or behavioral communication that attacks, disparages, or discriminates against a person or group because of their identity, religion, ethnicity, national origin, race, color, ancestry, gender, or other identity factors. This is often rooted in and breeds intolerance and hatred, and can be demeaning and divisive in certain contexts.
• European Convention on Human Rights:Similar,Article 10 paragraph 2of the European Convention on Human Rights, establishes appropriate obligations and restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):JoyaArticle 19 paragraph 3of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to freedom of expression may be regulated to respect the rights of others and in the interest of public order, public health or morality.
• Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also provides that any promotion of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is prohibited by law.

Legal Framework/Regulations on Hate Speech in India

• According to the Indian Penal Code:
• IPC Sections 153A and 153B:Punishes actions that create enmity and hatred between two groups.
• IPC Section 295A:These are criminal acts that intentionally or maliciously offend the religious sentiments of a group of people.
• Articles 505(1) and 505(2):Criminalize the publication and distribution of content that may incite ill will or hatred between different groups.
• On behalf of the people's law:
  • Abschnitt 8 des Representation of People's Act, 1951 (RPA):Prevents a person convicted of illegally using free speech from running in an election.
  • Articles 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA:It prohibits the promotion of animosity based on race, religion, community, caste or language in connection with elections and includes it within corrupt electoral practices.
• WhatHuman Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(prevention and control)Act of 2017 (HIV/AIDS Act)aims at the well-being of people living with AIDS/HIV by prohibiting behavioral discrimination and social stigma towards them.§ 4 of this lawexpressly to such protection.
• WhatFilm Act of 1952regulates the showing of films and frames various laws that give the state the power to take action against such showings of films.
• Statements made by a person who is not a member of the SC or ST community to humiliate and hurt the SC and/or ST community will be dealt with in accordance with theAtrocity Prevention Act, 1989.

Freedom of expression versus hate speech: a constitutional perspective

• The Indian constitution statesRight to liberty under article 19with the aim of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in article 19 guarantees freedom of speech and expression as one of its six freedoms.
• however lowArticle 19 paragraph 2, the constitution also provides thatreasonable restrictionsagainst freedom of expression in the interest of India's sovereignty and integrity, state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, propriety or good morals, or in connection with contempt of court, slander or incitement to commit a crime.
• Why is there a fight between freedom of expression and the regulation of social networks?
  • Until the advent of social networks, there were adequate forums to express oneself, in particular radio, print media or television.
  • The prerogative of these platforms was to decide the content they published. In fact, the content was subject to the prior approval of the respective medium.
  • Therefore, if the private media refuses to publish the views of a citizen, the citizen cannot assert his fundamental right against a private party. Only if the state imposes restrictions that go beyondArticle 19 paragraph 2, the citizen has a legal recourse against the state.
  • While traditional media acted as publishers and maintained control over what was published, social media platforms have chosen to position themselves as mere technology platforms. Therefore, there isno prior approval for contentpublished on these platforms.
  • If the government or courts order the removal of the content, theInjured citizens can invoke their fundamental rights and go to courtto protect your freedom of expression.
  • When platforms (such as private non-governmental entities) remove content themselves, aggrieved citizens feel powerless because they cannot assert fundamental rights against a private party (the platforms in this case).
  • In some cases, the government itself asks platforms to remove certain content or ban some social media accounts when they spread violence, misinformation, or fake news.
• How do social networks support hate speech?
  • Unregulated information sharing on the platform:As revealed in a report by an international media organization, Facebook is a symptom of a larger infection through the unregulated dissemination of information through social media.
  • Hate speech against Rohingya minorities:A Reuters investigation found that Facebook failed to adequately moderate hate speech and calls for genocide against Myanmar's Rohingya minorities.
  • Put business interests before the common good:It is even accused of conducting a psychological experiment on its users' emotions and other aspects of their personality. For example, Facebook was recently accused of conducting a psychological experiment on its users' emotions and other aspects of their personalities.
  • Unreasonable approach:Google has been accused of delaying the removal of malicious content even after volunteer groups reported it.

Hate speech from a judicial perspective

• The Supreme Court, inFederal State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004), stressed the need to maintain communal harmony to ensure the well-being of the people.
• In themOtoño Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan, the Supreme Court emphasized the impact that hate speech can have on the responsiveness of the target audience and how it can be an incentive for further attacks.
• AmG. Thirumurugan Gandhi c. Bundesland(2019),The Madras High Court declared that hate speech causes class discord and that the responsibilities associated with freedom of expression should not be forgotten.
• Summarizing these legal principles, inAmish Devgan vs. Union of India (2020),The Supreme Court ruled that "hate speech has no redemptive or legitimate purpose other than hatred of a particular group."
• Lack of established legal standard:The divergent decisions of the constitutional courts reveal the lack of established legal norms to define hate speech, particularly that which is disseminated through the digital medium.
• Arup Bhuyan v. Assam State:The Court ruled that a mere act cannot be punished unless a person resorts to violence or incites another person to violence.
• S. Rangarajan Etc Vs. Padre Jagjivan Ram:In this case, the Court ruled that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situation thus created is dangerous to the community/public interest, a danger that must not be remote, presumed or unreasonable. There must be a close and direct connection with the term thus used.

