Supreme Court Calls On Parliament To Make Laws To Regulate Social Media

The Logical Indian

August 10th, 2015 / 12:35 PM

Image Courtesy : medianama

If you thought that scrapping of section 66A would give you absolute freedom on the internet, think again! Five months after scrapping the controversial section 66A of the IT Act, the Supreme Court on Thursday stressed the necessity for a clear and unambiguous law to curb the online circulation of malicious and defamatory messages.

The court statement came when senior advocate L Nageswara Rao said that a message about him being involved in a rape case was circulated on WhatsApp as a part of a malicious campaign. The bench agreed that people should not be given free hand to run such malicious campaigns on social media and the Parliament should enact a new law to curb such acts.

Why was Section 66A scrapped?

Section 66A of the IT Act had a very vague and obscure statement that made its reach so broad that it covered virtually any opinion on any subject. This meant that almost anyone disagreeing with your opinions that you publish on social media could misuse the provision and prosecute you. Indeed, several cases of individuals getting harassed and sued for simply expressing their views on social media were recorded while the law was in place.

Several debates and campaigns concerning section 66A raged on for years, and finally in March, 2015 the Supreme Court observed that the law contradicted the concept of freedom of speech and quashed it.

Is a new law necessary?

As the apex court observed, it is indeed necessary to curb messages on social media that deliberately promote false defamatory charges and hate speech with an aim to polarize and incite mob violence. At the same time, the new law, if enacted, should allow individuals to express their views freely online, and guarantee the protection of netizens against threats and harassments.

The internet has always been an unbiased medium that encourages free speech, and we do not want a new law that can be manipulated and misused to suppress opinions. We hope our lawmakers will come up with a law which, unlike section 66A, clearly defines the line between free speech and hate speech.


Contributors

Edited by :

Share your thoughts..

Related Stories

Stalked

Journalist Reports Harassment On Social Media After UP Police Ignore Distress Calls; Accused Arrested

Supreme Court

1st Time In History: 4 Supreme Court Judges Question The Way The Top Court Is Functioning

Government Plans To Make Two Amendments In FRDI Bill, To Be Tabled At The Parliament Soon

Divorce

Mumbai: Family Court Upholds Supreme Court Ruling, Waives Off 6 Month Waiting Period In Divorce

Germany’s Tryst With Facebook: Can It Regulate The Social Media Giant’s Content?

Supreme Court Website

New Website Of Supreme Court Launched, Will Make Information More Accessible To Citizens

Latest on The Logical Indian

My Story

My Story: “Carrying Kirpans Is Even By The Constitution Of India But Why Do I Have To Explain It Everytime?”

Get Inspired

Pune: Hindus, Muslims Come Together To Hold Ganesh Chaturthi & Muharram Proceedings In Same Pandal

News

UGC Orders Universities To Celebrate “Surgical Strike Day In Befitting Manner”, Javadekar Says It’s Not A Compulsion

News

MP High Court Orders Removal Of Tiles With Images Of PM Modi & Shivraj Chouhan From PMAY Houses

News

Mother Of 3 Girls Dies During Illegal Abortion After An Alleged Sex Determination Test

My Story

My Story: “I Still Can’t Say That I Feel Free To Live With My Partner Or That I Feel Equal”

x

Stories that deserve attention, delivered to your inbox!

Handpicked, newsworthy stories which deserve the attention of a rational generation.