Government. contradicts India's ranking in the World Press Freedom Index

• India moves up142 out of 180 countries in the 2021 World Press Freedom Index.
• In the South Asian neighborhood, Nepal is at 106, Sri Lanka at 127, Myanmar (before the coup) at 140, Pakistan at 145 and Bangladesh at 152.
• China ranks 177th, ahead only of North Korea at 179th and Turkmenistan at 178th.
• What the report says about India
• Prosecution:It is often used to muzzle journalists who are critical of the authorities.
• Target women:It was noted that "campaigns are particularly violent when the targets are women."
• Draconian Laws:He labeled several Indian laws such as "seditious", "state secrets" and "national security" laws as draconian.
• Restriction to freedom of expression:The report has also highlighted restrictions on freedom of expression on social media.
• Censorship on social networks:It was specifically mentioned that in India the "arbitrariness of Twitter's algorithms also led to brutal censorship."
• Reserves held by India:
• India along with many nations have reportedly been displeased with the findings of this report. It states that the media enjoy absolute freedom in India.
• The government does not subscribe to their views and country rankings and does not agree with the conclusions drawn by this organization for several reasons:
  1. opaque methodology
  2. very small sample size
  3. Little or no emphasis on the fundamentals of democracy.
  4. Adoption of a questionable and non-transparent methodology
  5. Lack of a clear definition of press freedom, among others

Recent cases of hate speech in India

• in december theHaridwar Dharam Sansadtook place, where the level of hate speech continued to rise. The actors brazenly demandedviolence against muslims. Some of these comments bordered on calls for genocide. In fact, certain statements called for a repeat of the violence unleashed against the Rohingyas in Myanmar.
• the controversialYati Narsinghanand,confronted by several FIRs in UP, he called for a "war against Muslims" and called for "Hindus to take up arms" to ensure that a "Muslim does not become prime minister in 2029."
• The Supreme Court had a new opportunity to address the issue of hate speech in a case against television programs that were municipalizing the COVID pandemic with programs with anti-Muslim content.
• In that case, the court expressed disappointment with the affidavit submitted by the Union government, saying it was "extremely evasive and shockingly lacking in detail." The court was also not happy with the union's revised affidavit.

Main reasons for hate speech

• sense of superiority:
  • People believe in stereotypes that arerooted in their headsand these stereotypes lead them to believe that aClass or group of people are inferior to them.and as such they cannot have the same rights as them.
• Tenacity towards a certain ideology:
  • The stubbornness of sticking to a certain ideology without caringright to peaceful coexistenceadds fuel to the fire of hate speech.
• Negative stereotype:People who are negative stereotypes make us thinkanother individual as inferiorand less dignified, which creates a sense of hate speech and the reason why negative stereotyping occurs is because of systems of oppression, discriminatory structures, etc.
• Illiteracy:The lack of education prevents the integral development of an individual. However approx.23% of the populationin India he is illiterate. This prevents the development of tolerance and understanding of individuality in them.
• Prejudice and bias:Bias against a particular group can be grounds for hate crimes. For example, 704 cases of crimes against people from North East Delhi in 3 years. You can incite hate crimes against them without making a distinction between guilty and innocent.
• Lack of strong laws:Lack of strong and clear laws, poor enforcement results in low conviction rates. Therefore, the perpetrators can move freely.
• Coordinated banking policy:Choose bank policies often, use various community or emotional tools to get the votes of some groups by stirring up hatred within them. They use fake stories, news, etc. to incite such incidents.

Challenges in regulating hate speech

• freedom of expression:All social media content regulations must be followed.globally recognized standards of freedom of expressionand fairness, which is difficult to implement when it comes to content restrictions.
• Independent regulator:An independent regulator can be abused in regions where the idea of ​​impartiality serves the will of the ruling regimes.
• Privacy Policy:The introduction of data protection regulations, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), indicated that the self-regulation of the platforms was not working as desired.
• Lack of social consensus against hate speech:No matter how precise and unequivocal we try to formulate our concept of hate speech, it will inevitably reflect individual judgment.
• In Europe, for example, Holocaust denial is a criminal offense, and is applied with some degree of success, precisely because there is a pre-existing social consensus about moral revulsion at the Holocaust.

Keep going

• Many of the existing criminal provisions dealing with hate speech predate the Internet. The need of the hour isspecialized legislationthat willregulate hate speech spread onlineand especially social networks.
• can be referredThe Australian federal law called the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 2019,It holds ISPs liable if they are aware of such egregious violent material, i.e. h Material that a reasonable person would find objectionable is accessible through the service they provide.
• Criminal action:Legislators and political parties should suspend or fire members who are involved in hate crimes or engage in hate speech. Strict disciplinary action must be taken against such persons and parties.
• Code of conduct:The European Union has also established a code of conduct to guarantee the non-proliferation of hate speech in the framework of a“Digital Single Market.“It requires collaborative, independent and inclusive regulation, tailored to regional and cultural idiosyncrasies, while adhering to global best practices for content moderation and privacy rights.
• This was recommended by the Law Commission of India.new provisions in IPCshould be included to address the problem of hate speech.

conclusion

• The measures commonly taken against modern hate speech have aWhackamol effectwhere the underlying goal of fomenting communal disharmony or hatred, despite the imprisonment of the perpetrator, survives forever through digital platforms or social media.
• Therefore, it is important, in accordance with the best international standards, that specific and permanent legal provisionsfight hate speech,in particular, those shared online and through social media are promulgated by amending the Information Technology and IPC Act.
• Ultimately, this would only be possible if there was hate speech.recognized as a reasonable restriction on freedom of expression.